Originally posted by Emperordmb
America has a first amendment that we guard jealously, the UK government oppresses people for their speech.
Precisely my point: Everyone has good, everyone has bad.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Ideally No. Realistically on the other hand....If Mexico aint a "Shithole" then why didn't the "Immigrant Caravan" stop once they crossed the Southern Mexico Border? [/B]
Hmm?
Originally posted by Surtur
Makes NO sense. Why is UK now suddenly so damn concerned about Italy wasting resources?Lol wait...the "resource" thing falls apart even more when you realize the UK expended its own resources to PREVENT this. Unless the cops they used to protect Alfie once Italy sent a helicopter to UK were just there for free?
If the UK is so worried about resources why are they spending resources to go after people for nazi dog jokes?
Sure, it wouldn't be futile for the parents to try, but they aren't thinking straight on the issue.
Originally posted by Surtur
Just noting the obvious I guess.
Originally posted by Surtur
The Mexico shithole defense makes no damn sense. If these people are fleeing gangs and violence and Mexico isn't a shithole? It makes no sense for them not to stay there in the first SAFE non shithole country they come across.So the "they are fleeing violence!" argument leftists try to use does not work unless you deem Mexico a shithole. Cuz if it's solely about fleeing violence...then the first non-shithole should be the goal.
If you're going to use the "Mexico is a shithole because people are fleeing to avoid the violence and to save their lives", fine, do that. Also makes your case for denying immigrants entry seem even more petty and cruel. Here are people trying to escape death for themselves and their children and you're against saving them. See?
Originally posted by MythLord
I didn't say the UK was at all concearned with Italy wasting resources, just that after them wasting their own they realized it was a lost cause, so it would be futile to try and do it.Sure, it wouldn't be futile for the parents to try, but they aren't thinking straight on the issue.
Yeah, but your argument is based on a man of power being emotionally compromised. That doesn't mean the UK made a mistake.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
My argument is based on the idea that this is not a level of power and control over people's lives that we should hand over to a government.
Originally posted by MythLord
I didn't say the UK was at all concearned with Italy wasting resources, just that after them wasting their own they realized it was a lost cause, so it would be futile to try and do it.Sure, it wouldn't be futile for the parents to try, but they aren't thinking straight on the issue.
If the treatment wouldn't cause the kid massive amounts of pain I do not see why the doctors should be able to take that choice away from the parents. I just don't get it. It won't ever make sense. Any true harm from this would seem to be to the parents, but they are adults and can make up their own minds.
I'd feel different if extreme pain would result from this treatment. If it's not going to cause that...even if it fails won't at least something still be learned? About perhaps Alfie's condition? Or about how helpful the new treatment might be in the future for others? At least then if Alfie passed away something would have come from his death.
Yeah, but your argument is based on a man of power being emotionally compromised. That doesn't mean the UK made a mistake.
They did make a mistake, but this wouldn't show that. It would just show they are hypocrites. What makes it a mistake is it seems the only risk was to the mental well being of the parents.
Hell I'd actually support the UK if the government was being expected to foot the bill for this treatment. I would support them not wanting to do it, but there was nothing for them to lose here.
Originally posted by Surtur
If the treatment wouldn't cause the kid massive amounts of pain I do not see why the doctors should be able to take that choice away from the parents. I just don't get it. It won't ever make sense. Any true harm from this would seem to be to the parents, but they are adults and can make up their own minds.
Because the responsibility of the doctor is to the patient, not the parents.
Because the child deserves the full-protection of the law, independently of the wishes of the parents.
Because he is not property.
Originally posted by Surtur
If the treatment wouldn't cause the kid massive amounts of pain I do not see why the doctors should be able to take that choice away from the parents. I just don't get it. It won't ever make sense. Any true harm from this would seem to be to the parents, but they are adults and can make up their own minds.
Originally posted by Surtur
They did make a mistake, but this wouldn't show that. It would just show they are hypocrites. What makes it a mistake is it seems the only risk was to the mental well being of the parents.Hell I'd actually support the UK if the government was being expected to foot the bill for this treatment. I would support them not wanting to do it, but there was nothing for them to lose here.