|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
From how the condition sounds this is clearly an experiment. Its on life support, can't swallow...
|
one might go so far as to say that there is a sound basis for claiming the parents are (mildly) mentally ill. great distress can lead to great irrationality.
|
On July 05 2017 02:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 01:14 Toadesstern wrote:On July 05 2017 01:08 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 14:30 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 13:58 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan." On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:From my previously linked article: These decisions, too, were probably products of “compassion.” But the state does not suffer with the sick. Justice Francis did not “look at the question from the assumed point of view of the child,” as the law naïvely demands; Justice Francis looked at the question from Justice Francis’s point of view.
The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want — a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?
The precedent established by Charlie Gard’s case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for “worthier” patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be “compassionate,” too.
Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard. But it’s in his own best interest. Don’t you see? And aforementioned, if posters are talking about what kind of life the child will lead if saved, does this also apply to rare disorders found in the womb and what justices and scientific experts rule is a baby better left aborted? Charlie deserves to live because he has £1.3M though right? Isn't this really about the right to spend your money any way you want? You argued earlier that the state was biased by what amounted to "efficiency" considerations. What kind of "right to life" are we talking about here though? This is a right to spend money. Isn't that what it comes down to? Surely you wouldn't be making all this noise if the parents were demanding that the State pay. But since the parents are relatively good looking people with a sad story who can exploit social media fund-raising they have obtained a right to life greater than some circumscribed right to "bare life." They have obtained the right to spend money on life. Surely you see that this is ridiculous. The "right to spend your money" is, at best, tangentially related the question. Money is brought up to preempt the argument that "the State doesn't have infinite resources to spend." We could discuss why this is a reasonable objection to state-run healthcare, but I don't think that's the point of it either. The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, and B) that some bureaucrats and courts hold this much over life and death. I guess I'm not surprised that some on the left would go for this money argument, but it's not really relevant. I remember when embryonic stem cell research was a hot topic, one of the left's two favorite arguments was: even if it's killing a fetus (and a person) think of how many lives it could save in the long run! At the very least this could be viewed in an experimental way. The parents and the doctors were willing. I don't think either are acting irrationally or not in the child's best interest. But the hospital (last I saw) even denied them to right to bring the kid home as he died. but precisely why are the parents entitled to it? would you be making this argument if they were penniless? they are entitled to it because they have raised millions of dollars. it has very little to do with the sanctity or profanity of life and much more to do with the sanctity of money. a life is only worth the money any body can spend to preserve it. Ok, I responded to you first so I'll take this. They have the right to try because they are the child's parents. + Show Spoiler +and aren't making an obviously abusive or immoral choice So sure, if they wanted to go into debt over it, then yes. They were willing to try, and doctors were willing to perform. Again, the money is mentioned because of how the U.K. healthcare system works. Nothing is free, they aren't entitled to the American or U.K doctors doctors trying this procedure. It seems to me like you are steering this towards the commonly discussed "privilege vs. right" discussion. But that's not the question in this instance, the donations of private individuals have removed that from the equation. Money is is the question in this instance because healthcare (at least as those of you of the opinion that this experimental procedure is health-granting) is sold for money on the market. What matters is a spirit's being able to direct/spend that money on healthcare. In saying the parents are "entitled" to any treatment that promises to extend the life of their brain dead baby we are saying that they are entitled to whatever they can buy, no more no less. This is a freedom of commerce issue, at least once the State is deemed to have no place in it. Healthcare must be disconnected from the State entirely and turned into a pure market good. If one accepts that healthcare is not a pure, unecumbered commodity, but a social good, the place of the State and the People opens up a bit. but the point is that even if the treatment was 1$ they'd still not be allowed to get the treatment because the judge considers it to be abuse of the child in one way or another. It is not clear that he doesn't feel pain like you and pmh said. It's just flat out not known what his condition is like and I don't think he is braindead (yet) either. The "treatment" has literally no chance of helping him nor easing any pain if he does feel pain. But it has the potential to cause pain i object on two grounds: 1) a $1 treatment could never be "experimental" by virtue of its one-dollar-ness. it is known to be either plentiful (and therefore known) or worthless 2) you have identified in your response that the State at least implicitly is regulating a commodity as potentially harmful to at least certain buyers. my contention was that this is a "freedom of commerce" issue, not a "right to life" issue, and i don't think your argument changes that
about 1) no, because even if it did what it promises to do if it works, it would not be used in this case. Like someone else said as he compared it to giving a lung cancer patient treatment for skin cancer and vice versa. The problem the boy has is (irreversible) brain damage and this thing, if I understood it correctly, slows down further brain damage but does nothing to deal with what's already killing him, making him unable to breathe, see, hear or move. Hence even if the treatment was 1$ you wouldn't give it to him because it's not something that was supposed to be given to someone in his situation. Granted if we're talking about some 100% safe, 0% chance to have downsides treatment you might as well give him that for 1$ the same way you can give him tictacs but we both know that's not the case with medicine.
