Court Denies Teen’s Wish to Refuse Cancer Treatment

[Michelle420]

Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo.

because the state has custody

jesus! people at usmb get dumber very day

I think it's wrong of the state to take custody.

It's her body and should be her choice, if they are going to allow her to make body choices in other instances.

I am not going to convince you otherwise and you won't convince me.

When thread discussions start to be redundant, I jump out.

Have a nice discussion.

Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.

Which I already stated I disagreed with the state doing that.

We just disagree Dante.

We don't disagree. If I put in another case of child abuse -- where the medical pros asked the state to step in, you'd agree. Say a child does not want to have the state step in?

What you disagree with is the ruling. You cannot disagree with the right and duty of the state to step in when medical people ask them to -- or do you? Would you take away the laws that protect children or would you try and revamp them?

See?

She is not a child, she is 17 and in less than a year will be a legal adult.

Laws are definitely shaped by the emotions and mental state of a society.

Do I think she should get medical treatment personally? Of course!

Do I think she should have the right to decide that for her own body, yes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

because the state has custody

jesus! people at usmb get dumber very day

I think it's wrong of the state to take custody.

It's her body and should be her choice, if they are going to allow her to make body choices in other instances.

I am not going to convince you otherwise and you won't convince me.

When thread discussions start to be redundant, I jump out.

Have a nice discussion.

Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.

Which I already stated I disagreed with the state doing that.

We just disagree Dante.

We don't disagree. If I put in another case of child abuse -- where the medical pros asked the state to step in, you'd agree. Say a child does not want to have the state step in?

What you disagree with is the ruling. You cannot disagree with the right and duty of the state to step in when medical people ask them to -- or do you? Would you take away the laws that protect children or would you try and revamp them?

See?

She is not a child, she is 17 and in less than a year will be a legal adult.

Laws are definitely shaped by the emotions and mental state of a society.

Do I think she should get medical treatment personally? Of course!

Do I think she should have the right to decide that for her own body, yes.

A 17 year old is a child under the law. Are you advocating making 17 year olds full adults? Why not 16 year olds, 15 year olds? It's a legitimate question(s).

I personally don't care if she kills herself. I don't know her. If I knew her I would do everything in my power to keep her in the medical system. My younger brother used alternative treatments (nutty ones), but that was after his cancer spread and all mainstream medicine was over. I thought he was a fool grasping at straws, but he was scared to let go and face the inevitability of death.

I think we have to keep children safe. We can change the definition or age of what constitutes children. Myself?

I think children are highly overrated.

edit: young adult versus children??????

 

[Michelle420]

And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules change to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

 

[Michelle420]

I think it's wrong of the state to take custody.

It's her body and should be her choice, if they are going to allow her to make body choices in other instances.

I am not going to convince you otherwise and you won't convince me.

When thread discussions start to be redundant, I jump out.

Have a nice discussion.

Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.

Which I already stated I disagreed with the state doing that.

We just disagree Dante.

We don't disagree. If I put in another case of child abuse -- where the medical pros asked the state to step in, you'd agree. Say a child does not want to have the state step in?

What you disagree with is the ruling. You cannot disagree with the right and duty of the state to step in when medical people ask them to -- or do you? Would you take away the laws that protect children or would you try and revamp them?

See?

She is not a child, she is 17 and in less than a year will be a legal adult.

Laws are definitely shaped by the emotions and mental state of a society.

Do I think she should get medical treatment personally? Of course!

Do I think she should have the right to decide that for her own body, yes.

A 17 year old is a child under the law. Are you advocating making 17 year olds full adults? Why not 16 year olds, 15 year olds? It's a legitimate question(s).

I personally don't care if she kills herself. I don't know her. If I knew her I would do everything in my power to keep her in the medical system. My younger brother used alternative treatments (nutty ones), but that was after his cancer spread and all mainstream medicine was over. I thought he was a fool grasping at straws, but he was scared to let go and face the inevitability of death.

I think we have to keep children safe. We can change the definition or age of what constitutes children. Myself?

I think children are highly overrated.

edit: young adult versus children??????

I think families should have the right to choose their medical treatment.

