- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:34 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
no, I am defending the position that government simply needs to stay itself out of parental decision-making.
All parental decision making?
0
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Non sequitor
I am the only person on this thread posting in favor of limited government,
People who support limited government are not obligated to look the other way for child abuse no matter how badly you want to act as if they are.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:35 pm to hogcard1964
quote:we have had more than enough abortion threads, and I am not going to derail this one other than to say that I define limited government as keeping government out of a woman’s reproductive decisions.
I love liberals that espouse for limited government, but insist on allowing women to kill and/or harm their very own children.
Apparently, you define limited government as allowing government to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. I find that definition odd.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:35 pm to AggieHank86
Bad decision.
That is what you argue this is.
That is all this is in your mind, a bad parental decision, but totally okay.
You're broken.
That is what you argue this is.
That is all this is in your mind, a bad parental decision, but totally okay.
You're broken.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:36 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
no, I am defending the position that government simply needs to stay itself out of parental decision-making.
Not always, because you already admitted that the state should get involved when it comes to clitorectomies on young females. You want a line drawn, like we all do, but you want it drawn on the other side of chemically castrating a seven year old boy. You are defending the legal system allowing this action on young child, and you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of favoring the "nanny state".
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:36 pm to MeatCleaverWeaver
quote:
There are very few things I’d go to prison for the rest of my life for. This qualifies.
The kid would likely be better off with the dad in jail and mom dead than growing up a tranny in that psycho mothers home
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:36 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Giving parents TOTAL control over their children will allow some pretty grotesque things.
I mean hell. I'm a pretty bright guy.
Had I been sufficiently evil or insane, I could have EASILY gotten my children to "want" almost anything I wished them to want at that age.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I am the only person on this thread posting in favor of limited government
There's a big difference between "keep the government out of my bedroom" and "Keep Johnny 7 year old's mom from turning him into Janie 7 year old."
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I am the only person on this thread posting in favor of limited government,
And again, you're failing to grasp the meaning of the word "limited".
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:37 pm to AggieHank86
No tangent allowed.
Explain how forced chemical castration and intensely programmed sexual emotional abuse of an extreme minor by a parent is "just a bad decision".
Explain how forced chemical castration and intensely programmed sexual emotional abuse of an extreme minor by a parent is "just a bad decision".
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:39 pm to SSpaniel
quote:Hank has to pretend that this is merely just another decision parents make while completely ignoring the OBVIOUS abusive aspects of it.
There's a big difference between "keep the government out of my bedroom" and "Keep Johnny 7 year old's mom from turning him into Janie 7 year old."
That's because he and other liberals realize how fricking horrid this is for their cause politically.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:40 pm to shinerfan
quote:
And again, you're failing to grasp the meaning of the word "limited".
Yeah.
Standard liberals silliness. Pretend "limited" means "anarchist".
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:40 pm to ShortyRob
I want him to explain how this is "just a bad decision" and should not be regulated by the state, like other criminal activities are.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:41 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Well. You know. We should allow a 17 year old to get a boob job, so, it's basically the same!
I want him to explain how this is "just a bad decision" and should not be regulated by the state, like other criminal activities are.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:bullshite
I did not raise any of the issues that you discuss. I simply responded to other posters who did raise them.
You just did it AGAIN right here:
quote:And you wonder why people call you "sick.
First, I am not aware of any taxes or federal law which would prohibit such a procedure. You said something about FDA. You are correct, in that the FDA does not approve that device for use at that age. That does not prohibit anyone from using it, it simply has certain statutory and regulatory implications. Under current law, no doctor is going to be sent for to jail if he were to give breast implants to a seven-year-old.
Second, I think it is an extraordinarily bad idea to put breast implants in a seven-year-old. it is one of many thousands of things that I think are a bad idea, but that I do not believe should be prohibited through the coercive power of government .
Third, I do not think that the government has any business whatsoever prohibiting a parent from giving consent to the ridiculously bad idea of consenting to a breast implant procedure for her 7-year-old … regardless of how bad an idea I think that procedure would be. AGAIN, The occasional bad decision by a parent is not adequate to justify a broader regimen of governmental interference in people’s lives.
You're sick and an imbecile.
"If you think the government should step in and stop a parent from allowing their 7 year old to get breast implants, then you're a pro-nanny state anti-limited government prick!"
That's beyond asinine.
You can't sit here and say you don't like it and it's an extraordinarily bad idea, but then say but it's okay if the parent consents and the government shouldn't intervene.
There are different levels of bad ideas, and child abuse of this sort is absolutely one where someone with authority MUST step in and prevent a clearly mentally compromised parent from making harmful decisions with regards to their children.
