Ethics Professor On Charlie Gard: ‘Children Do Not Belong To Their Parents’

Authoritarianism, the repercussions of socialized medicine, and the culture of death are all fully on display in the tragic case of little Charlie.

But Ian Kennedy, a professor of health, law, and ethics at University College London, writing at The Guardian has a different take, one consistent with the pure leftist ideology: infant Charlie Gard “does not belong to his parents,” he belongs to Big Brother, and he should be sentenced to death.

Share
  • BillyHW

    Remember when they laughed at Sarah Palin’s warnings about death panels?

    • Bla Bla

      Yes, that nervous laughter that indicates they have been prematurely exposed to their intended victims.

  • Ed

    The professor should demonstrate his theory on a lion cub.

  • canminuteman

    As a parent, I believe that a sound argument can be made that my children do not belong to me. I am only their caretaker until they grow up to be independent adults. But that doesn’t mean the state owns them, any more than the state owns me.

    • Bla Bla

      Indeed, this is just a quick hop and jump away from the next statement that the state owns you. Fuck that.

  • Bla Bla

    These ‘professors’ need to be rounded up and imprisoned. They are nothing more than tools of the marxist to subvert and destroy. They are dangerous and have been tolerated for too long. Now they tell us we all belong to the government? I would spit in that POS face.

    You know, because they are mentally retarded, they keep trying to hoist their failed ideology on us because it may work this time… We’ll implement ‘real’ communism this time and you’ll love it – because science!

    As far as I’m concerned, any attempt to introduce national or international socialism must be treated as a crime against humanity and an appropriate punishment doled out.

  • Norman_In_New_York

    Josef Goebbels couldn’t have said it better than the professor.

  • Frances

    Ironically, back in the day, state intervention was in the opposite direction: when parents had decided “enough was enough’, the state would intervene to present an overly optimistic future for the infant. Remember hearing a young couple on Peter Gzowski talking about their experiences with their young son: when they said “enough, let him go”, the provincial authorities said that this child had a good chance (the mother openly said that the provincial rep lied about the prognosis. The wee boy died, shortly after, surrounded by strangers. His parents were not allowed to be there at the end. His mothers bitter comment was to the effect of “if they’re saying they’re doing all they can for your offspring, be very afraid.”‘