Another CPS Kidnapping (For Seeking a Second Opinion)

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 19:28:01 GMT -5 cereb said:

"Show me actual language from your Constitution or Bill of Rights that supports Cereb's blanket claim, and you'll have won the argument."


Don't have to. There are multiple legal precedents. Andrea Yates killed her children to prevent them from going to hell and "save them" spiritually. She didn't have the right to do that and she will spend her days in a mental institution for doing it.



I win.

If I extrapolated corporal punishment a thousandfold, I could say "I win."

As a wise Cereb once said: You've got nothing.

That was totally uncalled for and you should be embarrassed you even said it.

It isn't, I'm not, and mmhmm is perfectly capable of answering on her own.

And that is unfortunate, however it is my belief that the US will soon ratify the Convention on Rights of the Child which will prohibit corporal punishment and  life sentences for juveniles. Courts are no longer warm and fuzzy on corporal punishment.

Get enough fruitcakes in the US Supreme Court and you may get your wish. It's not as if we aren't already plumbing the depths.

[cereb]

"If I extrapolated corporal punishment a thousandfold, I could say "I win.""


If wishes were fishes...


"It isn't, I'm not, and mmhmm is perfectly capable of answering on her own."


It was inappropriate. I'm quite sure mmhmm is more than capable of answering on her own, but I believe it is my right to comment as I see fit on a conversation I am actually part of.

[cereb]

"Get enough fruitcakes in the US Supreme Court and you may get your wish."


So you're good with a 12 year old being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole?



You know what, never mind. When you start referring to the members of the SCOTUS as "fruitcakes" I think you might be the one plumbing the depths here. And with that, I'm done. This isn't going anywhere intelligent.

[mmhmm]

They don't need to be protected from me, Virgil.  I have no children, and I don't have anyone else's children in my care.  That said, who protects them from you?

[thyme4change]

May 2, 2013 19:30:16 GMT -5 cereb said:

May 2, 2013 19:24:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Who protects them from you?

That was totally uncalled for and you should be embarrassed you even said it.

Mods can say whatever they want.  They can personally attack posters.  If it gets bad enough, they will "self-ban" and still be on the site, they will just claim they aren't.

[mmhmm]

*chuckle*  Virgil didn't insult me.  At least, I didn't take it as an insult to me, personally.  I think he meant "you" in the sense of the medical community, rather than in a personal sense.  I never worked with sick children for a reason.

[billisonboard]

May 2, 2013 19:28:01 GMT -5 cereb said:

"Show me actual language from your Constitution or Bill of Rights that supports Cereb's blanket claim, and you'll have won the argument."


Don't have to. There are multiple legal precedents. Andrea Yates killed her children to prevent them from going to hell and "save them" spiritually. She didn't have the right to do that and she will spend her days in a mental institution for doing it.



I win.

Notice that she is in a mental institution and not a prison. They found that she was not competent to make the decision that she did, not that she didn't have the right to make it.

[cereb]

Funny! I say "you" in a general sense and my posts disappear!

Not mod bashing, just an observation....

[mmhmm]

May 2, 2013 19:57:12 GMT -5 cereb said:

Funny! I say "you" in a general sense and my posts disappear!

Not mod bashing, just an observation....

That might be because another poster takes what you say as directed at them, based on a quoted section of one of their posts, or the like, cereb.  I tend not to personalize, but I'm not everybody.

[Virgil Showlion]

That said, who protects them from you?

In my world, their parents.

If we compared the number of kids killed by incompetent doctors and nurses, whose parents were worried but refused to act on their fears, to the number of kids killed by parents who (even unreasonably) took their kids to get a second opinion and forfeited the life of the child as a result of the delay, I'd bet DJ's house the former group would outnumber the latter 10,000-to-1.

I'm not saying you were an incompetent nurse. I think you were probably an excellent nurse. I'm saying that "They don't need to be protected from me, Virgil." is the answer that any nurse or doctor would give, competent or not, and there is no magic red or green light above people's heads to tell people the difference.

billisonboard takes it to an extreme, but I agree with him wholeheartedly in the sense that parents have the ultimate authority in all cases save for those where they're deemed legally insane.

And that goes for me too. Even if I design the safest, sturdiest aircraft on Earth, if parents don't want their kid riding in it and they're sane, my technical and professional authority stops dead there.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 19:56:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 2, 2013 19:28:01 GMT -5 cereb said:

"Show me actual language from your Constitution or Bill of Rights that supports Cereb's blanket claim, and you'll have won the argument."


Don't have to. There are multiple legal precedents. Andrea Yates killed her children to prevent them from going to hell and "save them" spiritually. She didn't have the right to do that and she will spend her days in a mental institution for doing it.



I win.

Notice that she is in a mental institution and not a prison. They found that she was not competent to make the decision that she did, not that she didn't have the right to make it.

She was initially convicted of capital murder. It was overturned and she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She murdered her children. She did not have the right to murder her children. Nobody has the right to murder their children or any one else s children for any reason spiritual saving or otherwise. That's why they call it murder.