As in the previous case I posted from 2003 where they told the family the chemo would leave the son sterile if he survived at all. They refused treatment and 9 yrs later he is still living.

I am sorry you don't like children.

Your brother wanted to live and he did everything he could think of to try, if I could hug him I would and hold his hand and encourage him through his transition, love him and try to take away his fear.

Each person gets to decide how they want to be handled, treated and what kind of treatments they want that are available to them.

I care about everybody, I hope she changes her mind and decides to get treatment, it has a high success rate.

But it should be up to her its my opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

 

[Michelle420]

And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

I would make itso whoever had the legal right to have an abortion could also make their own medical choices.

 

[Michelle420]

And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

 

[Michelle420]

PS. Dante, life is emotional that's why we are born crying

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.

Which I already stated I disagreed with the state doing that.

We just disagree Dante.

We don't disagree. If I put in another case of child abuse -- where the medical pros asked the state to step in, you'd agree. Say a child does not want to have the state step in?

What you disagree with is the ruling. You cannot disagree with the right and duty of the state to step in when medical people ask them to -- or do you? Would you take away the laws that protect children or would you try and revamp them?

See?

She is not a child, she is 17 and in less than a year will be a legal adult.

Laws are definitely shaped by the emotions and mental state of a society.

Do I think she should get medical treatment personally? Of course!

Do I think she should have the right to decide that for her own body, yes.

A 17 year old is a child under the law. Are you advocating making 17 year olds full adults? Why not 16 year olds, 15 year olds? It's a legitimate question(s).

I personally don't care if she kills herself. I don't know her. If I knew her I would do everything in my power to keep her in the medical system. My younger brother used alternative treatments (nutty ones), but that was after his cancer spread and all mainstream medicine was over. I thought he was a fool grasping at straws, but he was scared to let go and face the inevitability of death.

I think we have to keep children safe. We can change the definition or age of what constitutes children. Myself?

I think children are highly overrated.

edit: young adult versus children??????

I think families should have the right to choose their medical treatment.

As in the previous case I posted from 2003 where they told the family the chemo would leave the son sterile if he survived at all. They refused treatment and 9 yrs later he is still living.

I am sorry you don't like children.

Your brother wanted to live and he did everything he could think of to try, if I could hug him I would and hold his hand and encourage him through his transition, love him and try to take away his fear.

Each person gets to decide how they want to be handled, treated and what kind of treatments they want that are available to them.

I care about everybody, I hope she changes her mind and decides to get treatment, it has a high success rate.

But it should be up to her its my opinion.

Thinking "families should have the right to choose their medical treatment" is a simple statement. I can change how most would agree with that simple statement by adding variables like -- the family believes in voodoo or blood letting, or starvation as a way to treat cancer. People will say none are recognized as medical treatments by who -- the medical profession. Others will claim they are alternative treatments or religious rites. We balance things in law. Things get treated differently.

I just think children are overrated. They are.

anecdotal medical recovery stories without the data are silly when discussing reality. I faced death a few times. My brother spoke with me about a few things. I pulled no punches. I felt a twinge of guilt but believe honesty is best,

If Dante were king -- he'd decriminalize much and probably regret much of it later because of the law of unintended consequences. I would lower the age of full adulthood (contract etc) to 17/18 because if those kids can fight our wars...

I know most f my personal choices would ruin society. we all need each other

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

I would make itso whoever had the legal right to have an abortion could also make their own medical choices.

based on what, feelings?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.

You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children

 

[Michelle420]

Which I already stated I disagreed with the state doing that.

We just disagree Dante.

We don't disagree. If I put in another case of child abuse -- where the medical pros asked the state to step in, you'd agree. Say a child does not want to have the state step in?

What you disagree with is the ruling. You cannot disagree with the right and duty of the state to step in when medical people ask them to -- or do you? Would you take away the laws that protect children or would you try and revamp them?

See?

She is not a child, she is 17 and in less than a year will be a legal adult.

Laws are definitely shaped by the emotions and mental state of a society.

Do I think she should get medical treatment personally? Of course!

Do I think she should have the right to decide that for her own body, yes.

A 17 year old is a child under the law. Are you advocating making 17 year olds full adults? Why not 16 year olds, 15 year olds? It's a legitimate question(s).