about 2) we're talking about a baby who can't talk, can't give his okay nor does he have the ability to inform the doctors that the treatment is living hell if shit goes south for some reason. If this was the parents stating their opinion that they want to do it on themselves I would not have an issue with this.
|
On July 05 2017 03:05 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 02:07 IgnE wrote:On July 05 2017 01:14 Toadesstern wrote:On July 05 2017 01:08 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 14:30 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 13:58 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan." On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:From my previously linked article: These decisions, too, were probably products of “compassion.” But the state does not suffer with the sick. Justice Francis did not “look at the question from the assumed point of view of the child,” as the law naïvely demands; Justice Francis looked at the question from Justice Francis’s point of view.
The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want — a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?
The precedent established by Charlie Gard’s case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for “worthier” patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be “compassionate,” too.
Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard. But it’s in his own best interest. Don’t you see? And aforementioned, if posters are talking about what kind of life the child will lead if saved, does this also apply to rare disorders found in the womb and what justices and scientific experts rule is a baby better left aborted? Charlie deserves to live because he has £1.3M though right? Isn't this really about the right to spend your money any way you want? You argued earlier that the state was biased by what amounted to "efficiency" considerations. What kind of "right to life" are we talking about here though? This is a right to spend money. Isn't that what it comes down to? Surely you wouldn't be making all this noise if the parents were demanding that the State pay. But since the parents are relatively good looking people with a sad story who can exploit social media fund-raising they have obtained a right to life greater than some circumscribed right to "bare life." They have obtained the right to spend money on life. Surely you see that this is ridiculous. The "right to spend your money" is, at best, tangentially related the question. Money is brought up to preempt the argument that "the State doesn't have infinite resources to spend." We could discuss why this is a reasonable objection to state-run healthcare, but I don't think that's the point of it either. The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, and B) that some bureaucrats and courts hold this much over life and death. I guess I'm not surprised that some on the left would go for this money argument, but it's not really relevant. I remember when embryonic stem cell research was a hot topic, one of the left's two favorite arguments was: even if it's killing a fetus (and a person) think of how many lives it could save in the long run! At the very least this could be viewed in an experimental way. The parents and the doctors were willing. I don't think either are acting irrationally or not in the child's best interest. But the hospital (last I saw) even denied them to right to bring the kid home as he died. but precisely why are the parents entitled to it? would you be making this argument if they were penniless? they are entitled to it because they have raised millions of dollars. it has very little to do with the sanctity or profanity of life and much more to do with the sanctity of money. a life is only worth the money any body can spend to preserve it. Ok, I responded to you first so I'll take this. They have the right to try because they are the child's parents. + Show Spoiler +and aren't making an obviously abusive or immoral choice So sure, if they wanted to go into debt over it, then yes. They were willing to try, and doctors were willing to perform. Again, the money is mentioned because of how the U.K. healthcare system works. Nothing is free, they aren't entitled to the American or U.K doctors doctors trying this procedure. It seems to me like you are steering this towards the commonly discussed "privilege vs. right" discussion. But that's not the question in this instance, the donations of private individuals have removed that from the equation. Money is is the question in this instance because healthcare (at least as those of you of the opinion that this experimental procedure is health-granting) is sold for money on the market. What matters is a spirit's being able to direct/spend that money on healthcare. In saying the parents are "entitled" to any treatment that promises to extend the life of their brain dead baby we are saying that they are entitled to whatever they can buy, no more no less. This is a freedom of commerce issue, at least once the State is deemed to have no place in it. Healthcare must be disconnected from the State entirely and turned into a pure market good. If one accepts that healthcare is not a pure, unecumbered commodity, but a social good, the place of the State and the People opens up a bit. but the point is that even if the treatment was 1$ they'd still not be allowed to get the treatment because the judge considers it to be abuse of the child in one way or another. It is not clear that he doesn't feel pain like you and pmh said. It's just flat out not known what his condition is like and I don't think he is braindead (yet) either. The "treatment" has literally no chance of helping him nor easing any pain if he does feel pain. But it has the potential to cause pain i object on two grounds: 1) a $1 treatment could never be "experimental" by virtue of its one-dollar-ness. it is known to be either plentiful (and therefore known) or worthless 2) you have identified in your response that the State at least implicitly is regulating a commodity as potentially harmful to at least certain buyers. my contention was that this is a "freedom of commerce" issue, not a "right to life" issue, and i don't think your argument changes that about 1) no, because even if it did what it promises to do if it works, it would not be used in this case. Like someone else said as he compared it to giving a lung cancer patient treatment for skin cancer and vice versa. The problem the boy has is (irreversible) brain damage and this thing, if I understood it correctly, slows down further brain damage but does nothing to deal with what's already killing him, making him unable to breathe, see, hear or move. Hence even if the treatment was 1$ you wouldn't give it to him because it's not something that was supposed to be given to someone in his situation. Granted if we're talking about some 100% safe, 0% chance to have downsides treatment you might as well give him that for 1$ the same way you can give him tictacs but we both know that's not the case with medicine. about 2) we're talking about a baby who can't talk, can't give his okay nor does he have the ability to inform the doctors that the treatment is living hell if shit goes south for some reason. If this was the parents stating their opinion that they want to do it on themselves I would not have an issue with this.
