Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
I don't quite make the connection between the state stepping in to force adequate healthcare, to a minor child...and the state forcing profits to the banking industry.
Regardless...
On the surface this may sound like a load of horse crap. However, I can already hear the public indignation had Starchild expired without the state stepping in to insure that proper medical treatment was administered.
"How could the government have just stood by and done nothing, while those damn hippy freaks just treated the poor boy's illness with voodoo? Why didn't the courts look out for this childs best interest?"
Tell me I'm wrong.
|
ok, you're wrong. (edit, sorry BoR, I completely missed the sarcastic tone of your post regarding the 'indignation' part.)
This kid already went through chemo once, made him sick. He CHOSE not to go through it again and wanted to pursue another form of treatment. His parents didn't choose it for him, they supported his choice. Is the state our babysitter? Did the government become our parent to make our choices for us when we choose something they don't approve of? Who is the determinant of the childs 'best interest'? Liberals, thats who. People who think they know whats best for us. The 'Elite'.
The connection is that with almost every case that comes out of the courts we have more of our freedoms, more of our rights, and more of our 'choices' taken away from us in the name of 'our best interests'. Are we already slaves of the state?