Ohio court gives lawyer guardianship of Amish girl with cancer

Comments (1)
  1. Herbert Kalkitis says:

    Let me understand this.

    The State claims it DOES have the authority to determine what medical treatments are necessary to protect and preserve the physical life of a child regardless of that life’s circumstances and the reasoned objections of the child’s parents to such treatments.

    But, of course, we also know that if the child happens to be three months old and unborn then the State claims it DOES NOT have the authority to protect and preserve the physical life of that child, even if that life is threatened or ended as a result of “medical” treatments flowing from parental reasoning that amounts to no more than mere convenience.

    Why would anyone find any consistency with these jurist sanctioned government CLAIMS of authority to affirm or deny the sanctity of life or force the postponement of death? Where in the Constitution is that authority granted absent an illegal act? What legal or moral reasoning leads to the conclusion that God ever intended that decision to be in the hands of the State, the Church, or any other societal group?

    Morality as revealed by God’s Word and the natural order leaves such decisions to the individual (or parents absent majority) and demands worship towards God and actions of selflessness toward each other.

    You might make a weak moral argument concerning selfishness on the part of the Amish parents. However, surely you can’t believe their decisions were made lightly, without anguish and prayer, sans participation of their 10 year old.

    Can any stronger moral argument be made for the selflessness of parents choosing abortion or the God sanctioned validity of a State which allows it? Surely not.

    Let me understand this? Impossible.