Because of the lack of potential success and the much more likely potential for harm. That's the bottom line. It's not about having ideas. It's about whether it is ethical and therefore legally permissible to experiment on a child.
Little Baby Charlie
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Because of the lack of potential success and the much more likely potential for harm. That's the bottom line. It's not about having ideas. It's about whether it is ethical and therefore legally permissible to experiment on a child.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Bloodlust and their hatred of God.
It's never ethical to murder an innocent child, even if there is no hope for recovery.
The parents, even accepting the possibility that the boy will not recover fully, want to take care of him until he dies. Why is it so wrong to let them? If all they want to do is love their child, who are you, the NHS, and the UK government, to stop them?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
What harm?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
The NHS has the right of it here.
You want an innocent baby put to death?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
The child is essentially already dead. He has massive brain trauma and only machines are keeping him alive. Nothing can give this child a better life. Why do you want him to stay in this state? He can't be made better.
Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk
Charlie is not dead. He's still alive. You want him murdered. Why?
So which is he, kiwi? Is he alive or dead?
If he's alive, there's nothing wrong with letting him live, even if it means keeping the machines on. There's nothing wrong with letting him die a natural death, one that follows his parents showing him love and affection.
If he's dead, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as someone pointed out above.
It is NEVER ok to intentionally kill an innocent person. That's called MURDER.
There's nothing wrong with letting someone live and die. It's ALWAYS wrong to intentionally kill someone.
Because he's still alive. Because he has a right to life. Because he was made in God's image. Because he's a human being. Because it's wrong to murder him. Because it's wrong to intentionally take someone's life. Because the parents want to love and care for him until he dies.
The UK NHS won't even let his parents try. They insist on killing Charlie. How do you know that he can't be made better?
Why do you want Charlie Gard murdered?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
The experts quite clearly say his condition cannot be improved and this caset is not murder. Murder is the illegal taking of human life; this not illegal thus not murder.
Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...n-syndrome-pope-donald-trump-theresa-may/amp/
Charlie is not dead, he's "not in 'pain and suffering.'" There's options available to treat him. There's NEVER a good reason to intentionally kill the innocent.
President Trump, though it may have seemed like he was being helpful, could have left out "as per our friends in the UK and the Pope" in his tweet. It sounds like he supports the killing of little 11-month old Charlie.
The Vatican's statement is a disgrace to mankind for promoting murder.
Charlie is not dead, he's "not in 'pain and suffering.'" There's options available to treat him. There's NEVER a good reason to intentionally kill the innocent.
President Trump, though it may have seemed like he was being helpful, could have left out "as per our friends in the UK and the Pope" in his tweet. It sounds like he supports the killing of little 11-month old Charlie.
The Vatican's statement is a disgrace to mankind for promoting murder.
I guess the Vatican and the Pope don't believe in miracles anymore.
First of all, the "experts" in question that you are talking about are the same "experts" that want him dead. Conflict of interest much?
Also, as of YESTERDAY:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...n-syndrome-pope-donald-trump-theresa-may/amp/
What they are talking about is legalized murder. It is NEVER ok to intentionally take an innocent person's life. ABSOLUTELY NEVER.
Lawful murder is still murder.
Charlie is not dead, therefore he should not be killed. It is ok, however, to let charlie die naturally. Taking him off of the very thing keeping him alive is murder.
Why do you, kiwi, want little Charlie dead?
Publicly displaying the sorrow of the world in cases such as this makes people feel good about themselves. It has the stench of self-justification but feeds the desire that all white washed sepulchres have. To promote the outward signs of compassion while still possessing the heart of stone.
Truster, I know this is hard for you, but please do try to stay on topic. We're talking about the potential murder of an innocent child.
Your posts sicken me
I've noticed that you can't stomach the truth. No surprise there then...
Your PUBLIC celebration of salvation is the prime example of your self righteousness