Desperate parents are easy targets. There are plenty of examples of parents gathering and spending fortunes on useless "experimental" or "alternative" treatments far away. It is just too painful to give up hope, so I would trust the doctors here -they are people too, but will see the situation much more clearly.
|
1) you've changed the presuppositions under which you posed the hypothetical. now all of a sudden its like giving a $1 melanoma treatment for leukemia. ok, sure, if you would rather not rigorously pursue lines of thought i probably agree with you ultimately on the proposition, "the treatment is silly." but you can understand how "no, [non sequitur]" is frustrating
2) right because you believe that you should have the freedom to spend your money on whatever you want, not that you have a "right to life" that extends to "every experimental treatment" regardless of personal resources
|
1) Are you saying no $1 treatment could be experimental because it's $1? If so, I have some cheap shit (could be literal shit) to sell you.
2) Your right to life is yours. The baby's is theirs. Because of their mental and physical state, ultimately someone else has to make the decision for their life for them.
|
Regarding the Nuclear Weapons, there will come a time where every nation will have them. With the continuous technological advance the development and the production wont be the strife i is now.
So the questions should better be, how to regulate the coming of nuclear age for those nations, not how to forbid it.
|
On July 05 2017 03:17 IgnE wrote:
1) you've changed the presuppositions under which you posed the hypothetical. now all of a sudden its like giving a $1 melanoma treatment for leukemia. ok, sure, if you would rather not rigorously pursue lines of thought i probably agree with you ultimately on the proposition, "the treatment is silly." but you can understand how "no, [non sequitur]" is frustrating
2) right because you believe that you should have the freedom to spend your money on whatever you want, not that you have a "right to life" that extends to "every experimental treatment" regardless of personal resources
but that's not even a new presupposition or anything. We DO know that it doesn't do anything and isn't supposed to help him at all. Even the doctor in the US that plans to do the treatment said that it would not help him, would not be intended to be used on people like him but ultimately argued that it would be the right thing to try out the treatment anyways (for whatever reason).
That's the entire point. If this even had the slightest chance to help him in any meaningful way I'd be okay with them spending whatever kind of money they want on it and I'd be willing to argue that you can overlook downsides like it still being experimental. But it doesn't.
I totally get that the parents want to try out everything in their power to help their kid. Perhaps they looked at it as "slowing down further brain damage is step 1 and whatever comes after that we figure out after that". If that's it I would even go as far as to say that I admire their attitude.
