Should The State Be Able To Order Chemo Treatment For A 13-Year-Old?
Thirteen-year-old Daniel Hauser and his mother, Colleen, disappeared on purpose this week, looking to avoid forced chemo treatment Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The two have not been seen since Monday, after a court-mandated X-ray revealed the teen’s tumor had grown. Daniel’s father was open to some sort of treatment — his mother was not.
“Once Daniel has been found and brought before the court, the court is either going to have them immediately determine an oncologist, or the court’s going to make that decision for them,” Brown County Attorney James Olson said.
After his diagnosis, Daniel received an initial round of chemotherapy to fight his Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Doctors say with chemo the teen has a 90 percent chance of beating the cancer. Without, less than 50.
Anthony Hauser says he last spoke to his wife Monday at 4PM when she told him they were leaving and said, “That’s all you need to know.” Colleen is considered in contempt of court, and the court says when they are found Daniel will be put in a foster home. Olson is considering asking the court to find the father in contempt as well, and possibly even jail him until the boy is found. The Hausers are citing fear that the chemotherapy will do more harm than good, and also religious beliefs.
Those religious beliefs involve the Nemenha Band.
This Nemenhah Band is a group established in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis. Landis founded the faith called the Nemenhah Band after he treated his own cancer with diet, sweat ledge therapy and other natural remedies.
Colleen Hauser said Daniel is an elder in Nemenhah Band and is a medicine man. Mrs Hauser meant Daniel understood what he was selecting over conventional cancer treatment. There is some dispute on how well Daniel knows what he is choosing as he has a learning disability and can’t read.
So, can the state force a family to give its child a certain kind of treatment? What happens when the parents disagree with each other? And who gets to decide if something is a protected religious praaice?
I heard about this case on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory last night.
This is an outrage.
The family has the right to do as they wish without state interference.
I support them in their move. If the state treats like you like property it’s time to take the property away from them.
Tyranny comes in many forms.
average james Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Think I’m gonna take issue with you on this one Eric.
Child protective services ain’t all bad. If child pornography or prostitution is going on ? If I were to be driving around drunk with my kid in the car, shouldn’t the state interfere ?
Wouldn’t this be considered child endangerment ?
At the very least, neglect.
Tyranny comes in many forms, agreed. Could there be such a thing as parental tyranny ?
EricG Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:13 am
This is a stick-issue the more I hear about it. Legally speaking, I’m wrong. And the mother will probably be caught and prosecuted in all likelyhood.
But it comes down to just a personal view of individual liberty and freedom from state-interference.
I know a lot more about CPS and the truths of foster care than someone who has never had any personal experience with it usually does. Just helping friends in hard times.
But I recognize your argument. If something highly dangerous or threatening to the community at large is taking place under a parent’s approval the state has to have the ability to step in.
In my view this comes down something I mildly familiar with:
Medical Ethics
(BlissfulConsevative! Save me! Your an RN, I failed my class and picked another major!)
Basically if it’s a danger to the whole of society you throw it out … a test or a drug in the case of Medical Ethics. If the threat is posed to the individual alone then you handle it as such and provide whatever knowledge of these side-effects or False Negatives (fancy way of saying a bad test) to the patient as soon as you can or ahead of time.
If you apply this logic to this situation you get my general point of view on this case.
It may well be a threat to his life to not undergo chemo but this decision isn’t causing the state, or the population rather, and amount of danger. Just distress. How wants to see a little boy die?
It makes me sad just thinking about it. But, to me, it is really about an old issue in American Politics:
The Right to Die
Jack Kavorkian … is that how you spell his name?
It’s a tough topic, but that’s my view on it.
Some matters are not the affair of the state, in my view.
I suppose, like Alan, I could go out on this limb of calling myself a ‘Liberaltarian.’
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:34 am
Heartbreaker no matter what Eric. Either way it sucks.
I think you got it right, Kavorkian.
Adults and kids, different choices.
