Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Post Reply New Topic

Not only that, but the pushers of MMS often advise that parents lie through their teeth to any doctors or authorities. In any reasonable person, that piece of advice would serve as a warning that they might be doing something wrong.

When the parents lie, especially to the authorities, they often make it clear that they know what they're doing is wrong.
That is mens rea.

Agreed.

Not true. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom of *action*. More importantly it is a good example of a descriptive right: That is, it does not entitle you to anything but is there to protect you from prosecution when you say things that are socially unacceptable or politically contentious. It does NOT give parents the right to *do* whatever they want to their children....Especially when it comes to medical treatment. Speak out against vaccination all you want, but it is vital that vaccination be required by law whether anyone believes in it or not.

Hey OP, I hear you. I'm tired of seeing our country destroyed, and one of the problems happen to be one side attacking the other. I'm devestated, look at how liberals in America praise Europe while not thinking as highly about American politics. They hate Fox News with a passion and love nothing more than see their journalists burn in hell.

And trust me, if they truly identified as Christian, that would mean they have to apply the same standard of love and tolerance to conservative beliefs just as liberal beliefs. I am agnostic though.

Their attacks are the whole reason why conservative media and opinions are so unpopular.

Then we agree that, in this matter, First Amendment protection is about speech, not acts (even if a large body of law recognizes symbolic speech; signs, armbands, images, T-shirts, protests, marches etc.). But, that amendment, along with the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, combine to provide us with the right to privacy. And, it is that privacy that protects parents' choice when it comes to declining certain health care for their children which isn't required by law or court order. In 2014, all 50 states allowed a medical vaccine exemption; 48 states allowed a religious vaccine exemption and 17 states allowed a philosophical, conscientious or personal belief exemption (California's pending law will reduce the number of states which allow religious and personal-belief exemptions; but will likely be enjoined until a court resolution on the religious and personal-belief prohibitions is determined). Because the U.S. Supreme Court has made a few determinations about the constitutionality of what religious and personal-belief exemptions mean (more or less conflating the two into one), all of the remaining 47 states will provide the protections to its citizens whether based on religion and/or personal belief, meaning that California remains virtually unique. So, the matter of choice in vaccination health-care law is still tilted strongly for the patient, not the physician. In the provision of health care for children, the matter of choice is transferred to the parents (or legal guardians), giving them the authority to decide.

Knowing that a lot of parents who use MMS on their children commonly frequent Internet sites where they can see the horrific effects of the treatment being posted by other parents and photos like this are sometimes posted (most of them don't look quite as bad as this, though):

http://anonhq.com/bleach-away-defect-me ... -children/



Such pictures of such stools would give any reasonable parent pause to at least see their doctor before starting MMS. Most of the people on the forum say that is a result of so-called rope worms, which have never been demonstrated to even exist but which these quacks say causes autism, but it should be clear to parents that these are bodily tissues being effectively burnt off by the chlorine dioxide, at times producing internal bleeding, which is to be expected at the concentrations recommended by these quacks.

What you described sounds almost Scientological! Seriously, worms cause autism? Why not just blame Xenu? Hehe. I am sorry to laugh at such heinous stuff, but it is all so bizarre reaching the level of snake-charming. If and when a court considers complaints in this behavior, I suspect that the judge will need to reassert frequently the definition of an "average person's" beliefs, comprehension and gullibility, compared to that of the likely defendants.

The right to privacy ends when it involves the life, health, and wellness of another human being. Even your children. When your personal beliefs have a negative impact on someone else's health, the line must be drawn.

Christian scientists can no longer deny medical treatment to sick children because of their religious beliefs, so why should parental choice be a factor in vaccination?

Because denying necessary care to "sick children" would deny them of that which would improve their depleted conditions. The idea that providing vaccinations to all children, without exception, rises to the same level of necessary care, or that all children would resort to similarly depleted conditions but for the provision of a vaccine, is tenuous at best. Another way to explain it is: It is expected (and in many jurisdictions, required) to provide life-saving measures to others if you can do so without harm. But, it is criminal to interfere with an otherwise healthy individual who neither needs nor wants your attention, let alone your help despite your best intentions. Doing so with no clear indication of need or permission is legally called assault (aggravated assault if your care involves something which could do harm, like a syringe and a foreign substance).

Last edited by AspieUtah on 12 Apr 2015, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AspieUtah,

I know, right? Jeez! And you are right on target with the SCIENTOLOGICAL argument; the inventor is an ex-scientologist "Archbishop" of his own church Jim Humble.

I had no idea. Wow. Luckily, there are relatively few such parents and fewer hucksters selling it to them.

I hope!

At least 1,769,091 Australian children received government “Family Tax Benefit A” assistance in 2006/7 and would comprise at least 2.2 percent of the total number of recipients of such assistance today.

With just 1 in 50 recipients having declined vaccinations for personal, philosophical, religious or medical reasons, it appears to me that the cost to continue providing assistance to the children is minimal and affordable ($50 million out of at least $18.8 billion), and is more a political desire to penalize the children and their families than because of budget constraints. If such constraints really do exist, why not just reduce all recipients’ assistance equally by the 0.265 percent that the denial of assistance to unvaccinated children would “save” the government according to Australian Social Services Minister Scott Morrison?

It is clear to me that this policy is mere punishment through the starvation of children. Now, this is evidence of a real left government attacking others.

LOL...

More evidence of illegal health-care authority:

That's going way too far, I think.