TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

RE: Should A 17-Year-Old Be Allowed To Choose Death?

Ohfour · Hooker

So, she can make SOME medical decisions on her own, just not the ones the state doesn't like. Got it...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I'm sorry, I thought suicide was against the law.

Because THAT is what she is choosing.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought suicide was against the law.

Because THAT is what she is choosing.

flan

You are wrong. On both counts...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought suicide was against the law.

Because THAT is what she is choosing.

flan
You are wrong. On both counts...

Love you too!

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought suicide was against the law.

Because THAT is what she is choosing.

flan
You are wrong. On both counts...
Love you too!
flan

LOL! That just made me laugh!!!!! I wasn't trying to be snarky. Really...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

We have ages of consent for a REASON. A 17 yr old is still a 17 yr old. And, no, she cannot understand the gravity of her situation or really look at this in the long term.

A better approach was what I had said. And ,have her sit down and talk to survivors . And, sit down with nurses and doctors and truly discuss her fears of chemo, being sick, losing hair, etc. Instead of the Govt Fist crackdown.

Ohfour · Hooker

But she can get an abortion...or join the military, or get married...okey dokey. at makes perfect sense.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
In Connecticut, this girl can get an abortion all on her own and at 17, she would automatically be tried as an adult for any crime she committed.

With parental consent, she can get married or join the military.

So, the State of Connecticut will treat her like an adult for purposes of everything else.

But when it comes to medical treatment choices, they will decide what is best, and strap her down to a bed, sedate her, and force her.

Yeah - that makes sense. In fascist world.

Want to change the law? Have at.

Until that, it's a moot point.

Ohfour · Hooker

I would think elective surgery would cover that...but not to you liberals that want the government involved in everything...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
I would think elective surgery would cover that...but not to you liberals that want the government involved in everything...

LOL!!! On the conservative/liberal spectrum, I'm somewhere FAR to the right of Barry Goldwater.

I'm also pro-life (a conservative position)--and this is absolutely and issue of life vs. death.

Ohfour · Hooker

Husk, you can scream you are a conservative all you want. Your posts speak differently. All of them. You think people here really think you're not a closet lib, because that's what most here think. I mean, if it quacks like a duck...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Husk, you can scream you are a conservative all you want. Your posts speak differently. All of them. You think people here really think you're not a closet lib, because that's what most here think. I mean, if it quacks like a duck...

That's the most idiotic thing you've ever posted--and there's LOTS of competition for that title.

Ohfour · Hooker

Ok...:). Just telling you like it is. Don't care if you believe me or not. But my reliability is rock solid. Ahem...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Ok...:). Just telling you like it is. Don't care if you believe me or not. But my reliability is rock solid. Ahem...

You have been proven an inveterate liar, actually.

Ohfour · Hooker

Nope....unlike you!

huskerbb · Guru

Yeah, because you for Sony and they are "never" going to release the Interview. You had "inside" information.

BAWHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Ohfour · Hooker

Meh...they changed their minds. I gave the info I had at the time. Do you still think I don't work for Sony? If you don't, then you really are more dense than you come across, and that would be quite difficult...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Meh...they changed their minds. I gave the info I had at the time. Do you still think I don't work for Sony? If you don't, then you really are more dense than you come across, and that would be quite difficult...

Who knows? Lie about one thing--it's not a stretch to lie about another.

Ohfour · Hooker

People here have been to my office...my Sony office. And I email people here from my Sony address...and mailed packages from my Sony address. That you can't comprehend that I'm not the liar on this board is funny. You think people actually take you seriously? Hmmm?

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
People here have been to my office...my Sony office. And I email people here from my Sony address...and mailed packages from my Sony address. That you can't comprehend that I'm not the liar on this board is funny. You think people actually take you seriously? Hmmm?

I just pointed out your lie. The Interview would "never" be released. That was on this board.

Ohfour · Hooker

That was the info I was given at the time. They changed their minds. No biggie. People here understand that. Now, your lie about joining a church to get business contacts, that was a whopper.

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
That was the info I was given at the time. They changed their minds. No biggie. People here understand that. Now, your lie about joining a church to get business contacts, that was a whopper.

Yeah, that "top secret, inside" information. LOL!!!!!!

Ohfour · Hooker

I don't care if you don't believe me. The people that matter know...and you definitely don't matter...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
I don't care if you don't believe me. The people that matter know...and you definitely don't matter...

Then why do you keep responding???? If I don't matter, why even read what I post?

You care. Admit it.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lol...I'm bored. ;)

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
People here have been to my office...my Sony office. And I email people here from my Sony address...and mailed packages from my Sony address. That you can't comprehend that I'm not the liar on this board is funny. You think people actually take you seriously? Hmmm?
I just pointed out your lie. The Interview would "never" be released. That was on this board.