ETA; She did the deed. That isn't in dispute, and it's still considered murder. The issue at hand was did she know right from wrong when she did it? The court says she was insane, not legally responsible for her actions. The end result is the same.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 19:47:20 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

May 2, 2013 19:30:16 GMT -5 cereb said:

That was totally uncalled for and you should be embarrassed you even said it.

Mods can say whatever they want.  They can personally attack posters.  If it gets bad enough, they will "self-ban" and still be on the site, they will just claim they aren't.

It's a critical thought question.

There's a difference between debate-centric criticism and "You're a doo-doo head."

[mmhmm]

The first JW case,30 concerning parental treatment refusal, to reach the US Supreme Court, challenged two statutes31 commonly used to declare children wards of court in order to administer blood, and sought a court order to prevent Washington physicians administering blood to JW patients. The Supreme Court was clear in its upholding of the decision in Prince (vs Massachusetts)12 explaining, “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose…the child…to ill health or death”.32

The majority (with the exception of one33) of subsequent cases34–41 have maintained the trend, reiterating the views of earlier cases and emphasising three main points:

The child’s interests and those of the state outweigh parental rights to refuse medical treatment42

Parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children12,42

Parents do not have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on their religious beliefs.12,43

link to complete article

[Virgil Showlion]

You know what, never mind. When you start referring to the members of the SCOTUS as "fruitcakes" I think you might be the one plumbing the depths here. And with that, I'm done. This isn't going anywhere intelligent.

I'll be sure to call them "big fat hypocrite drug abusing ex wife collecting shit twisting lying sack of steaming dung law breaking entitled rich bastard overpaid over rated brainless douche bags" next time so that the conversation does go somewhere intelligent.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 20:06:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The first JW case,30 concerning parental treatment refusal, to reach the US Supreme Court, challenged two statutes31 commonly used to declare children wards of court in order to administer blood, and sought a court order to prevent Washington physicians administering blood to JW patients. The Supreme Court was clear in its upholding of the decision in Prince (vs Massachusetts)12 explaining, “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose…the child…to ill health or death”.32

The majority (with the exception of one33) of subsequent cases34–41 have maintained the trend, reiterating the views of earlier cases and emphasising three main points:

The child’s interests and those of the state outweigh parental rights to refuse medical treatment42

Parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children12,42

Parents do not have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on their religious beliefs.12,43

link to complete article

I'm not disputing this point. This is a highly specific subset of what I'm disputing.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 20:08:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You know what, never mind. When you start referring to the members of the SCOTUS as "fruitcakes" I think you might be the one plumbing the depths here. And with that, I'm done. This isn't going anywhere intelligent.

I'll be sure to call them "big fat hypocrite drug abusing ex wife collecting shit twisting lying sack of steaming dung law breaking entitled rich bastard overpaid over rated brainless douche bags" next time so that the conversation does go somewhere intelligent.

PSST...Rush isn't serving on the SCOTUS...

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 20:13:12 GMT -5 cereb said:

May 2, 2013 20:08:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'll be sure to call them "big fat hypocrite drug abusing ex wife collecting shit twisting lying sack of steaming dung law breaking entitled rich bastard overpaid over rated brainless douche bags" next time so that the conversation does go somewhere intelligent.

PSST...Rush isn't serving on the SCOTUS...

Good night, Ms. Cereb. May your intellectual pursuits take you to happy places.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 20:14:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 20:13:12 GMT -5 cereb said:

PSST...Rush isn't serving on the SCOTUS...

Good night, Ms. Cereb. May your intellectual pursuits take you to happy places.

I will wish you a good night as well Vigil. See, I can do that without even being condescending.  You could try that sometime. Sleep well.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 20:00:52 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 2, 2013 19:57:12 GMT -5 cereb said:

Funny! I say "you" in a general sense and my posts disappear!

Not mod bashing, just an observation....

That might be because another poster takes what you say as directed at them, based on a quoted section of one of their posts, or the like, cereb.  I tend not to personalize, but I'm not everybody.

Hmmm. I suppose...LOL!

[mmhmm]

May 2, 2013 20:01:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

That said, who protects them from you?

In my world, their parents.

If we compared the number of kids killed by incompetent doctors and nurses, whose parents were worried but refused to act on their fears, to the number of kids killed by parents who (even unreasonably) took their kids to get a second opinion and forfeited the life of the child as a result of the delay, I'd bet DJ's house the former group would outnumber the latter 10,000-to-1.

I'm not saying you were an incompetent nurse. I think you were probably an excellent nurse. I'm saying that "They don't need to be protected from me, Virgil." is the answer that any nurse or doctor would give, competent or not, and there is no magic red or green light above people's heads to tell people the difference.

billisonboard takes it to an extreme, but I agree with him wholeheartedly in the sense that parents have the ultimate authority in all cases save for those where they're deemed legally insane.

And that goes for me too. Even if I design the safest, sturdiest aircraft on Earth, if parents don't want their kid riding in it and they're sane, my technical and professional authority stops dead there.

And the law protects them from their parents, thankfully.  It also protects them from "you", and from "me".