I don’t think the maturity is usually there at 13, to understand the finality of that decision.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Let the kid alone. If he dies, well it was his time, I guess, but if he doesn’t want treatment, then don’t force it upon him.
average james Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I dunno man,
Adults refusing treatment is one thing, A 13yr old another.
EricG Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:43 am
Hemmingway said that you could express anything in a as small a space as SIX WORDS.
I think for my thirty minutes of typing too much on here you pretty much summed up my personal view on this matter. It is tragic, without a doubt. But I see it a family matter that, were it my family-structure, be the child’s decision in terms of treatment. Not everyone agrees with this and I don’t agree with certain aspects of child empowerment techniques in early childhood education … but if this was my family … I would be outraged that the state was telling was how to conduct our lives. Outraged the likes of which this Liberaland nor anyone has seen of me before. Liberty is not a catch-phrase for me.
It really is in my head all about the right to die.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:50 am
You could be right about this Eric.
I’ve been wrong before.
Check out the second Nemenhah Band link in the story. Go to their constitution. Pretty reasonable stuff.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:57 am
I still think 13 is too young to make this kind of decision. Even 17 would be a different story.
craig7120 Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:58 am
Nah.. its about age, right?
Parental rights?
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 2:06 am
Yah,
Age and parental rights. The two main stickers in this instance.
I don’t think he is old enough to really see this rationally. My opinion.
Should parental rights get trumped concerning life saving treatment of their child ? My answer must be yes.
Tough one. Sad
craig7120 Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 2:20 am
U bet AJ, parents get prosecuted all the time for neglect or child endangerment. I see no diff. in this case.
Kregg Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
James said: I don’t think he is old enough to really see this rationally. My opinion.
K: So, James, this kid is old enough to get condoms at school but isn’t able to make his own decisions about his own chemo? ;-) hmmm…
May 20th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Speaking from experience of having undergone cancer treatment, the State should step in and protect the childs welfare. Until the child is of an age that he can make informed decisions, based on all the medical facts and fully understands the options,the State must have the legal and moral obligation to protect him. His parents do not have the right through religous or other beliefs to deny the child the chance of receiving treatment which could ultimately save his life. No parent has the right to deny a child life, and this is ultimately what the parents are doing, they are giving there child a death sentence
Kregg Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 11:20 am
Inot said: No parent has the right to deny a child life, and this is ultimately what the parents are doing, they are giving there child a death sentence
K: Well, at least not after they are actually born. ;-)
K: My two cents? The law of ‘consent’ is pretty well established and this kid is below the age of consent so the court has a right to represent him. What stinks is the state usurping the authority of the parents in regards to guiding the philosophy and lifestyle of their progeny.
VegasLib Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think the kid should definitely get the treatment, but I don’t know about a judge imposing it on him. Stuff like that makes me weary and the kid looks like he’s in accord with his mother. May it be God’s will.
bobfrommadison Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 11:48 am
Bear in mind that I believe this woman to be a fool, given my experience with the miraculous progress made in treating lymphoma.
However, our Constitution is unequivocal: The right to freedom of religion in this case trumps all. Now, if you believe the state has a duty to protect this child from abuse or neglect, that is a different issue. In this case, there has been neither. This parent sought medical advice, and based on her religious beliefs, rejected it, for the time being. It’s her right. The bill of rights is there to protect our liberty, especially if we may be wrong. How many times is it said that the freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech?
Should the government mandate certain medical treatments? The answer should be no.
Abortion has come up a number of times as analogous to this issue. It is not. Unless one believes that the government should force abortions, as we now have in China, or, the government should protect a “woman’s right to choose” to allow abortions just as long as the act is delayed long enough to get the infant’s opinion on the subject.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I’m curious, are you also pro life?
Or do the reproductive “rights” of the woman trump those of the child?
Inot Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
That depends on many different aspects and I would not furnish an answer without knowing all the facts.
average james Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Trees,
I do believe that we agree on this one.
This kid is underage and therefore cannot simply do what he wants.
I also have to point out that parental rights can and should be overuled concerning the welfare of a child, in extreme cases.
FLDS and Koresh come to mind.