People can say what they believe based on what they've heard. That doesn't make it "a lie" if circumstances change. It doesn't even make it a mistake.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
That was the info I was given at the time. They changed their minds. No biggie. People here understand that. Now, your lie about joining a church to get business contacts, that was a whopper.

Barely. It was released into very few small theaters and made hardly any money. It's already available on my TV if I wanted to watch it. It certainly wasn't a major release.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
People here have been to my office...my Sony office. And I email people here from my Sony address...and mailed packages from my Sony address. That you can't comprehend that I'm not the liar on this board is funny. You think people actually take you seriously? Hmmm?
I just pointed out your lie. The Interview would "never" be released. That was on this board.

Good grief, Husker, Sony even stated to the media they were not going to release it. Then they changed their mind. Get over it.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I have to say, I am confused by some of the self proclaimed "pro-life" Geeks. When it comes to the pro-lifers that say "government should absolutely step in and deny a private family medical decision" on one issue, yet here they are saying "government should absolutely keep out of a private family medical decision". If that's not proof of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Pro-lifers, which is it that you want: "Government keep out, let the family decide" or "Government be in control, family decision be damned"?

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
I have to say, I am confused by some of the self proclaimed "pro-life" Geeks. When it comes to the pro-lifers that say "government should absolutely step in and deny a private family medical decision" on one issue, yet here they are saying "government should absolutely keep out of a private family medical decision". If that's not proof of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Pro-lifers, which is it that you want: "Government keep out, let the family decide" or "Government be in control, family decision be damned"?

You aren't looking at the issue. The issue for true pro-lifers is NOT governmental involvement--that is just tangenital to the real issue. The real issue is LIFE.

Therefore, the position would be whatever it needs to be to preserve life.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"You aren't looking at the issue. The issue for true pro-lifers is NOT governmental involvement--that is just tangenital to the real issue. The real issue is LIFE." - huskerbb

Interesting claim, since it was you who called out Lawyerlady on the hypocrisy first (if I recall correctly).

And I disagree with you. I very much am looking at the issue. When it comes to rights and government control or interference in them, you can't have it both ways, either the government can tell you what to do, and you believe it to be a good thing - or they can't, and you believe that to be the good thing.

At least you are consistent though, huskerbb. If I recall correctly you are pro-life, and you are pro-"government control of the decision" here too.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"You aren't looking at the issue. The issue for true pro-lifers is NOT governmental involvement--that is just tangenital to the real issue. The real issue is LIFE." - huskerbb

Interesting claim, since it was you who called out Lawyerlady on the hypocrisy first (if I recall correctly).

And I disagree with you. I very much am looking at the issue. When it comes to rights and government control or interference in them, you can't have it both ways, either the government can tell you what to do, and you believe it to be a good thing - or they can't, and you believe that to be the good thing.

At least you are consistent though, huskerbb. If I recall correctly you are pro-life, and you are pro-"government control of the decision" here too.

No, if the federal government would tell me that I HAVE to choose "death" I could be opposed to that and it would be completely consistent with my overall position.

Let's say the government mandated euthanasia for those over a certain age with a certain disease. I would be very much against government interference, then, because the important issue is life.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"You aren't looking at the issue. The issue for true pro-lifers is NOT governmental involvement--that is just tangenital to the real issue. The real issue is LIFE." - huskerbb

Interesting claim, since it was you who called out Lawyerlady on the hypocrisy first (if I recall correctly).

And I disagree with you. I very much am looking at the issue. When it comes to rights and government control or interference in them, you can't have it both ways, either the government can tell you what to do, and you believe it to be a good thing - or they can't, and you believe that to be the good thing.

At least you are consistent though, huskerbb. If I recall correctly you are pro-life, and you are pro-"government control of the decision" here too.

Why is it an inconsistency? Abortion actively kills someone else - an innocent child. This isn't about killing, it's about withholding care. If a baby was born with severe defects and the parents had to decide between grueling, painful treatments that MIGHT work and letting the baby die naturally, I'd be all behind their decision, too.

And as for government involvement - I'm generally against it except as far as normal regulations for safety, like making sure doctors are licensed, and enforcing criminal laws. But I think abortion is about killing - not medical treatment.

huskerbb · Guru

There you have it WYSIWYG--the hypocritical position laid out.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Nobody is KILLING her Husker. Natural death should be a personal choice.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Nobody is KILLING her Husker. Natural death should be a personal choice.

So we should let appendicitis go untreated if a child doesn't want to get the surgery?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Nobody is KILLING her Husker. Natural death should be a personal choice.
So we should let appendicitis go untreated if a child doesn't want to get the surgery?

As stated - this is not a child. She is legally old enough to have consensual sex, be tried as an adult, get an abortion, all without anyone else's say.