This is common sense shite, man. And you are yet again spinning in veiled excuses and defenses for the people who are harming young children.
Get frick, nutbag.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:47 pm to ShortyRob
Joseph Mengeles' atrocities actually contributed to scientific knowledge. The doctors involved in these current atrocities have nothing to show for it but horror and misery. It's not easy to surpass Mengele in sheer evil so . . .congratulations?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:50 pm to BeefDawg
Make him explain why this is "just a bad decision and nothing more".
Soon his friend dbagbuckeye will be along to pick up the mantle for another 20 pages after hank taps out after losing YET ANOTHER argument. Dbagbuckeye will hang on playing semantic games and never "taking a position" until the thread is ultimately anchored. He's prolly just waiting and crafting his opening drive-by hook.
Its like I have a fricking crystal ball.
Soon his friend dbagbuckeye will be along to pick up the mantle for another 20 pages after hank taps out after losing YET ANOTHER argument. Dbagbuckeye will hang on playing semantic games and never "taking a position" until the thread is ultimately anchored. He's prolly just waiting and crafting his opening drive-by hook.
Its like I have a fricking crystal ball.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:51 pm to ShortyRob
Am I the only one who finds the most terrifying aspect of this story to be the fact that there are presumably licensed medical doctors, staff, and facilities willing to go forward with performing these types of procedures on SEVEN YEAR OLDS?
Sick people have been able to give birth to children for eons. For nearly as long, civilized society (not even necessarily “The State”, but yeah them too) have been able to step forward to limit or at least not outright enable what harm their sickness can cause.
I guess this is what crossing the Rubicon looks like.
Sick people have been able to give birth to children for eons. For nearly as long, civilized society (not even necessarily “The State”, but yeah them too) have been able to step forward to limit or at least not outright enable what harm their sickness can cause.
I guess this is what crossing the Rubicon looks like.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:51 pm to Azkiger
quote:The problem is that even authoritarians who want to give government control over every element of your life cannot conceivably manage to legislate everything. so, do you try to do so anyway, or do you trust the parents to make the correct decisions the vast majority of the time?quote:How far does this go? ... Is there no line? So long as parents and child consent its given a green light?
I do not think that the government has any business whatsoever prohibiting a parent from giving consent to the ridiculously bad idea of consenting to a breast implant procedure for her 7-year-old … regardless of how bad an idea I think that procedure would be. AGAIN, The occasional bad decision by a parent is not adequate to justify a broader regimen of governmental interference in people’s lives.
At some point I feel a line needs to be drawn. ... I get that you're pushing against government interference in people's lives but hopefully you do agree that there needs to be some sort of line drawn in the sand.
There will always be instances (such as this Younger case) in which the two parents are not in agreement regarding the proper course of action. THERE we find a legitimate role for the judicial system, in resolving such conflicts. This judge fulfilled that role. we (and that includes Hank) can certainly disagree with the Court’s decision, without overreacting by implementing a broader statutory regime which deprives parents of the right to make decisions for their children.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:52 pm to ShortyRob
I followed this thread yesterday. Today it has doubled in size. Not going to read all that. However I see a lot of conflict here.
Since I know what is right and wrong let me tell you.
The mother should have her medical lic. removed.
The mother should be put in a mental hospital to see if she can be fixed.
If fixed (or not) she should do time in jail for child abuse.
The judge should face the same fate.
The father should be given full custody.
The father should be told to not go through with his thoughts about killing the mother. But only because she has been dealt with legally.
The father should receive counseling pad for by the judge, to make sure he understands that his thoughts of murdering his ex were both normal and justified.
The father should receive counseling pad for by the judge, to make sure he understands that his thoughts of murdering the judge were both normal and justified.
Steps should be taken to make sure that his method of murder were going to be humane.
Never mind, scratch that last one.
I hope this clears up what s right and wrong in this case.
Since I know what is right and wrong let me tell you.
The mother should have her medical lic. removed.
The mother should be put in a mental hospital to see if she can be fixed.
If fixed (or not) she should do time in jail for child abuse.
The judge should face the same fate.
The father should be given full custody.
The father should be told to not go through with his thoughts about killing the mother. But only because she has been dealt with legally.
The father should receive counseling pad for by the judge, to make sure he understands that his thoughts of murdering his ex were both normal and justified.
The father should receive counseling pad for by the judge, to make sure he understands that his thoughts of murdering the judge were both normal and justified.
Steps should be taken to make sure that his method of murder were going to be humane.
Never mind, scratch that last one.
I hope this clears up what s right and wrong in this case.
Page 19 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News