His parents obviously influence him in the religious department.
Jim Jones’ followers also come to mind.
trees are people too Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Yes James, I agree with you. I believe that this kid needs to receive medical treatment, as well as our prayers.
And I pray that he is located and can start treatment immediately.
Liberalander’s you’re all on the honor system here, only you will know if you actually do this….
Will all of you say a prayer tonight for this child??
There is no need to reply to this message.
average james Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I can and will do that trees. cool.
If you’re a prayer—-why not ?
EricG Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:37 am
He gets caught up in all my prayers for all the sick, dying, infirmed and lost. But saying the name helps a great deal. I am with you in naming him by name, Trees. You have my support.
Kregg Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 2:51 am
Done.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 am
also have to point out that parental rights can and should be overuled concerning the welfare of a child, in extreme cases.
FLDS and Koresh come to mind.
—
just as a point, the courts decided that Child protective services had no right to take the children from the parents in regards to the FLDS without proof of abuse.
And to borrow a line from the Lefty’s, if Polygamy was legalized much if not all of the behind the scenes abusive, and underage issues would dissappear.
Open and legal polygamy is safer than keeping it underground.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
If the child dies whilst in the mother’s care, does that make the mother responsible for murder for refusing what could be a life saving treatment?
average james Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Ouch Joseph,
Do you think they could actually charge her with murder ? Felony child endangerment, manslaughter perhaps.
I sure hope this mom does the right thing.
This situation sucks.
Joseph Bradfield Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I think they could. Its somewhat like… Like imagine if you weren’t allowed to eat for any reason, or drink for that matter, all because of one person and you die, does the person who inflicted that upon you get charged with murder? Yes.
This situation is like that, the boy needs something that can save his life, and the parent refuses to help him.
Thats murder in my book.
michael Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I don’t think I would charge her with murder. As irresponsible as she is, “she knows not what she does.”
EricG Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:34 am
I doubt that works in a legal context, I have no idea.
Chemo is not some instant-fix or complete remedy.
Ever heard of a ‘Chemo Burn?’
Apparently, if that liquid gets on your skin it burns worse than bleach or most any other chemical you could image getting on your skin and burning. They pump that stuff through your veins … if there was a another way, God knows, we would do it.
But is it murder to not have the treatment? I would say no. But a court might disagree with little old me.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Forcing a child not to undergo necessary medical treatment is a form of child neglect at best, and in my opinion it is child abuse. This nutcase mother has no right to deny her child of his only chance at life. What she is doing is no better than not feeding him for two weeks, encouraging him to shoot up heroin, or kicking him out on the curb and not allowing him back in the house.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
This is another case of religious idiocy defying everything that is rational–and if I were the judge I’d issue an arrest warrant for the mother and the father both, and I’d hold the father in jail without bail until he admits where the mother has taken the kid.
Would I waterboard the father? No, I would not. Even if it means the kid dies before we can find him.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 12:39 am
No torture at any time for any reason.
EricG Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:27 am
I don’t know if it’s ‘religious idiocy.’ I could be but I see a lot of people here in Santa Cruz, CA who perfer not to read medical journals and instead only listen to nuturionalists. They are not religious, but usually highly spirtual and involved with prayer or meditation.
I myself am the hybrid. I won’t speak directly of other people’s medical affairs but an a friend of mine was thinking in this way in regards to his own health and rejecting my advise to listen to his doctor and combine herbal remedies with modern medicine.
He had further complications and has since decided to follow doctor’s advise. I don’t rub his nose in it but the only reason I was right and other people around him urging him on were wrong was because of something called ‘empirical evidence.’
And most that ‘conspiracy’ stuff about drug companies is more or less true. They don’t want 80 million dollar studies on alternatives to chemo … they like this stuff … it makes them a bundle.
If herbal remdies were a cure-all … all we Santa Cruz folks would have perfect health and live forever. There is something of a cold, hard wall of science that both religious fundamentalists and just certain groups have the hardest time jumping over.
