Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

What is the "pro life" team's stance on Daniel Hauser?

I'm curious how you reconcile calling me a "baby killer" for being pro choice but are upset about the "government intervention" in taking away Daniel's parents rights to let him die?

Update:

So a 13 year old who can't even read can make an informed decision?

Update 2:

Catherine, you appear to again have some trouble with details. Please reread the question.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Daniel chose to reject the chemo.

    Babies in the womb unfortuantely have no say when they are murdered.

    Daniel is 13 years old and decided he did not want any more chemo. You should respect his wishes. The judge is wrong to try to force him to continue chemo.

    What do you want to do, run a riot team in on him to restrain him and drag him off kicking and screaming to treatment?

    Why do you think a 13 year old girl has the right to murder her baby but Daniel doesn't have the right to control his body?

  • ?
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    Daniel Hauser Update

  • 1 decade ago

    That boy has an 80 percent chance of living if he gets the chemo. His parents are guilty of child abuse.

    I am glad they went on the run. Now when they catch them the boy will be a ward of the state and will get the medicine he needs.

    I don't see any hypocrisy. And you can always change your mind and come over to the Pro-Life side.

    I did. Give it some thought. My conscience has finally stopped bothering me since I switch.

    Its not a choice. Its a baby. You were once that little too.

    No, 13 year old little boys are children and need responsible parents to teach him right from wrong and more fundamentally keep them from harm.

    The decisions in his life should be ultimately made by his parents -- provided they are sane that is. Clearly Dan's folks are fanatics.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Scores of healthy, developing human beings are exterminated every year. Are you sure you want to compare the two? I agree that Daniel should have the chemo. I'd want that if he were mine, however, can the Court mandate taking harsh chemicals for treatment when it won't consider that healthy babies are aborted? Can we? I remember another case where a child refused to take prescription meds because they caused him severe headaches and succumbed to his illness. Sorry, I have looked and looked for the case and believe it was for his liver.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    So baby killer

    You want to abort Daniel when he is 13 years old? Does that about sum it up?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Parents don't have a RIGHT to let him die. They should be charged with cruel and unusual torture. He would be much happier if he weren't in pain. No child that age is really "ready to die." If the mom is going to let him die because she thinks its more along her religious beliefs then she might as well put a bullet in his head because at least he wont suffer.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    its now a moot point

    the dad wants him to get the treatment

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.