Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: court forces brain radiation on child


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: court forces brain radiation on child Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 10:58:50 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
On the internet everybody's a brain surgeon, sweetie.

(Even the dogs.)

< Message edited by Moonhead -- 12/27/2012 10:59:13 AM >


_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to susie)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 11:03:21 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
This is simple, the parent does not own the child so the mother's rights end at the child's nose. I.e. she does not get to make lethal decisions for someone else.


But a court does??

Where do you draw the line?

She has a legal responsibility to her child that she has in her custody.
That's what the law says.

This is simple, a parent has the responsibility to do the best possible for their child. A parent does not have the right to harm their child.

In this case the mother wanted to try woo that is known not to have any useful effect on brain cancers which would have resulted in the slow agonizing death of the child. The court intervened to save the life of the child.

Personally, having been raised by ignorant drunks who neglected my brothers and I to the point where we basically raised ourselves, I'd draw the line much farther in favor of the child than most people. Parents should be able to do no harm, physically, emotionally, intellectually or sexually, to their children. That means if parents beat their kids the courts should intervene. If parents demean their kids the courts should intervene. If parents limit a child's future due to the parents beliefs in untrue things the courts should intervene. If parents molest their kids the courts should intervene. A person who wants the responsibility to raise up a member of the next generation should know that society is keeping a watchful eye on the child(ren) in their care and will not tolerate harm of any kind done to those children.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 4:09:38 PM   
cordeliasub


Posts: 528
Joined: 11/4/2012
Status: offline
I did have my procedure as an adult. That being said, I did a LOT of reading, and yes, there are risks to both adults and children. Yes, the risk is slightly higher with children whose brains are still developing. There are also risks for having one's tonsils out, having vaccinations, and having a tooth removed. I understand that because it is the brain, it must be approached with even more caution. However, I am wondering what it says about our attitudes toward the disabled when we think death is better than cognitive impairment.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 9:01:46 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

quote:

quote:

As a collective of citizens banding together to secure liberty for themselves, and to perpetuate liberty for all citizens.

Apart from the ones who must die to protect somebody else's liberties, apparently.

Error. Apart from those who die. They aren't dying to protect somebody else's liberties. They die. And somebody else's liberties aren't infringed on to save them. Big difference.

So your whole argument about the court forcing the mother to have her daughter treated is erroneous, then? You've just contradicted yourself.


No, I've worded myself poorly in pointing out the error in your logic, a structural error that I'm fairly sure there's a formal name for (if not, there should be). The poor wording is underlined above. To clarify, when you said «[those] who must die to protect [...] liberties», the reply by me first points out that there's an error, then proceeds to show you where in your reasoning you swapped your erroneous invention for my position, by showing how it should've gone. To clarify further, the underlined part is explaining that, when people die, it isn't that they're dying to protect liberties, but rather that they are simply dying; and that, my position is, that one cannot infringe on the liberties of others for the purpose of saving those who happen to be dying.

Hopefully, you will find this clarification easier to follow.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 9:09:26 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

This is simple, the parent does not own the child so the mother's rights end at the child's nose. I.e. she does not get to make lethal decisions for someone else.


So, no attempt at answering the question of how and why you classify my position as absolutist, then.

Since I assume you're ceding the rest, let's deal with the above.

You're conflating a decision that is non-lifesaving with a decision to kill, first off. And second, the State most certainly does not own the child, nor does it own the mother, so does not get to butt in. And third, if you're going to apply the rule of thumb this literally, you might as well say others can't actually treat the child without its consent, nor take it away from its mother, which leaves it at one heavy influence that the child trusts in a position to effectively dictate what the child consents to, with medical personell then bound to adhere to that; never mind that some kids will simply balk at the prospect out of fear, and thus not consent even when the parents do.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 9:21:59 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

My diagnosis was a Grade 3 metastastic left frontal lobe tumor.


Makes perfect sense. And, yes, a different beast from the diagnosis in the case discussed in this thread.

quote:

I assume you are claiming I am wrong. In which case both of you, who obviously know much more about brain tumors than I do, will be happy to show the medical evidence and your medical qualifications on this subject.