There is no proven treatment for cancer except chemo. Nothing. Putting your fate in the hands of prayers and herbs might sound crazy to the state or to any one person but I still don’t support this style of state-intervention, personally.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 2:08 am
Eric,
Do you ever go to the Catalyst ?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 3:51 am
There is no proven treatment for cancer except chemo. Nothing.
—
Chemo is hit and miss at best, and cancer in it’s different stages can be treated without Chemo. My brother had prostate cancer, they found it early enough that it was confined to the prostate and they took his prostate out. They are going to wait and see if they even have to try Chemo, since it’s unlikely the cancer spread. If it didn’t, he doesn’t have to have chemo at all.
One point that no one has brought up is that she isn’t refusing all treatment, just chemo (which he’s already gone through once) We can deride and make fun of the treatment, but there is at least one documented case of the treatment working (the founder of the nehelkrlw;ljerha band) They’ve tried chemo, it didn’t work and instead of going through that again they’ve decided a different approach.
Religiously/Legally speaking I believe the medical profession has to respect religious preference. Jehovah Witnesses have the right to not recieve blood transfusions or blood products and the courts have ruled on that very matter.
In the case of a minor…it murkys the water but generally speaking parents are allowed to make religious decisions on behalf of their children and from a legal standpoint I believe there is some jurisprudence to back up that right.
I don’t think the state can impose one treatment over another. In the eyes of the law in respects to health, there is a certain level where sins of omission and sins of commission have to be viewed differently.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 8:37 am
This is another case of religious idiocy defying everything that is rational–
—
some people may think the rational thing to do is live out your life to the fullest and not rob the precious time that you have left being bald, sick and weak from treatment, enduring chemo burn, memory loss, and thousands upon thousands of dollars on the 3% chance that chemotherapy may extend your life by a few years.
The more I see people suffer through Chemo and still die, the less likely that I would ever choose to go through it.
Kregg Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am
Guido said; The more I see people suffer through Chemo and still die, the less likely that I would ever choose to go through it.
K: My father spent the last three months of his life in his underwear puking over a five gallon bucket from chemo for a cancer that his Docs knew would kill him anyway. Its not a pretty sight…
Sarah Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Kregg, that’s horrible. I’m really sorry to hear that. I hope your father and his survivors didn’t have to pay out of pocket for that horrifying end-of-life experience. I hope insurance took care of everything.
As much as I hate to see this kid die, I can appreciate his attitude. After watching my father’s friend die, I think I’d rather die quicker and cheaply, rather than bequeath a mountain of debt and hospital bills to my husband, trying to prevent something that was going to happen inevitably.
It might be a paradox, but I love my life. More than life itself.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Yah Kregg, bummer.
This last weekend was the “relay for life” American Cancer Society event in Mariposa. It was a big success and no I wasn’t crying, it was just that some dust blew into my eyes.
Cancer sucks.
Kregg Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Kregg, that’s horrible. I’m really sorry to hear that. I hope your father and his survivors didn’t have to pay out of pocket for that horrifying end-of-life experience. I hope insurance took care of everything.
K: Thanks, Sarah. My father worked hard, built a business that employed 100 people, and paid for an insurance plan that covered a percentage of the cost.
S: As much as I hate to see this kid die, I can appreciate his attitude. After watching my father’s friend die, I think I’d rather die quicker and cheaply, rather than bequeath a mountain of debt and hospital bills to my husband, trying to prevent something that was going to happen inevitably.
K: The kid’s been through one chemo experience already and may simply choose not to want another. What is interesting is whether the court will usurp that desire and his mother’s to force a course of treatment that he have have chosen not to follow.
S: It might be a paradox, but I love my life. More than life itself.
K: That is how Cons feel about freedom from govt control of their lives.
Kregg Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
James said; Yah Kregg, bummer.
This last weekend was the “relay for life” American Cancer Society event in Mariposa. It was a big success and no I wasn’t crying, it was just that some dust blew into my eyes. Cancer sucks.