|
On July 05 2017 03:16 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 03:05 Toadesstern wrote:On July 05 2017 02:07 IgnE wrote:On July 05 2017 01:14 Toadesstern wrote:On July 05 2017 01:08 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 14:30 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 13:58 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan." On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:
From my previously linked article:
[quote]
And aforementioned, if posters are talking about what kind of life the child will lead if saved, does this also apply to rare disorders found in the womb and what justices and scientific experts rule is a baby better left aborted? Charlie deserves to live because he has £1.3M though right? Isn't this really about the right to spend your money any way you want? You argued earlier that the state was biased by what amounted to "efficiency" considerations. What kind of "right to life" are we talking about here though? This is a right to spend money. Isn't that what it comes down to? Surely you wouldn't be making all this noise if the parents were demanding that the State pay. But since the parents are relatively good looking people with a sad story who can exploit social media fund-raising they have obtained a right to life greater than some circumscribed right to "bare life." They have obtained the right to spend money on life. Surely you see that this is ridiculous. The "right to spend your money" is, at best, tangentially related the question. Money is brought up to preempt the argument that "the State doesn't have infinite resources to spend." We could discuss why this is a reasonable objection to state-run healthcare, but I don't think that's the point of it either. The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, and B) that some bureaucrats and courts hold this much over life and death. I guess I'm not surprised that some on the left would go for this money argument, but it's not really relevant. I remember when embryonic stem cell research was a hot topic, one of the left's two favorite arguments was: even if it's killing a fetus (and a person) think of how many lives it could save in the long run! At the very least this could be viewed in an experimental way. The parents and the doctors were willing. I don't think either are acting irrationally or not in the child's best interest. But the hospital (last I saw) even denied them to right to bring the kid home as he died. but precisely why are the parents entitled to it? would you be making this argument if they were penniless? they are entitled to it because they have raised millions of dollars. it has very little to do with the sanctity or profanity of life and much more to do with the sanctity of money. a life is only worth the money any body can spend to preserve it. Ok, I responded to you first so I'll take this. They have the right to try because they are the child's parents. + Show Spoiler +and aren't making an obviously abusive or immoral choice So sure, if they wanted to go into debt over it, then yes. They were willing to try, and doctors were willing to perform. Again, the money is mentioned because of how the U.K. healthcare system works. Nothing is free, they aren't entitled to the American or U.K doctors doctors trying this procedure. It seems to me like you are steering this towards the commonly discussed "privilege vs. right" discussion. But that's not the question in this instance, the donations of private individuals have removed that from the equation. Money is is the question in this instance because healthcare (at least as those of you of the opinion that this experimental procedure is health-granting) is sold for money on the market. What matters is a spirit's being able to direct/spend that money on healthcare. In saying the parents are "entitled" to any treatment that promises to extend the life of their brain dead baby we are saying that they are entitled to whatever they can buy, no more no less. This is a freedom of commerce issue, at least once the State is deemed to have no place in it. Healthcare must be disconnected from the State entirely and turned into a pure market good. If one accepts that healthcare is not a pure, unecumbered commodity, but a social good, the place of the State and the People opens up a bit. but the point is that even if the treatment was 1$ they'd still not be allowed to get the treatment because the judge considers it to be abuse of the child in one way or another. It is not clear that he doesn't feel pain like you and pmh said. It's just flat out not known what his condition is like and I don't think he is braindead (yet) either. The "treatment" has literally no chance of helping him nor easing any pain if he does feel pain. But it has the potential to cause pain i object on two grounds: 1) a $1 treatment could never be "experimental" by virtue of its one-dollar-ness. it is known to be either plentiful (and therefore known) or worthless 2) you have identified in your response that the State at least implicitly is regulating a commodity as potentially harmful to at least certain buyers. my contention was that this is a "freedom of commerce" issue, not a "right to life" issue, and i don't think your argument changes that about 1) no, because even if it did what it promises to do if it works, it would not be used in this case. Like someone else said as he compared it to giving a lung cancer patient treatment for skin cancer and vice versa. The problem the boy has is (irreversible) brain damage and this thing, if I understood it correctly, slows down further brain damage but does nothing to deal with what's already killing him, making him unable to breathe, see, hear or move. Hence even if the treatment was 1$ you wouldn't give it to him because it's not something that was supposed to be given to someone in his situation. Granted if we're talking about some 100% safe, 0% chance to have downsides treatment you might as well give him that for 1$ the same way you can give him tictacs but we both know that's not the case with medicine. about 2) we're talking about a baby who can't talk, can't give his okay nor does he have the ability to inform the doctors that the treatment is living hell if shit goes south for some reason. If this was the parents stating their opinion that they want to do it on themselves I would not have an issue with this. Desperate parents are easy targets. There are plenty of examples of parents gathering and spending fortunes on useless "experimental" or "alternative" treatments far away. It is just too painful to give up hope, so I would trust the doctors here -they are people too, but will see the situation much more clearly.
I'm inclined to agree with this. I'm not a parent, but I can totally understand a parent willing to give up everything they have to give their child a chance at survival, even in the face of logic and science.
At some point, the child has a right to die with dignity too, not after being used for some experimental treatment that won't do anything except maybe delay the child's death by a few weeks.
|
Suddenly she's a moderate with a voice.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s Sunday outing to a beach that he banned the public from using left many in the Garden State up in arms — even his own lieutenant governor, who said his use of the beach is “beyond words.”
“If I were governor, I sure wouldn’t be sitting on the beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches,” Republican Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno said Monday, responding to the widespread condemnation of Christie’s conduct.
Public beaches in state parks were closed to the public following a state government shut down, but that didn’t keep Christie and his family from hitting the roped off shoreline on Sunday.
