Comments on: Abraham Cherrix: The Sean Hannity Show http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/ reb•e•lu•tion (reb’el lu shen) n. a teenage rebellion against the low expectations of an ungodly culture. Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:58:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Alyssa C. http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2424 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2424 I have been following the story...although I haven't been able to comment on the previous posts. I pray that everything will go as God wills it. Carry on, Abraham! :) I have been following the story…although I haven’t been able to comment on the previous posts.
I pray that everything will go as God wills it.

Carry on, Abraham! :)

]]> by: MM http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2425 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2425 Thank you guys for the excellent coverage. Thank you guys for the excellent coverage.

]]> by: Janice http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2426 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2426 So parents can't know about their daughters getting abortions but the courts can force this kid to have chemo? That seems sooooo wrong. Oh wait...it is! Parental rights should be categorical, not just what is socially acceptable! So parents can’t know about their daughters getting abortions but the courts can force this kid to have chemo? That seems sooooo wrong. Oh wait…it is! Parental rights should be categorical, not just what is socially acceptable!

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2427 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-the-sean-hannity-show/#comment-2427 I'm not entirely convinced that the main issue surrounding this situation is parental rights or the state vs. the family/family rights. There's alot of rhetoric brought in when he/his family/individuals interviewing him talk about things like "I will die in my home..not in a hospital bed"...and his (very remarkable, don't get me wrong) will to live, however, when looking past that, there are a few other things here to consider. 1) Abraham is a minor. Therefore, his parents are responsible for his medical issues. However, SINCE he is a minor, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that he, along with all other minors, is not neglected medically in any way. There are alot of situations like this that are very real...parents choose to refrain from giving their sick child ANY medical attention because it is forbidden in their religion. That's child abuse, and therefore the responsibilty of the state to step in and protect that child. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying this is the situation with Abraham and his family, but keep that in mind. That leads to the second thing to consider. 2) The rule of law: consider this..what if Abraham was fourteen? Eleven? Eight? Six? At what point does the state acknowledge that a child is mature enough to make his or her OWN medical decisions and take responsibility for him/herself? Surely it seems that Abraham is capable of this. He is mature, intelligent, and eloquent. Taking this into consideration, how is it decided that Abraham's parents are the responsible party for his medical issues? THE LAW. The law says that he is a minor, not yet eighteen, and that is the ONLY guiding line the state has for granting medical independence when it comes to children. (Granted, there are exceptions, such as a mentally ill adult, but stick with me here). Frankly, it doesn't matter how mature, intelligent, or publically voiced about making his own choices Abraham is, he is not eighteen yet. Therefore his PARENTS are the ones, in the eyes of the law, making this choice. This takes us back to number 1: the state must ensure that Abraham's life is being cared for in a non-negligent manner. They CANNOT let this case stand on its own, because that will fundamentally destroy the rule of law. How would they therefore judge the next case? What if it's a ten-year-old who has been indoctrinated by his parents, and whos life is in danger? Maybe he outspokenly WANTS to refrain from traditional medical treatment, like Abraham. The state has to use the rule of law. Disclaimer: I'm not saying I think the state is justified in forcing Abraham to recieve chemotheraphy. I'm simply throwing some points out there that must be considered. It's not as cut-and-dry as "parental rights" or "state vs. family". As a last comment, I sure don't envy the judge in this case. =P A hard, hard decision all around. God guide him. I’m not entirely convinced that the main issue surrounding this situation is parental rights or the state vs. the family/family rights. There’s alot of rhetoric brought in when he/his family/individuals interviewing him talk about things like “I will die in my home..not in a hospital bed”…and his (very remarkable, don’t get me wrong) will to live, however, when looking past that, there are a few other things here to consider.

1) Abraham is a minor. Therefore, his parents are responsible for his medical issues. However, SINCE he is a minor, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that he, along with all other minors, is not neglected medically in any way. There are alot of situations like this that are very real…parents choose to refrain from giving their sick child ANY medical attention because it is forbidden in their religion. That’s child abuse, and therefore the responsibilty of the state to step in and protect that child. Don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT saying this is the situation with Abraham and his family, but keep that in mind. That leads to the second thing to consider.

2) The rule of law: consider this..what if Abraham was fourteen? Eleven? Eight? Six? At what point does the state acknowledge that a child is mature enough to make his or her OWN medical decisions and take responsibility for him/herself? Surely it seems that Abraham is capable of this. He is mature, intelligent, and eloquent. Taking this into consideration, how is it decided that Abraham’s parents are the responsible party for his medical issues? THE LAW. The law says that he is a minor, not yet eighteen, and that is the ONLY guiding line the state has for granting medical independence when it comes to children. (Granted, there are exceptions, such as a mentally ill adult, but stick with me here). Frankly, it doesn’t matter how mature, intelligent, or publically voiced about making his own choices Abraham is, he is not eighteen yet. Therefore his PARENTS are the ones, in the eyes of the law, making this choice. This takes us back to number 1: the state must ensure that Abraham’s life is being cared for in a non-negligent manner. They CANNOT let this case stand on its own, because that will fundamentally destroy the rule of law. How would they therefore judge the next case? What if it’s a ten-year-old who has been indoctrinated by his parents, and whos life is in danger? Maybe he outspokenly WANTS to refrain from traditional medical treatment, like Abraham. The state has to use the rule of law.

Disclaimer: I’m not saying I think the state is justified in forcing Abraham to recieve chemotheraphy. I’m simply throwing some points out there that must be considered. It’s not as cut-and-dry as “parental rights” or “state vs. family”. As a last comment, I sure don’t envy the judge in this case. =P A hard, hard decision all around. God guide him.

]]>