K: I think we will eventually find that cancer is ‘curable’ or at least ‘preventable’ by better understanding the input/output of cells and the nutrition that drives both. Until then, I hope every high priced pharmaceutical Company in the world risks all they have to discover medications that will cure or control the disease.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 am
early detection and prompt action/removal is the key to cancer survival.
Many studies have shown that chemotherapy is completely useless on advanced Breast, Lung, and other kinds of major organ cancers.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I don’t know where I stand on this one. But I am struck by this:
-We can try kids this young as adults in murder cases.
-We let 17 year old take the morning after pill but deny this boy the right to decide his OWN life.
However, to clear it up for Puppy, I think the father doesn’t know where the mother and boy are. Further, papa is wanting the treatment for his son.
Heel Puppy.
Lily Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Pino, I think I know which way you’re leaning, and I guess I am too. Learning disability or not, the decision should be Daniel’s. However I do think outside counseling is appropriate to make him fully aware of the consequences of his actions or inactions.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 12:40 am
I don’t think he knows either.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I’m still not sure.
But, no matter how it goes down, this story breaks my heart.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 12:37 am
Boy I’m with you on that Pino. Heartbreaker big time.
I think maybe I am also being influenced by my 16yr old nephew’s battle with lymphoma. He kinda looks like Daniel. I feel for him.
He’s a kid, aren’t we adults supposed to look after our children’s best interest ?
Is letting a child die somehow ok, when treatment can most likely save his life ?
Where in the f#ck is our conscience ?
EricG Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:29 am
You got that right. Makes me want to do volunteer at the local hospital just looking at that picture.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
This situation is horrible, My personal opinion the kid doesnt know the medical facts. If it was terminal then who in this world has any right to tell an adult when to cease his/her existence. But in fact its a child and should be treated as such. Not much of an argument with me if the mother or father is responsible for the care of their child.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:09 am
In my opinion, as a parent, you must and should do anything and everything in your power to care for and protect your child. Whether it be food, shelter, clothing, or health. I think there are many unconventional remedies that people have used to help “cure” or aid in the treatment of many different ailments/diseases. To not avail yourself (especially a child) to all possibilities is simply ignorant.
Granted, I know some people would prefer to pray, or use only homeopathic remedies, because of religious beliefs, but that’s okay for the adult who can accept the responsibility of his own actions to his own person.
This boy is still a child, and if he does have a disability, there is even more of a disadvantage as he probably does not understand the full scope of the consequences. I can’t imagine a parent deciding for a child that it’s okay to die, it was just your time. To me, that’s deplorable.
My favorite line in a movie..”..When someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and pray to god that their wife doesn’t miscarry, or that their daughter doesn’t bleed to death, or that their mother doesn’t suffer from acute neural trauma from post-operative shock- Who do you think they’re praying to? Now go ahead and read your bible, DENIS, and go to your church and with any luck you might win the annual raffle, but if you’re looking for god, he was in operating room No. 2, Nov. 17th and he doesn’t like to be second guessed….”
The state can step in at any time, as noted in above posts, when there is suspicion of child abuse (whether it be physical, emotional) so I don’t see where this is any different. A childs’ life is at stake, it’s up to the adults to protect that life and see that life has the best possible opportuntity to survive and flourish.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 2:52 am
I agree Fede.
Great movie quote. What was that from ?
fede Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 3:30 am
That wa from “Malice” , a quote from Alec Baldwins chracter. He finishes the line with.. “You ask me if I have a god complex. I am god.”
May 21st, 2009 at 2:48 am
I’m real tired.
Goodnight all.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:53 am
Where is Terry Shivo when you really need her?
Senator Frist stood up in the senate and watched a tape of the kid and stated clearly that the kid obviously doesn’t have any problems and that the parents are simply following God’s will.
Thanks, Doc for another fine diagnosis…almost as good as your last one on the floor.
Did we learn anything from that stupid intrusion into things?
Did Bush fly back to Washington to sign a bill interjecting the state into another family matter?
May 21st, 2009 at 3:01 am
If the treatment were 50% effective or something like that then I would side with the parents and it would be a slam dunk. But the treatment is 90% effective. 5% of survival without it.
