Posted on 05/25/2009 3:39:41 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Did they use those “radiation seeds”? I’ve heard about them as being very good and not as invasive.
Had not read that before.
The child had already been through chemo and didn’t want it anymore.
The mother is not murdering her child.
He had one of the six recommended chemo doses. It is an uncompleted treatment. The tumor shrunk after the first dose, but is now growing again.
His mother is treating him with “ionized” water and organic greens, which has NO verified cure rate of anything even though she claims it’s 100% effective.
So you’d be cool if I stopped feeding my kids, because after all it’s a private matter, and in my newfound belief in the church of Breathairia, I’m convinced that they can receive all the nutrients they really need by resperating?
Excuse me but you are advocating creeping government control of family decisions and you crow about it?
Are you a conservative?
My hope in this is that they do not prosecute this mother. If they do, it will show they care more about the power of the government than they ever did about this boy.
I figure they will prosecute this mother. That is only going to stress this child more.
The government only cares about dictating their will on the people anymore.
Yep. Just call it a “postpartum abortion” and you are free and clear!
Thanks for acknowledging that you have no answer to my question.
I agree, except I heard a doctor say there was a 95% chance of a cure with the treatment and only 5% without it.
I believe in rights as much as anyone. Everyone is talking about the mother’s rights, what about the boy’s rights?
This mother is guilty of child abuse in my opinion.
Flame away—
I know but the government knows best. /s
Just wait until the government starts telling some of the parents on here what they should do with their children when they aren’t following the government’s orders.
>>Way to stick to the point.
The analogies of other damage to a child being ignored and left untreated by the parent is very much on point. You can’t argue against a 90% efficacy rate.
‘
Amen!
And the medico establishment cares about their power and bottom line.
Yes she is. He will surely die at 13 without the chemo he so desperately needs. Denying him life-saving medicine is exactly the same as denying him water.
It would depend on the type of cancer, for me. I had a friend whose husband refused any treatment as all it was going to do was prolong his dying. My sister’s best friend died last year after battling cancer for 8 years, she had all kinds of treatment and it gave her 8 more years with her daughter, she was willing to deal with the side effects to have that time. And I have several friends who have had chemo for breast cancer and of them, they are still doing great 15, 12 and 6 years later.
Which parent would you return the kid to?
-------------------------------
A Bakersfield father is accused of biting out one of the eyes of his small child and similarly mutilating the other eye, leaving the child blind. After attacking the child, 34-year-old Angel Vidal Mendoza Sr. quickly left his apartment in a wheelchair, entered a backyard of a nearby vacant home and attacked his own legs with an ax, severely injuring himself, Bakersfield police reported. The child, 4-year-old Angelo Mendoza Jr., later told police, "My daddy ate my eyes." Doctors at Mercy Hospital said it is unknown whether the child will regain vision in his right eye. Child Protective Services cannot discuss the case, CPS program director Brian Parnell said. But in cases of serious abuse, the child is taken into protective custody, he said. Some foster homes have specialized medical training, but more such people are needed, he said. The boy's mother, Desirae Marie Bermudez, 23, was not present during the incident. There is a $15,000 warrant for her arrest for failing to complete a drug treatment program in late 2008, court documents say.
I have an answer, its just not what you want.
>>Excuse me but you are advocating creeping government control of family decisions and you crow about it?
90% efficacy on a treatment and you think it is OK for the parent — one parent, mind you: the other wants the treatment — to withhold treatment? That is murder and no society can stand by while murder is being performed.
Or should I ask you as a Conservative if it is OK for the State to stand by and do nothing while infants are murder pre- and post-partum? It DOES, but does that mean it is OK since that be “advocating creeping government control of family decisions?”
It is the obligation of our government to Protect Life.
That is why I am Pro Life!
However, it would appear that you do not want the "creeping government control of family decisions" such as if a woman has an abortion.
I did not think there were too many Pro Abortion Conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.