And chemotherapy is NOT appendix surgery. That is a stupid comparison. And as far as I'm aware, there are no other treatments for appendicitis besides removal. There are other cancer treatments besides chemotherapy.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

So, question for you. If she was already 18 - would you be in favor of forcing her to have chemo? Can the courts decide adult's medical decisions for them if they are "in their best interest"?

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Why is it an inconsistency? Abortion actively kills someone else - an innocent child. This isn't about killing, it's about withholding care. If a baby was born with severe defects and the parents had to decide between grueling, painful treatments that MIGHT work and letting the baby die naturally, I'd be all behind their decision, too.

And as for government involvement - I'm generally against it except as far as normal regulations for safety, like making sure doctors are licensed, and enforcing criminal laws. But I think abortion is about killing - not medical treatment." - Lawyerlady

It's not about withholding care though, it's about making a personal, private decision. So it boils down to "government should deny the right to choose" or "government should grant the right to choose". That is the same question in both, abortion cases and chemo treatment cases.

Abortion being about killing is your opinion. Pro-choice people have a different opinion. So the question is the same: Should the government have the say-so - or should the person or family?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Nobody is KILLING her Husker. Natural death should be a personal choice.
So we should let appendicitis go untreated if a child doesn't want to get the surgery?
As stated - this is not a child. She is legally old enough to have consensual sex, be tried as an adult, get an abortion, all without anyone else's say.

And chemotherapy is NOT appendix surgery. That is a stupid comparison. And as far as I'm aware, there are no other treatments for appendicitis besides removal. There are other cancer treatments besides chemotherapy.

She is a child.

It's absolutely a valid comparison. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your hypocrisy and foolishness.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"So, question for you. If she was already 18 - would you be in favor of forcing her to have chemo? Can the courts decide adult's medical decisions for them if they are "in their best interest"?" - Lawyerlady

I don't think the courts should have a say. Being a pro-choice person, though, that answer shouldn't surprise anyone.

Time for me to call it a night, I'll check this thread tomorrow.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
So, question for you. If she was already 18 - would you be in favor of forcing her to have chemo? Can the courts decide adult's medical decisions for them if they are "in their best interest"?

I already answered that. If she were 18 it would be a different story. At that point, she can legally make her own choices.

We need to step in to protect children from stupid choices. We can't always do so with adults even if we want to.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

If she is over 18 - this is a non issue for me. Adults get to make their own stupid choices and the chips fall where they may.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Why is it an inconsistency? Abortion actively kills someone else - an innocent child. This isn't about killing, it's about withholding care. If a baby was born with severe defects and the parents had to decide between grueling, painful treatments that MIGHT work and letting the baby die naturally, I'd be all behind their decision, too.

And as for government involvement - I'm generally against it except as far as normal regulations for safety, like making sure doctors are licensed, and enforcing criminal laws. But I think abortion is about killing - not medical treatment." - Lawyerlady

It's not about withholding care though, it's about making a personal, private decision. So it boils down to "government should deny the right to choose" or "government should grant the right to choose". That is the same question in both, abortion cases and chemo treatment cases.

Abortion being about killing is your opinion. Pro-choice people have a different opinion. So the question is the same: Should the government have the say-so - or should the person or family?

Let me ask you this - do you think a person should be able to choose to kill their 1 year old child? Do you think that's a personal or family decision? Because I consider a fetus no different than a child.

I believe in individual rights - to the extent they affect YOU. For the elderly, I believe in allowing natural death to occur. I believe in withholding treatment and even withdrawing treatment if they are choosing to do so, or their family decides for them if they can't. I don't believe in actively killing.

huskerbb · Guru

Letting this girl die is tantamount to exactly that.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Letting this girl die is tantamount to exactly that.

It's very sad you cannot understand why this is so wrong.

Good night.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Letting this girl die is tantamount to exactly that.
It's very sad you cannot understand why this is so wrong.

Good night.

It's very sad that you pretend to be pro-life--but aren't.

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

This is wrong, truly it is.
The state should not be able to force a person to undergo chemo. Period. I don't care how old or young they are.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Let me ask you this - do you think a person should be able to choose to kill their 1 year old child? Do you think that's a personal or family decision? Because I consider a fetus no different than a child.

I believe in individual rights - to the extent they affect YOU. For the elderly, I believe in allowing natural death to occur. I believe in withholding treatment and even withdrawing treatment if they are choosing to do so, or their family decides for them if they can't. I don't believe in actively killing." - Lawyerlady

I don't believe a person should be able to kill their 1 year old child. I don't think anyone believes that. However, just because you believe a born child that's been removed (by natural birth or C-Section) from the pregnant woman's body is no different than a fetus, doesn't make that belief true for everyone.

Withholding/withdrawing treatment that can cure a disease or extend life is the same as actively killing, because by withholding/withdrawing treatment, you are actively shortening the life span that otherwise could exist. (kind of like your belief that a fetus and a child are the same thing).