I'm claiming you're wrong in attacking her for a loosely worded remark on the propensity for the relevant type and grade of brain cancer to recur, while doggedly pursuing the fact that it wasn't clear to you that her remarks were about a child. That's not a medical opinion. That's a simple observation that you're not being very constructive in your exchange with her on this thread.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to susie)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 9:35:31 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Personally, having been raised by ignorant drunks who neglected my brothers and I to the point where we basically raised ourselves, I'd draw the line much farther in favor of the child than most people.


Which makes you a good firsthand account, but a poor judge, both precisely due to your closeness to the subject matter and the bias that your history presumably and evidentially imparted, going by the nature of your comments on every subject I've seen concerning children and parenting. While it may be true that such intervention might prevent more instances of the damage that was done to you, this doesn't necessarily mean it would have prevented you, and even that wouldn't be worth the loss of liberty. Also, the notion you describe as your preferred alternative (in which every decent parent fees that society is watching them for any chance to take their child over a misstep, while the shitty parents still don't give a damn) is a nightmare that would leave more kids damaged, not less.

Do you know why Maslow chose to make his models based on healthy, successful and well adjusted people, rather than damaged ones?

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 9:57:32 PM   
littlewonder


Posts: 15659
Status: offline
The op is not only ill informed and delusional, her information is dangerous.

This isn't the first time she's made such remarks or even the second or third time.

Ya know, my dad died from a disease that they told him he would die from in 5 years. Amazingly he lived another 30 years.

And I had an x-ray when I was 8 months pregnant. My daughter to this day is healthier and fitter than many her own age and she has a high IQ. Yeah, they discourage x-rays for pregnant women BUT it will not retard your unborn child or make yourself ill if you have one or two.



_____________________________

Nothing has changed
Everything has changed

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 10:05:08 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

This is simple, the parent does not own the child so the mother's rights end at the child's nose. I.e. she does not get to make lethal decisions for someone else.


So, no attempt at answering the question of how and why you classify my position as absolutist, then.

Since I assume you're ceding the rest, let's deal with the above.

You're conflating a decision that is non-lifesaving with a decision to kill, first off. And second, the State most certainly does not own the child, nor does it own the mother, so does not get to butt in. And third, if you're going to apply the rule of thumb this literally, you might as well say others can't actually treat the child without its consent, nor take it away from its mother, which leaves it at one heavy influence that the child trusts in a position to effectively dictate what the child consents to, with medical personell then bound to adhere to that; never mind that some kids will simply balk at the prospect out of fear, and thus not consent even when the parents do.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


You are applying an absolutist doctrine in that you continually, subconsciously?, assume the parent has effective property rights over the child and that any "violation" of those "rights" impacts the liberty of the parent.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/27/2012 10:19:19 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Personally, having been raised by ignorant drunks who neglected my brothers and I to the point where we basically raised ourselves, I'd draw the line much farther in favor of the child than most people.


Which makes you a good firsthand account, but a poor judge, both precisely due to your closeness to the subject matter and the bias that your history presumably and evidentially imparted, going by the nature of your comments on every subject I've seen concerning children and parenting. While it may be true that such intervention might prevent more instances of the damage that was done to you, this doesn't necessarily mean it would have prevented you, and even that wouldn't be worth the loss of liberty. Also, the notion you describe as your preferred alternative (in which every decent parent fees that society is watching them for any chance to take their child over a misstep, while the shitty parents still don't give a damn) is a nightmare that would leave more kids damaged, not less.

Do you know why Maslow chose to make his models based on healthy, successful and well adjusted people, rather than damaged ones?

Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children.

Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself.

You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 5:46:24 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children.
Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself.
You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd.


Who owns a child, if not the parents?

Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control?

It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose."

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 3:35:17 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children.
Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself.
You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd.


Who owns a child, if not the parents?

Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control?

It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose."

I oppose anything that even hints at the parents exercising property rights over the child. That includes isolating the child as slave labor on a farm and unregulated homeschooling. I'm very concerned that even well regulated homeschooling is used to drastically limit a child's exposure to outside influences and is intended to curtail the possibility that the child will reject some aspect of the parent's beliefs.

You can do whatever you choose as long as it does not negatively effect anyone else, including minor children temporarily in your care.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 4:57:01 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children.
Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself.
You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd.

Who owns a child, if not the parents?
Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control?
It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose."

