The government shares some of that responsibility for obvious reasons.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Everyone who jumps into bed with the #resist crowd should know they support the state taking away your kid to give them life-altering surgery and drugs.

_________________

Wont be long until the state starts forcing young boys to mutilate themselves.

We've talked a lot over the years and I'm gonna guess you and I have close to the same opinion on this issue. Maybe not, though.

My view is that government interference into families should be minimal. Don't beat or starve your kids. Beyond that, I think parents should have a whole lot of leeway. Because ultimately, if you aren't making the decisions for your kids, someone else is. And I don't think the government cares more about your kids than you do.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

A lot of the leeway goes away in the name of protecting the kids and for the common good etc.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Under what authority do doctors have the power to order anyone to do anything?

_________________

This seems like a dumb argument.

18 is the federal age for adult shit. You can’t change your goddamn gender until you are an adult because ya know, it’s a pretty big fucking deal. But somehow this is controversial in 2018.

Our legal system is fucked.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Shut the fuck and get in line. Brick had spoken “clearly”.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

"Doctor's orders", take it easy. I didn't want to type prescribe over and over, put your thing away. But, if you want to get technical about it counsel, that Doctor's prescription was literally the gate to these people keeping custody of their child, on the authority of a judge, however informal it may be.

JLN’s post scares me. It could be real.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Did the parents retain their own expert?

_________________

On a whole bunch of fronts: Come on .

Did they?

_________________

Do you really think I have the testimony from a custody proceeding in...anywhere? That's one of the "come on" points.

Also, and you shouldn't need to be told this by the way, "justice" shouldn't be predicated on your ability to pay for things. Should it?

I figured you might seeing as you demand laser-focused precision from others for even the most innocuous of points.

Also, feel free to point out where I said anything about this ruling being just.

_________________

I don't want my kids to get tattoos, piercings, or those ear tunnel things.

What does this have to do with expert testimony from a custody proceeding?

_________________

18 is the federal age for some adult decisions.

As the judge said the feds need to make 18 the legal age for hormone therapy if they think that is the best age. These parents were overriding currently accepted medical treatment as prescribed by the doctor they chose because of religious reasons of the parents.

I don't think it's a good idea for non adults either but there are processes for stopping kids from things and it's not a judge going against accepted medical advice because a church told the parents no.

As I said, the parents should have argued about the medical efficiency and ethics of this. They still may have lost but it's certainly better than the case they made which was that God made you this way but didn't make the hormone therapy that can change you so you can't do it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It shouldn't matter their reasoning. If they are legally responsible for the kid until 18, then they reserve the right to make any decision regarding the child for any reason they want (unless it puts the kid's life or well-being in danger).

Even if it's stupid.

_________________

I don't disagree.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Completely agree.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Correct. The religion has nothing to do with it, no matter how much Boilermaker wants to make it an issue.

That's the point though. The idea is that the hormone treatment is to help the well being of a child who was depressed because of gender dysphoria. It's not like the kid was mad they couldn't go to a concert. This is why it should have been argued that the treatment was wrong for the well being if the child.

Going back to the blood transfusion example, imagine a 17 year old needed a hip replacement and the parents refused based on religious reasons of blood transfer. The kid, while not in a life threatening situation is dealing with a lot of pain. Do the parents religious rights trump the religious rights of the child and the desire of the 17 year old to attempt to help themselves with a medical condition? I think you'd see the same result you saw here.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It clearly has something to do with it since it was used heavily by the parents. How do you not get that?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Talking to you is difficult. Your reasoning on this is very poor, and yet you act like others are the ones who don't "get it."

The religious motivations should have nothing to do with who is right. The question is whether parents can decide what a sub-18-year-old can or can't do. Again, if your opinion of whether parents have that right changes based on whether or not it is a religious viewpoint, you are being wildly inconsistent and discriminatory. What even constitutes a religious view? Who defines that?

Tell that to the parents who argued it in court. I can't be clearer. This should have been whether the treatment was medically sound and ethical and needed. It wasn't so they lost.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I agree that you are clear, partially because it is possible to be both clear and wrong.

Hey Spiral, you going to indignantly ask BRick about reading the testimony from this proceeding, ya jerk?

It's in the link.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!