當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
社會有責任確保其成員的生存權利不會受到任何人侵犯。
條友成日講人權
最無人權先係佢
當正子女係父母財產
玩撚死佢都係應份無責任
最封建思維就係佢
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
社會有責任確保其成員的生存權利不會受到任何人侵犯。
條友成日講人權
最無人權先係佢
當正子女係父母財產
玩撚死佢都係應份無責任
最封建思維就係佢
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
社會有責任確保其成員的生存權利不會受到任何人侵犯。
最好搵返死者亡靈對質，
睇下佢想唔想告過父母。
JOE2017
如果你有病
你會點解決呢？
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
社會有責任確保其成員的生存權利不會受到任何人侵犯。
最好搵返死者亡靈對質，
睇下佢想唔想告過父母。
JOE2017
如果你有病
你會點解決呢？
睇乜病
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
社會有責任確保其成員的生存權利不會受到任何人侵犯。
最好搵返死者亡靈對質，
睇下佢想唔想告過父母。
From: wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights#Limitations_of_parental_powers
Limitations of parental powers
Parents do not have absolute power over their children. Parents are subject to criminal laws against abandonment, abuse, and neglect of children. International human rights law provides that manifestation of one's religion may be limited in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[19][38]
Courts have placed other limits on parental powers and acts. The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, ruled that a parent's religion does not permit a child to be placed at risk.[39] The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ruled, in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and another, that parental rights diminish with the increasing age and competency of the child, but do not vanish completely until the child reaches majority. Parental rights are derived from the parent's duties to the child. In the absence of duty, no parental right exists.[40][41] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in the case of E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, that parents may not grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic sterilization.[42] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, in the case of B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto:
"While children undeniably benefit from the Charter, most notably in its protection of their rights to life and to the security of their person, they are unable to assert these rights, and our society accordingly presumes that parents will exercise their freedom of choice in a manner that does not offend the rights of their children."[43]
Adler (2013) argues that parents are not empowered to grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of children.[41]
JOE2017
如果你有病
你會點解決呢？
睇乜病
1. 感冒
2. 末期癌症
3. 盲腸炎
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
當然係父母，但係面對醫療問題，我會信專業判斷
呢一點係冇野可以爭論，你話我盲信權威都好
呢個你口中既所謂權威係呢1, 2百年嚴謹驗證，差唔多每一個療法，每一種藥物都係有大量數據同理論支持
大人 on9 自己死自己事，但係小朋友冇權決定，因為父母 on9 而令到小朋友出事，我係覺得有罪
同埋唔打疫苗都係一樣
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
社會有責任確保其成員的生存權利不會受到任何人侵犯。
最好搵返死者亡靈對質，
睇下佢想唔想告過父母。
From: wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights#Limitations_of_parental_powers
Limitations of parental powers
Parents do not have absolute power over their children. Parents are subject to criminal laws against abandonment, abuse, and neglect of children. International human rights law provides that manifestation of one's religion may be limited in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[19][38]
Courts have placed other limits on parental powers and acts. The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, ruled that a parent's religion does not permit a child to be placed at risk.[39] The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ruled, in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and another, that parental rights diminish with the increasing age and competency of the child, but do not vanish completely until the child reaches majority. Parental rights are derived from the parent's duties to the child. In the absence of duty, no parental right exists.[40][41] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in the case of E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, that parents may not grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic sterilization.[42] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, in the case of B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto:
"While children undeniably benefit from the Charter, most notably in its protection of their rights to life and to the security of their person, they are unable to assert these rights, and our society accordingly presumes that parents will exercise their freedom of choice in a manner that does not offend the rights of their children."[43]
Adler (2013) argues that parents are not empowered to grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of children.[41]
副作用係換黎出生率 < 1 per woman
JOE2017
如果你有病
你會點解決呢？
睇乜病
1. 感冒
2. 末期癌症
3. 盲腸炎
佢話自己認為現代醫學同自然療法可以並存架
即係佢叫人醫就自然療法，佢自己醫就西醫，都得既姐，同佢講既野冇衝突，並存
JOE2017
如果你有病
你會點解決呢？
睇乜病
1. 感冒
2. 末期癌症
3. 盲腸炎
佢話自己認為現代醫學同自然療法可以並存架
即係佢叫人醫就自然療法，佢自己醫就西醫，都得既姐，同佢講既野冇衝突，並存
當依家醫學界大方向係想未來 100-200 年後所有病都有得醫，例如
器官老化／衰竭：iPS cells, Synthetic Biomaterial for Regenerative Medicine
Cancer：killer T cells
遺傳病：CRISPR
而竟然仲有D傻鳩信飲鹼水改變身體 pH 去殺死癌細胞，其實真係幾可悲
另類治療唔只限呢些，還包中醫都係。
不過在人權上，其實信左飲鹼水改變身體ph值殺cancer死左，父母堅信搞到孩子出事，都唔應該blame the victim。
班友唔講人權，我叫佢返 isis 好過。
點解父母有權決定子女生死
問你
人家孩子，是由父母生，定由社會生？
當然係父母，但係面對醫療問題，我會信專業判斷
呢一點係冇野可以爭論，你話我盲信權威都好
呢個你口中既所謂權威係呢1, 2百年嚴謹驗證，差唔多每一個療法，每一種藥物都係有大量數據同理論支持
大人 on9 自己死自己事，但係小朋友冇權決定，因為父母 on9 而令到小朋友出事，我係覺得有罪
同埋唔打疫苗都係一樣
正確，爭論點係呢度
父母人權 vs 子女人權
joe哥上面講iPs cell喎
知唔知iPS cell同embryonic stem cell有咩分別呀
知唔知點樣做到iPS呀？
知唔知咩係Hek293 點解會有293呀？
知唔知CRISPR/Cas9係點發現呀？
知唔知咩係STAP cell呀？
全球排名前35嘅大學hon biochem jj留名
鬥學歷？
JOE2017
如果你有病
你會點解決呢？
睇乜病
1. 感冒
2. 末期癌症
3. 盲腸炎
佢話自己認為現代醫學同自然療法可以並存架
即係佢叫人醫就自然療法，佢自己醫就西醫，都得既姐，同佢講既野冇衝突，並存
中西醫合壁
joe哥上面講iPs cell喎
知唔知iPS cell同embryonic stem cell有咩分別呀
知唔知點樣做到iPS呀？
知唔知咩係Hek293 點解會有293呀？
知唔知CRISPR/Cas9係點發現呀？
知唔知咩係STAP cell呀？
全球排名前35嘅大學hon biochem jj留名
鬥學歷？
Joe2017 = 現實神化痴線佬