I oppose anything that even hints at the parents exercising property rights over the child. That includes isolating the child as slave labor on a farm and unregulated homeschooling. I'm very concerned that even well regulated homeschooling is used to drastically limit a child's exposure to outside influences and is intended to curtail the possibility that the child will reject some aspect of the parent's beliefs.
You can do whatever you choose as long as it does not negatively effect anyone else, including minor children temporarily in your care.


So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?"

Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 5:49:56 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually my life experience puts me in a better position to consider these matters. I do not assume parents will do what is best for their children. Also I do not assume parents own their children.
Again their is no loss of liberty when the state intervenes on behalf of the minor child against its parents. The assumption must be that the state acts on best available knowledge and that the minor child cannot make life defining decisions for itself.
You are apprently arguing from a standpoint that the parent's convenience is more important than the child's welfare which strikes me as simply absurd.

Who owns a child, if not the parents?
Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control?
It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose."

I oppose anything that even hints at the parents exercising property rights over the child. That includes isolating the child as slave labor on a farm and unregulated homeschooling. I'm very concerned that even well regulated homeschooling is used to drastically limit a child's exposure to outside influences and is intended to curtail the possibility that the child will reject some aspect of the parent's beliefs.
You can do whatever you choose as long as it does not negatively effect anyone else, including minor children temporarily in your care.


So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?"

Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children?

I'm saying if you choose to become a parent or guardian of a minor it is incumbent upon you to do what is best for that child. And by best I mean in the opinion of society not your narrow opinion.

Specifically that means the best education you can conceivably obtain. That means no abuse, neglect or molestation. That means adequate evidence based health care and timely intervention by medical professionals in case of emergent health issues.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 5:54:05 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

On the internet everybody's a brain surgeon, sweetie.

(Even the dogs.)



I am on the internet and I am not a brainsurgeon....

I am an evil would be world emperor with delusions of being an insane mad scientist who wants to start another Ice Age cause I like snow.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 6:53:25 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?"


No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/28/2012 7:00:59 PM   
defiantbadgirl


Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

The op is not only ill informed and delusional, her information is dangerous.

Delusional? I'm not mentally ill and I don't take meds for mental illness, unlike some people.

This isn't the first time she's made such remarks or even the second or third time.

Interpreting the meaning of remarks is not one of your best talents. For example:

I had an x-ray when I was 8 months pregnant. My daughter to this day is healthier and fitter than many her own age and she has a high IQ. Yeah, they discourage x-rays for pregnant women BUT it will not retard your unborn child or make yourself ill if you have one or two.



I did NOT say if a pregnant woman had an x-ray, the baby would be born with a low IQ. I said high levels of radiation to a developing brain causes that. I was making the point that if radiation wasn't dangerous to children, x-rays, which are low levels of radiation, wouldn't be discouraged in pregnant women as a precaution. If even low levels of radiation are discouraged, what does that say about high levels? That was my point.



_____________________________


Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.


Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to littlewonder)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/29/2012 6:33:38 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts.


You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/29/2012 7:02:22 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm saying if you choose to become a parent or guardian of a minor it is incumbent upon you to do what is best for that child. And by best I mean in the opinion of society not your narrow opinion.


I see. Majority rule, then. Got it. We agree that the parent/guardian of a minor bears a responsibility to rear a child in the best interests of the child. We disagree on who decides what is in the child's best interests.

quote:

Specifically that means the best education you can conceivably obtain. That means no abuse, neglect or molestation. That means adequate evidence based health care and timely intervention by medical professionals in case of emergent health issues.


Best education one can conceivably obtain? So, if I don't go out and take whatever actions I would have to take to get my kid into the best elementary schools, the best high school and into the best college, I could have my kid taken from me, or be charged with not living up to my responsibility?

Fuck the parents ideas. Go get Doc Spock and we'll have a groovy time. What happens when it turns out society was wrong? What is the definition of "society" that we are going to use? Are we going to go with family? Friends and family? Local community? State? Nation? Continent? Global Society?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: court forces brain radiation on child - 12/29/2012 7:06:29 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?"

No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts.


What does that mean, though, tazzy? I don't care for the tone that "ownership" implies, but are we just talking about the same thing, but in using different terms? I mean, we have "garbagemen," "refuse collectors," and "sanitary engineers." Each of those terms can be used to describe the guy that picks up the trash.

I agree with Aswad's reply to this same post.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: court forces brain radiation on child Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.102