When he/she is 18 it will all be a mute point. So just wait it out.

My favorite button on the TV remote is the Moot Button.

Letting a 17 year old choose hormone therapy: bad.
Letting a 12 year old choose to play a dangerous sport like football: good.

Do I have that right?

Letting a 17 year old choose hormone therapy: bad.
Letting a 12 year old choose to play a dangerous sport like football: good.

Do I have that right?

We did have one priest who rebuked you if you left early. People avoided his Masses.

There is nothing more depressing than the Catholic Mass, particularly one without music and when people are reciting prayers. "We believe in one God, the Father and the Almighty . . ." Just an awful-sounding noise, devoid of any emotion or any touches of humanity or joy or, for that matter, faith. It sounds like the incantation at an exceptionally boring post-apocalyptic ritual.

Plus, you're thirsty as hell in Mass and the chicks are hot. I thought about God like three times from the ages of 12-17. Usually, I was thinking about Pepsi and was checking out whatever women were standing in front of me.

Letting a 17 year old choose hormone therapy: bad.
Letting a 12 year old choose to play a dangerous sport like football: good.

Do I have that right?

Letting a 17 year old choose hormone therapy: bad.
Letting a 12 year old choose to play a dangerous sport like football: good.

Do I have that right?

My issue is xyz should be OK because of my religion. There are MANY other valid reasons why the child should or shouldn't go through with her therapy other than religion. What a weak argument.

My issue is xyz should be OK because of my religion. There are MANY other valid reasons why the child should or shouldn't go through with her therapy other than religion. What a weak argument.

Why do we let a 12 year old consent to football but not let a 17 year old consent to hormone therapy?

Uh, because we don't let a 12 year old consent to football?

I am not sure of the legal wording so we need JLN to chime in. I think there is or should be a freedom of religion clause that has to do with "you are under 18 and my child in my house and my religion here is what we do" unless the religion lets you fuck, carve up and eat little kids.

By comparing tackle football to hormone therapy, I think BRick just cemented his status as the biggest burrito in this message board's history.

Caller Bob, Who are you crappin'?

Uh, because we don't let a 12 year old consent to football?

Exactly. I was waiting for that.

Parents consent required for all dangerous activities for under 18 year olds. A judge is wrong for overriding that consent and letting a minor choose for themselves. A parent can choose to put their kid in football at 12 even though it is clearly dangerous. They can force them to play or not to play. So far so good? Parental rights and everything else?

Now, should the government be able to tell parents they can't put their 12 year old in hormone therapy? Shouldn't parental rights allow them to?

I think there's a bigger philosophical question here than the individual parents and kids and that is, do you feel the government is more capable of raising your child(ren) than you are?

That's exactly right. And liberals and big government types have been trying to supersede the power of parents for a while now. In their eyes, the state is better at raising your children than you are.

Just look at the case of that British child who was not allowed to come to America by the Brits to get some experimental treatment despite the parents wanting it to happen. It will only get worse. You will see more and more lawsuits by children against their parents from ACLU shitheel lawyers all in the name of a "child's rights" allegedly being suppressed.

Exactly. I was waiting for that.

Parents consent required for all dangerous activities for under 18 year olds. A judge is wrong for overriding that consent and letting a minor choose for themselves. A parent can choose to put their kid in football at 12 even though it is clearly dangerous. They can force them to play or not to play. So far so good? Parental rights and everything else?

Now, should the government be able to tell parents they can't put their 12 year old in hormone therapy? Shouldn't parental rights allow them to?

I think there's a bigger philosophical question here than the individual parents and kids and that is, do you feel the government is more capable of raising your child(ren) than you are?

There would be no abortion debate if MANY of us didn't feel that the government should provide some protections for the most fragile members of our society. This isn't just about big government liberals.

I am positive that the government would better educate my children than I would which is why there is no chance I will home school.

That's not what's happening here, though. The government is removing altogether the authority of these parents to decide on dangerous and life-altering medical procedures for their minor child precisely because they did not consent to said medical procedure. It's not about parental consent, it's about taking away your child if you don't guess right and grant the consent a judge thinks you should have.

While obviously not a perfect analogy, it's not much different than a parent who doesn't "consent" to cancer treatments for a child and the court overrules them.

I don't think you really believe that. It's simply a matter of you not having time to spend educating your children. And I believe the statistics support the argument that home-schooled children are far more prepared for university than public school children. And that's with most of them being home-schooled by religious whackjobs rather than a sane person like yourself.

It's not even close to a good analogy. It's more like a parent refusing to consent to a child having Jeff Stryker use his penis enlargement device on his cock and a judge insisting the kid is entitled to go for the extra inch.