I personally don't care if she kills herself. I don't know her. If I knew her I would do everything in my power to keep her in the medical system. My younger brother used alternative treatments (nutty ones), but that was after his cancer spread and all mainstream medicine was over. I thought he was a fool grasping at straws, but he was scared to let go and face the inevitability of death.

I think we have to keep children safe. We can change the definition or age of what constitutes children. Myself?

I think children are highly overrated.

edit: young adult versus children??????

I think families should have the right to choose their medical treatment.

As in the previous case I posted from 2003 where they told the family the chemo would leave the son sterile if he survived at all. They refused treatment and 9 yrs later he is still living.

I am sorry you don't like children.

Your brother wanted to live and he did everything he could think of to try, if I could hug him I would and hold his hand and encourage him through his transition, love him and try to take away his fear.

Each person gets to decide how they want to be handled, treated and what kind of treatments they want that are available to them.

I care about everybody, I hope she changes her mind and decides to get treatment, it has a high success rate.

But it should be up to her its my opinion.

Thinking "families should have the right to choose their medical treatment" is a simple statement. I can change how most would agree with that simple statement by adding variables like -- the family believes in voodoo or blood letting, or starvation as a way to treat cancer. People will say none are recognized as medical treatments by who -- the medical profession. Others will claim they are alternative treatments or religious rites. We balance things in law. Things get treated differently.

I just think children are overrated. They are.

anecdotal medical recovery stories without the data are silly when discussing reality. I faced death a few times. My brother spoke with me about a few things. I pulled no punches. I felt a twinge of guilt but believe honesty is best,

If Dante were king -- he'd decriminalize much and probably regret much of it later because of the law of unintended consequences. I would lower the age of full adulthood (contract etc) to 17/18 because if those kids can fight our wars...

I know most f my personal choices would ruin society. we all need each other

I faced death only once in a violent attack, but as you know I faced 3 family deaths in 2013, and it was pretty traumatizing for me, most especially my sister's suicide.

Perhaps I am wrong and if i am then I hope that I become enlightened because I can't fake agreeing about things.

I have to understand things that make sense enough to me in order to shift my opinions.

Take care King Dante ( Yikes) thank goodness we don't have monarchies here....

 

[Gracie]

This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

 

[Michelle420]

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.

You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children

I said I would lower to the age that is able to decide medical procedures for themselves like an abortion. Whatever age that is and I would make the law be they can make decisions for themself.

 

[Gracie]

Not really, if someone is mature enough to decide a medical procedure in one instance why not the other?

Also you wouldn't argue at all if she was 18, then your tune would be it's ok for her to refuse treatment, why? Because the law allows legal adults the right to refuse medical treatment.

So if the law says something that must make it ok.

Laws are socially constructed rules that reflect societies group think and as the group mind changes laws will often change to accommodate it. Look at interracial marriage for example.

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.

You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children

Children, yes. IF the parent refuses to get medical help for that child. This girl is 17 years old. Were YOU a "child" at 17?

 

[Michelle420]

This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

They have done terrible experiments and testing on prisoners in history, I could see them stealing a kidney.

 

[Gracie]

This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

They have done terrible experiments and testing on prisoners in history, I could see them stealing a kidney.

It's only a matter of time. Once the government starts owning a body...everyone needs to start worrying. And it is starting with this 17 year old girl AND her mother NOT wanting chemo but being forced to have it done.

Bet a shitload of folks here saying its all AOK would change their tune if the government decided alcohol was bad and therefore no more drinking because they may need a body part that is healthy. No more football, because it's too dangerous to the body. No more skiing. No more racing. No more sky diving. You get the drift.

Once our bodies are owned...we are fucked. Just remember that when it gets there.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

They have done terrible experiments and testing on prisoners in history, I could see them stealing a kidney.

It's only a matter of time. Once the government starts owning a body...

Jesus Christ you're dense. We've always had wards of the state. Take your meds and go to bed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.

You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children

Children, yes. IF the parent refuses to get medical help for that child. This girl is 17 years old. Were YOU a "child" at 17?

legally? It was mixed. 16 years old one thing, 17 another.

I was also capable of avoiding fruitcakes hawking alternative voodoo