Guadagno, who is running to replace Christie in New Jersey’s gubernatorial election in Novemeber, is severely imperiled by Christie’s sinking popularity, which clocked in at an abysmal 15% at the end of June, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
Quinnipiac noted the number is “the worst approval rating for any governor in any state surveyed by Quinnipiac University in more than 20 years,” and was captured prior to the beach incident.
Guadagno currently trails the Democratic nominee, Phil Murphy, by a margin of 26% to 55%, according to a Quinnipiac poll.
Source
|
On July 05 2017 03:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
1) Are you saying no $1 treatment could be experimental because it's $1? If so, I have some cheap shit (could be literal shit) to sell you.
2) Your right to life is yours. The baby's is theirs. Because of their mental and physical state, ultimately someone else has to make the decision for their life for them.
1) i'm saying it couldn't be "experimental" but might be ""experimental""
let us imagine this scenario except that instead of a million dollar "experimental" treatment it involved an herb tincture from the amazon that no doctor thought had even a possible relation or mechanism for curing this mitochondrial depletion syndrome. what would we think? maybe then we are more obviously in the realm of the miraculous than anything we should call healthcare
|
United States43989 Posts
I don't get why you're struggling with the concept Falling.
1) Children cannot make informed legally binding decisions for themselves. Therefore
2) Someone has to act as a proxy to make decisions on their behalf in their best interests.
3) This person must be empowered by a body greater than an individual because they're making decisions for an individual and without authority from a greater source of power that wouldn't work.
4) The source of that power is the state. The state exists as an entity given power over individuals by the collective populace through the social contract. The state is empowered to decide what is legal, how to enforce laws, it can seize labour, detain individuals, and yes, make decisions on behalf of those unable to make them for themselves.
5) The state apppints parents as legal guardians of children in most cases. But this is not irrevocable nor does it grant ownership of the children to parents. In situations where the parents get it wrong they can have their responsibility taken away.
Think of the alternative for a second. If the power to make decisions for children were not granted by the state, how would it exist at all? An adult is not a greater source of legal authority within society than a child, and even if they were that would mean all adults could compel all children to do things. There is no natural grant of power of adults over children, children have rights within society. Only the state has the capacity to grant responsibility for acting as the guardian of a child.
|
On July 05 2017 04:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 03:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
1) Are you saying no $1 treatment could be experimental because it's $1? If so, I have some cheap shit (could be literal shit) to sell you.
2) Your right to life is yours. The baby's is theirs. Because of their mental and physical state, ultimately someone else has to make the decision for their life for them. 1) i'm saying it couldn't be "experimental" but might be ""experimental"" let us imagine this scenario except that instead of a million dollar "experimental" treatment it involved an herb tincture from the amazon that no doctor thought had even a possible relation or mechanism for curing this mitochondrial depletion syndrome. what would we think? maybe then we are more obviously in the realm of the miraculous than anything we should call healthcare
Is there a point in here somewhere?
Do you think something different in those scenarios?
|
i think they are different, yes. maybe it would be clearer that doctors could prohibit parents from administering herbal remedies to their dying child without the patina of doctor-approved science over the "remedy"
on the other hand if it were effective and cheap why deny it? surely the child is on an IV drip
|
On July 05 2017 05:30 IgnE wrote:
i think they are different, yes. maybe it would be clearer that doctors could prohibit parents from administering herbal remedies to their dying child without the patina of doctor-approved science over the "remedy"
on the other hand if it were effective and cheap why deny it? surely the child is on an IV drip
If it were "effective" there wouldn't even be an argument.
|
I don't think anyone would deny herbal remedies tbh... they don't tend to come with a lot of side effects, do they?
|
On July 05 2017 07:22 Toadesstern wrote:
I don't think anyone would deny herbal remedies tbh... they don't tend to come with a lot of side effects, do they?
Does deadly nightshade count as a herb?
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's not poisonous :p
|
On July 05 2017 07:22 Toadesstern wrote:
I don't think anyone would deny herbal remedies tbh... they don't tend to come with a lot of side effects, do they?
depends on the remedy; a fair number of them have known interactions with existing drugs, and were the source used to isolate drugs. So many of them do have known effects, they're also not subject to much quality control, so they're much more variable. but in general the side effects are small.
|
So this voter fraud letter appears to be getting laughed out of town, not surprisingly. It looks to be about as well planned as the 1st immigration EO. It states that the data will be made public, which just flies in the face of basically every state's laws. This is not how you get things done.
|
It's somewhat reassuring that so many states, even conservative strongholds, are doing the right thing with Kobach's requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
