As stated already, children do not have the right to refuse/accept medical on thier own terms. They are legally under parents custody. Imacipation means a child has proven to court that they can legally care for themselves. In cases which child is deamed under the care of an unfit parent, that child is often put into foster care. So you are wrong, medical treatment is decided by parents in most cases not the children. Also just because you believe children deserve more rights does not mean the laws work that way. You are not the center of the universe. Wake up and get past your arrogance and realize the world isn't perfect because you think it should be.
And parents who deny a child the proper medical treatment for their situation are charged every year in every state with child abuse.
I asked 1WeirdGuy to read my reply to you above - please read my long rely to him that I just posted.
This is not just a pure black and white situation with a simple answer. Very few situations like that exist. Most situations are grey and complex. condition, with on narrow exception.
Again that is determined by parents not children. LEGALLY an adult can say no to any treatment, needed or not. A child however has no rights. The rights are with the parents. So if parents or state deam it needed its happening if the child wants it or not. So no children do not have a choice or right just becuase is your fantasy land you think they should.
In your imaginary world yes. In real life rights of what happens to children legally falls under parents. You can be delusional all you want. It doesn't change how stuff actually works. Though you might also be in a different country in which case its like arguing oranges and bananas.
Nothing imaginary or delusional about my world in this matter. Please see my reply to the Post Author below. How I am describing it is actually what the law is and how it works.
Yes or no do you think a 5 year old that wants to take hormones for whatever reason should be taken away from parents if the parents refuse? You are strawmanning it into a different argument.
Again, FOR ANY REASON do you think a child should be taken and parents charged because parents refused to give them hormones? Yes or no?
This is not an issue that relates to a 5 year old. Talk about a straw man argument. That's as ridiculous as it gets.
Hormone therapy is an issue that pops up after about the age of 8-10, and most commonly in the age range of 14-17.
Hormones to prevent a person developing as a midget are typically starte in the age range of 8-10. There are other medical conditions that may require hormones in this age range.
If you are talking sexual identity. That usually starts in the age range of 14+ (but can be a few years earlier for certain cases).
This is not a theoretical or imaginary construct of mine about children's rights. Courts have stepped in and overruled the parents on ensuring a child gets proper hormonal treatment appropriate to their condition so the child can develop normally (the issue is usually raised by the medical profession).
For cases of hermaphrodites you may not even know the sexual identity of the child until their teenage years.
For cases where it is clear that the child has a sexual identity different than what was assumed before.... then I do support the proper hormone treatment to assist them with their actual sexual identity once that is determined by the appropriate medical professionals. I believe that you will find that in many states in the US that the courts would intervene in those cases for the best interest of the child over a parents wishes - just as they do in other cases where hormone treatment is required for normal development of the child (and the parents have other ideas).
You are free to hold whatever belief's you wish. But, you don't get to chose the facts or the laws in these situations. The law is quite clear in all US States that Children do have rights and the courts have intervened many many times (and I believe in all states) to start hormonal treatment for a child over the objections of a parent upon recommendation of the appropriate medical professionals (and these trials always have court appointed independent medical professionals looking at the specifics of the situation). Most parents do go along and keep their child in their house. In some cases the child is removed from the house.
Again: you might wish to consider why it is that from the most conservative states to the most liberal that such laws are fairly consistent among the states; and how that matches up with your personal beliefs.
Whats your opinion on children transitioning?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
As stated already, children do not have the right to refuse/accept medical on thier own terms. They are legally under parents custody. Imacipation means a child has proven to court that they can legally care for themselves. In cases which child is deamed under the care of an unfit parent, that child is often put into foster care. So you are wrong, medical treatment is decided by parents in most cases not the children. Also just because you believe children deserve more rights does not mean the laws work that way. You are not the center of the universe. Wake up and get past your arrogance and realize the world isn't perfect because you think it should be.
--
olderdude-xx
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And parents who deny a child the proper medical treatment for their situation are charged every year in every state with child abuse.
I asked 1WeirdGuy to read my reply to you above - please read my long rely to him that I just posted.
This is not just a pure black and white situation with a simple answer. Very few situations like that exist. Most situations are grey and complex. condition, with on narrow exception.
--
RoyyRogers
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Again that is determined by parents not children. LEGALLY an adult can say no to any treatment, needed or not. A child however has no rights. The rights are with the parents. So if parents or state deam it needed its happening if the child wants it or not. So no children do not have a choice or right just becuase is your fantasy land you think they should.
--
olderdude-xx
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
The courts disagree with you. Children do have some rights.
--
RoyyRogers
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
In your imaginary world yes. In real life rights of what happens to children legally falls under parents. You can be delusional all you want. It doesn't change how stuff actually works. Though you might also be in a different country in which case its like arguing oranges and bananas.
--
olderdude-xx
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Nothing imaginary or delusional about my world in this matter. Please see my reply to the Post Author below. How I am describing it is actually what the law is and how it works.
Yes or no do you think a 5 year old that wants to take hormones for whatever reason should be taken away from parents if the parents refuse? You are strawmanning it into a different argument.
Again, FOR ANY REASON do you think a child should be taken and parents charged because parents refused to give them hormones? Yes or no?
--
olderdude-xx
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is not an issue that relates to a 5 year old. Talk about a straw man argument. That's as ridiculous as it gets.
Hormone therapy is an issue that pops up after about the age of 8-10, and most commonly in the age range of 14-17.
Hormones to prevent a person developing as a midget are typically starte in the age range of 8-10. There are other medical conditions that may require hormones in this age range.
If you are talking sexual identity. That usually starts in the age range of 14+ (but can be a few years earlier for certain cases).
This is not a theoretical or imaginary construct of mine about children's rights. Courts have stepped in and overruled the parents on ensuring a child gets proper hormonal treatment appropriate to their condition so the child can develop normally (the issue is usually raised by the medical profession).
For cases of hermaphrodites you may not even know the sexual identity of the child until their teenage years.
For cases where it is clear that the child has a sexual identity different than what was assumed before.... then I do support the proper hormone treatment to assist them with their actual sexual identity once that is determined by the appropriate medical professionals. I believe that you will find that in many states in the US that the courts would intervene in those cases for the best interest of the child over a parents wishes - just as they do in other cases where hormone treatment is required for normal development of the child (and the parents have other ideas).
You are free to hold whatever belief's you wish. But, you don't get to chose the facts or the laws in these situations. The law is quite clear in all US States that Children do have rights and the courts have intervened many many times (and I believe in all states) to start hormonal treatment for a child over the objections of a parent upon recommendation of the appropriate medical professionals (and these trials always have court appointed independent medical professionals looking at the specifics of the situation). Most parents do go along and keep their child in their house. In some cases the child is removed from the house.
Again: you might wish to consider why it is that from the most conservative states to the most liberal that such laws are fairly consistent among the states; and how that matches up with your personal beliefs.