The concept of liberty at the core
means that individuals own themselves body and mind. When the state intrudes
upon that fundamental right there is no liberty, only license. Statists don’t
believe in the concept of liberty. They believe that the state has the right to
control individuals both body and mind. Statists think that they own you.
That’s exactly what the statists in
the State of Connecticut think. Right now they’re forcing
a 17-year old girl to undergo chemotherapy treatments against her will and
against the will of her parent. The
state insists that they have no right to refuse.
The girl was diagnosed last September
with Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. Doctors at Connecticut Children’s Medical
Center (CCMC) recommended she receive chemotherapy. She refused. Her mother supported her decision. The
hospital called the cops. Connecticut’s Department of Children and
Families (DCF) swooped in.
They think that the State of
Connecticut owns her body.
This girl is aware that chemotherapy
treatment has the potential to cause her as much or more damage than her
cancer. “She knows the long-term effects of having chemo, what it does to
your organs, what it does to your body. She may not be able to have children
after this because it affects everything in your body. It not only kills
cancer, it kills everything in your body,” explains her mom.
The side effects of chemotherapy include
nausea, hair loss, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea, according to the National
Cancer Institute.
Never mind that croaked the statists.
They took her into the custody of the state against her will. They forced her
to endure a course of treatment against her will. Her mother was ordered by the
state to cooperate against her will. The girl ran away from home to escape the
torment. The statists rounded her up and removed her from her home where she
remains in DCF custody. A judge authorized the statists to make all medical
decisions on her behalf against her will.
“It’s a
question of fundamental constitutional rights-- the right to have a say over
what happens to your body-- and the right to say to the government ‘you can’t
control what happens to my body,’” insist her attorneys as they undertake to appeal the statist
rulings. “The Supreme Court of the state has never ruled on this issue, the
Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on this issue. So it’s very
significant not just for our client, and for the minor child, but for the law
in general,” they explain.
If this can
happen to her in the United States of America, it can happen to you. We either
own ourselves or we’re owned by the state. As of right now ... the state owns
her body.
The judicial system has endorsed indefinite imprisonment without trial and interrogation by torture. Do you really think they are going to shy away from forced medical treatment? They already do it to anybody declared "mentally" ill. Why would this case be different?
ReplyDeleteMy prediction is confirmed: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/01/08/connecticut-supreme-court-upholds-ruling-that-teen-must-undergo-chemo/
DeleteSo you've changed your mind about self-ownership, then? Bakers now own their own bodies instead of being automatically deemed slaves of anyone who happens to want a cake?
ReplyDeleteHuh? Baker's simply have to obey the Civil Rights laws if they want to open their businesses to the public. I don't see how that makes them slaves. Are lunch counter owners deemed slaves if the law obliges them to serve blacks?
DeleteIf they are forced to do it against their will, then yes.
DeleteAnd Cassandra C simply has to obey the Child Protection laws if she wants to have cancer. I don't see how that makes her a slave. Are leukemia patients deemed slaves if the law obliges them to accept bone marrow transfusions?
ReplyDeleteIt's self-ownership or not self-ownership. Not "self-ownership when I think Cassandra C ought to be able to do what she wants, but not self-ownership when a baker doesn't want to do what I think he should do."
So if the law provides that you must drive on the right side of the road if you want to exercise your privilege to drive in the US, that makes you a slave?
DeleteThe Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes you a slave?
Yes, if the law mandates that leukemia patients get bone marrow transplants by force against their will that violates self ownership. Civil rights law don't violate self ownership, no do traffic laws. I think the distinction is pretty clear.
While I greatly enjoy reading Mr.Taylor's commentaries, it appears he has quite a selective mind when it comes to Libertarian principles.
ReplyDeleteIt's OK for the government to tell stores they can't sell tobacco products, because tobacco is harmful.
It's OK for the government to force vendors to provide a service when it goes against that vendor's moral compass, because it is socially unacceptable to discriminate.
It's just fine & dandy that a woman can cry sexual abuse - the morning after she had previously crawled naked and drunk into bed with a guy - woke up in the throes of passion, turned over - and then went back to sleep. (No means no, even when it didn't.)
But now the line is drawn. Sorry Mr. Taylor, but by allowing those initial encroachments, we now find ourselves at the end result. The government owns you.
Who said the government doesn't own you? Not me. Every year when I'm forced to report to the IRS I know I'm owned by Uncle Sam.
DeleteDo you think that the corner grocery store should be allowed to sell dynamite? What if your moral compass dictates that you drive on the left side of the road? Do traffic laws offend libertarian? I don't think so.
Straw man arguments. You can do better!
Delete