Trump Offers to Help White Toddler on Life Support as Catholic Church Splits on Issue

A European death panel has ruled that baby Charlie Gard must die.

President Trump and Pope Francis say NO!

Excerpt from The Atlantic

Charlie Gard was born with a rare genetic condition and has suffered from brain damage and loss of muscle function. After British doctors advised his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, that they should end life support for the terminally ill 10-month-old, they raised nearly 2 million dollars to transfer Charlie to the U.S. for experimental treatment. But three separate British courts intervened, siding with medical specialists who said that further prolonging treatment would cause the baby “significant harm.” In June, the European Court of Human Rights weighed in on the parents’ final appeal. They lost. Charlie would be taken off of life support.

Since then, the global reaction has been chaotic, with leaders from the pope to the president of the United States weighing in on the case.

Europeans have an amazingly unbelievable tolerance toward despotism. It’s a right under natural law for people to try to save the life of their child.

Little Charlie Gard is no more useless than the mud parasites that the governments of Europe are importing in the name of “inclusion.”

Why is it not possible to include a small white boy, even if it turns out that he too ends up a parasite.

First, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life issued a statement, seeming to side with the European courts. “We must also accept the limits of medicine and … avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family,” wrote Vincenzo Paglia, the body’s president. While people should never deliberately end a human life, he added, sometimes “we … have to recognize the limitations of what can be done.”

Then the pope weighed in—and said almost exactly the opposite. Francis “is following with affection and sadness the case of little Charlie Gard and expresses his closeness to his parents,” a Vatican press office statement said. “For this he prays that their wish to accompany and treat their child until the end is not neglected.”

On Monday, President Trump added his support with a tweet supporting Charlie and his family.

I don’t trust the Pope’s sincerity since Ann Barnhardt has revealed his diabolical narcissism, typical of the sodomite. However, the move by Trump is exactly what you would expect.

Recall that Trump has been on Twitter since 2009. He has a long record of weighing in on all sorts of issues. He also is known for his concern for doing the right thing.

Charlie’s case touches on some of the most sensitive moral and political questions about the role of the state at the end of life. The decisions of the European courts represented the final word on whether Charlie’s parents could pursue treatment in the U.S., and after the ruling, Yates and Gard claimed the hospital had denied permission for them to take Charlie back to their home to die. Yates and Gard have framed the medical dispute as “Charlie’s fight,” developing a large social-media following as they chronicled their effort to pursue further treatment for their son. The case also has religious dimensions: On their instagram page, Yates and Gard documented their celebration of their son’s baptism and showed him clutching a pendant of St. Jude, the Catholic figure most often associated with hospitals and medical care. Media in the U.K. have followed the Gard family’s case closely and the court orders to end Charlie’s life have been fiercely criticized by conservatives in the U.S. and abroad.

2 thoughts on “Trump Offers to Help White Toddler on Life Support as Catholic Church Splits on Issue

  1. Of course, doing the right thing is difficult for the Catholic Church and cucked Brit government. For President Trump it is second nature.

  2. “But three separate British courts intervened, siding with medical specialists who said that further prolonging treatment would cause the baby “significant harm.””

    If this argument is already law, then euthanasia is legal. One could argue that force feeding an elderly person is “significant harm”. So anyone that cannot feed themselves, including cripples and elderly, Alzheimer’s etc., must be allowed to die. Or killed – because starving someone also is “significant harm”.
    A lot of young healthy Coons could be fed and housed with the money saved by killing off all the terminally sick white people. Hitler tried it, but never had the brilliant idea of “saving people from “significant harm””.

    I agree the State should not spend millions, or tens of millions, on one baby that will never survive to adulthood. However, if the parents have the money they should have the right to care for the child themselves or pay for procedures in another country.

    In the West, there is much too much sympathy and focus on saving the weak – and not enough on helping the strong. In fact, many of the strong are despised and weeded out, aborted, never born, diagnosed and put on pills, or sent to war to be killed. The most educated women have no or very few babies. The weak, stupidest, and darkest skins are breeding like mice but with a very low death rate thanks to altruistic white medicine and white charity chumps and white taxpayers.

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s