- 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: Supreme Court rejects appeal from parents who lost custody of trans teen
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:36 pm to Bard
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:36 pm to Bard
quote:
It's not that what the family believes is dangerous to the child. Your attempt at comparison fails because it relies on trying to equate what has happened to an extreme exaggeration. No child is dying from frostbite (nor any other condition) due to being taught that there are only two genders.
You seem to have missed the point about the need to address the kid’s severe eating disorder. The devil is in the details, but if this is true then my comparison is right on the mark.
If they are conjuring up an eating disorder to cover their real reason then okay, but that’s not their usual style.
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 12:38 pm
0
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:40 pm to blueboy
quote:
The state said the parents, who are self-described devout Christians, lost custody not because of their views but because of the medical necessity of addressing the teen’s severe eating disorder.
Headline is misleading
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:43 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:were they starving the kid? or was the mentally ill starving themselves, because the parents didnt want to be mentally ill with them?
you can't let your kid starve themselves no matter what church you go to.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:03 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
ere they starving the kid? or was the mentally ill starving themselves, because the parents didnt want to be mentally ill with them?
Do parents have an obligation to seek medical help for a child with anorexia regardless of the reason is the question that need to be addressed.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:16 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:Did they not? or did the mentally ill refuse and only want their sex changed?
Do parents have an obligation to seek medical help for a child with anorexia regardless of the reason is the question that need to be addressed.
lots of details the sides are leaving out.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:21 pm to blueboy
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:37 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
Did they not? or did the mentally ill refuse and only want their sex changed?
lots of details the sides are leaving out.
Link to the parent court petition
LINK
It does look like they were seeking professional help to address their child's mental health issues.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 3:54 pm to Penrod
quote:
children should be left outside overnight in freezing weather
quote:totally the same
should be raised based on their sex at birth
Posted on 3/18/24 at 4:06 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
it. If this was one of those cases where the parents were refusing to allow for gender affirming "care" and the state was taking the child it would be easier to make a judgement call against the state imo... but the concern seems to be that the child is suffering from a severe eating disorder so what should the state do?
So... is 16 yo miraculously eating or is the state goi g to allow the tranny process to proceed at taxpayer expense
Posted on 3/18/24 at 4:09 pm to Penrod
quote:
It has nothing to do with that. If I belong to a cult that believes children should be left outside overnight in freezing weather the state will confiscate my children. If I don't belong to a cult, but I leave my kids out in freezing weather, the state will also confiscate my kids. It has nothing to do with religion.
This might very well be the dumbest thing ever posted on this board. You actually came up with a comparison completely and totally different from what this case is about.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 4:10 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
the concern seems to be that the child is suffering from a severe eating disorder so what should the state do?
The state is lying. SCOTUS just gave them the playbook to take your kids against your will. Just say they have an eating disorder.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 4:12 pm to imjustafatkid
I believe this was the state Supreme Court, not the SCOTUS.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 4:13 pm to Datbawwwww
quote:
I believe this was the state Supreme Court, not the SCOTUS.
Oh good. Then maybe there is still hope. I missed that in the OP.
ETA: Nope, this appears to be SCOTUS.
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 3/18/24 at 4:22 pm to imjustafatkid
Sorry, I misunderstood! Now I feel like you! That is a very disturbing situation! SAD!
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:16 pm to imjustafatkid
The Indiana Supreme Court declined to take up this case. This doesn't involve the U.S. Supreme Court or ACB.
The article states this towards the end of the article.
The article states this towards the end of the article.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:20 pm to LSU28605
quote:
The Indiana Supreme Court declined to take up this case. This doesn't involve the U.S. Supreme Court or ACB.
The article states this towards the end of the article.
This was the appeal to SCOTUS after going through the state courts. The article even links to the SCOTUS filing. LINK
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:20 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The Indiana Supreme Court declined to take up this case. This doesn't involve the U.S. Supreme Court or ACB.
The article states this towards the end of the article.
The OP knew what he was doing when he made the misleading subject line
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:24 pm to wareagle7298
quote:
The OP knew what he was doing when he made the misleading subject line
It's not misleading. This was SCOTUS.
ETA: For anyone else who wants to come in here and say this was the Indiana Supreme Court, just do a web search for "SCOTUS Indiana trans" and you will instantly find that you are incorrect.
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:30 pm to cwill
Cwill celebrating the state taking a child from their parents. What a shock.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:38 pm to imjustafatkid
You're right. The article didn't specify that it was referring to the U.S. Supreme Court once. It did say towards the end that: "The Indiana Court of Appeals sided with the state, and the Indiana Supreme Court declined to review the case", which is what confused me. 
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News