This is a VERY difficult issue, also considering his age, but I tend to side with the idea that this kid is a kid and is not necessarily old enough to know the repercussions if he refuses treatment. I think it is negligent of the parents to refuse treatment in this case.
Next question is…who pays for the treatment? :)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 8:32 am
Flap,
Look into the numbers…Chemotherapy is not that effective…not near the 90% stated by the doctor (of course individual cases can fluctuate from norms)
Even though this kid has a form of cancer that has a better track record of being treated with chemotherapy, some studies suggest that chemotherapy used on kids with Hodgkins lymphoma contributes to different types of Cancer that occur later in life.
Some of the more depressing numbers about chemotherapy, only about 3% of all patients on chemotherapy are cured*
*cured meaning remission for 5 years….studies that go past 5 years are even lower.
75% of oncologists claim that they would forego chemotherapy if they were diagnosed with cancer.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:53 am
Isn’t the democratic party supposedly the party of choice? Or is that freedom to choose only relevant when a mother chooses to end the life of her child (abortion)? I have seen many posts here in favor of legalizing assisted suicide.
Flap, if the parents can’t afford the tx it will be handled like every other case where a person can’t pay for tx. the hospital eats the cost, or we pay for it via a government health program already in place.
flap Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
To me this is similar to abortion: does not the government have the responsibility to protect this child’s life when the cure rate is THAT high?
Hodgkin’s has a very high cure rate with chemo…most cancers do NOT.
I’m not saying it is an easy case, and generally I’d err on the side of the parents, but to essentially deny this kid life…I dunno.
average james Reply:
May 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Ouch Bliss,
Good shot on the choice thing.
Flap,
I see no similarity to abortion as this is a 13yr old. I do however see a huge issue in value of human life issue. I believe life should trump all other arguments.
The assisted suicide/right to die issue is off the table because Daniel is 13yrs old.
Tough heartwrenching stuff to be sure.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:14 am
Wow. I don’t think I would take chemotherapy, having seen the effects… and I really wouldn’t want to give it to my child…
I really think there is a right to try different treatments! The medical industry is NOT right about everything, and many times old proven remedies work much better. It seems to me that this could easily slip into the vaccination issue: the right of parents to decide whether or not to vaccinate.
Anyway, I cannot imagine how horrific it would be to _what?_ strap this kid down and pour poison into his body against his wishes!
That’s really the bottom line: it’s his body. Definitely about freedom of choice.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
That’s really the bottom line: it’s his body.
And if not his; his parent’s.
I have decided; I am on the side of the boy.
Allowing the State to mandate treatment is EXACTLY why I am against State sponsored medical care.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
So what is the average age in the USA that a girl doesn’t need parental consent for an abortion?
Just thought I would ask.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 am
So what is the average age in the USA that a girl doesn’t need parental consent for an abortion?
I’m guessing there isn’t one. Abortion should be legal for one and all!
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 am
I happen to be one of those pro-life liberals so….
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 am
I do not think that the state ought to be killing anyone. That includes capital punishment. I believe life to be precious. To take life is to play God, in my opinion.
There are exceptions, such as self-defense and defensive military actions. Kill or be killed police actions and, stop the bad guys from killing others police actions as well.
Life is too sacred to let vengance or retribution or inconvienence dictate if we should take it from someone.
michael Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I agree with you James, in fact you are the first liberal I have found on here that I agree with on the abortion/death penalty/respect for human life issue. Although I do admit that I see embryonic stem cell research differently and I do support that. What about you?
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 am
Choice….I know many who have chosen to die…I know many others who attempted to die, yet were saved dispite their best efforts. To see someone taking responsibility for their life, and being supported by those who love them….is this something that we should encourage with the caveat that chemo therapy is the act of introducing toxic substances (some call it poison) to the body with the known effects of making the person terribly ill? I wonder is we should interject? Is the child protection agency and government creating another Terry Schivo case?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 am
[...] judge ruled that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser, who ran away with his mom rather than be forced into treatment for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, will [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm