Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

This Ohio Judge
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=110971		 Page 4 of 6
Author:  ToxicMasculinity [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
I think its a dude trying to be a girl. Hard to tell with this trend in journalism to use whatever pronoun people want
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

Huh?

I'm against it for minors too but that's a crazy thought.
Author:  storkinastorm [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker -

You keep wrongly bringing up religion. The debate here has nothing to do with religion. The debate is whether parents have a right to make decisions for their children or the government does. That they may or may not have done it for religious reasons isn't material.

You are nuts to paint teachers as having some unique skill set that a reasonably educated parent couldn't replicate. That's not a shot at teachers; it's true of most professions. The biggest downside to home schooling is the lack of socialization....... which is a huge downside.

I know you're a big government guy, which is fine, but where do you draw the line?

It is about religion. They made it about that.

I'm not a big government guy. However we already draw lines about what decisions parents can make for kids. I'm guessing you and others would want the government to step in if a parent was getting their 10 year old a gender reassignment surgery.


No, it's not about religion. Are you saying that if the parents had just objected to the procedure just on principal and not on religious beliefs that you would have a different opinion?
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker -

You keep wrongly bringing up religion. The debate here has nothing to do with religion. The debate is whether parents have a right to make decisions for their children or the government does. That they may or may not have done it for religious reasons isn't material.

You are nuts to paint teachers as having some unique skill set that a reasonably educated parent couldn't replicate. That's not a shot at teachers; it's true of most professions. The biggest downside to home schooling is the lack of socialization....... which is a huge downside.

I know you're a big government guy, which is fine, but where do you draw the line?

It is about religion. They made it about that.

I'm not a big government guy. However we already draw lines about what decisions parents can make for kids. I'm guessing you and others would want the government to step in if a parent was getting their 10 year old a gender reassignment surgery.


No, it's not about religion. Are you saying that if the parents had just objected to the procedure just on principal and not on religious beliefs that you would have a different opinion?

I may have. The trial would have been about the effectiveness of a treatment rather than the religious beliefs of people who weren't the patient. Blood transfusions are against some religions. Should parents be able to deny consent for their kids in life saving situations? What about elective procedures? See why it's relevant to argue about effectiveness rather than what a church says?
Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Nas wrote:
Parents shouldn't have an absolute right to do what they think is best for their children.


So who has that right then? Boilermaker Rick? Donald Trump? Nancy Pelosi? Caller Bob?
Author:  storkinastorm [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker -

You keep wrongly bringing up religion. The debate here has nothing to do with religion. The debate is whether parents have a right to make decisions for their children or the government does. That they may or may not have done it for religious reasons isn't material.

You are nuts to paint teachers as having some unique skill set that a reasonably educated parent couldn't replicate. That's not a shot at teachers; it's true of most professions. The biggest downside to home schooling is the lack of socialization....... which is a huge downside.

I know you're a big government guy, which is fine, but where do you draw the line?

It is about religion. They made it about that.

I'm not a big government guy. However we already draw lines about what decisions parents can make for kids. I'm guessing you and others would want the government to step in if a parent was getting their 10 year old a gender reassignment surgery.


No, it's not about religion. Are you saying that if the parents had just objected to the procedure just on principal and not on religious beliefs that you would have a different opinion?

I may have. The trial would have been about the effectiveness of a treatment rather than the religious beliefs of people who weren't the patient. Blood transfusions are against some religions. Should parents be able to deny consent for their kids in life saving situations? What about elective procedures? See why it's relevant to argue about effectiveness rather than what a church says?


No, it's still not relevant. The question at hand is where we draw the line regarding parental control of children and where the government should step in. If you're going to say that you'd have two different opinions based on WHY the parents want/don't want the procedure, you're being discriminatory. The reason they don't want it is immaterial.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker -

You keep wrongly bringing up religion. The debate here has nothing to do with religion. The debate is whether parents have a right to make decisions for their children or the government does. That they may or may not have done it for religious reasons isn't material.

You are nuts to paint teachers as having some unique skill set that a reasonably educated parent couldn't replicate. That's not a shot at teachers; it's true of most professions. The biggest downside to home schooling is the lack of socialization....... which is a huge downside.

I know you're a big government guy, which is fine, but where do you draw the line?

It is about religion. They made it about that.

I'm not a big government guy. However we already draw lines about what decisions parents can make for kids. I'm guessing you and others would want the government to step in if a parent was getting their 10 year old a gender reassignment surgery.


No, it's not about religion. Are you saying that if the parents had just objected to the procedure just on principal and not on religious beliefs that you would have a different opinion?

I may have. The trial would have been about the effectiveness of a treatment rather than the religious beliefs of people who weren't the patient. Blood transfusions are against some religions. Should parents be able to deny consent for their kids in life saving situations? What about elective procedures? See why it's relevant to argue about effectiveness rather than what a church says?


No, it's still not relevant. The question at hand is where we draw the line regarding parental control of children and where the government should step in. If you're going to say that you'd have two different opinions based on WHY the parents want/don't want the procedure, you're being discriminatory. The reason they don't want it is immaterial.

I can have an opinion based on how well something is argued. What are you talking about? If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?
Author:  Drake LaRrieta [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
It is scary to think that a judge could decide to trample on parents' rights. This is not the same as someone needing a surgery and the Christian Science parents refusing a life-saving surgery. Transgenderism is essentially a mental illness. What they find is many people who have the surgery wish they didn't have it afterwards and there is suicide risk for the people who have the surgery.
Author:  shirtless driver [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Did the government intervene on behalf of the MANY, MANY minor children of
Jehovah's Witnesses who died as a result of refusing life saving blood transfusions?
No, they didn't. Because no one gives a shit about Jehovah's Witnesses.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
shirtless driver wrote:
Did the government intervene on behalf of the MANY, MANY minor children of
Jehovah's Witnesses who died as a result of refusing life saving blood transfusions?
No, they didn't. Because no one gives a shit about Jehovah's Witnesses.

They do.
Author:  storkinastorm [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?


Yes. You absolutely should. You're now okay with the government not only being in the business of determining what parents can decide but also why they decide it? You think that that's a valid or fair legal argument?

You're kidding, right?
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

Huh?

What was unclear to you?
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?


Yes. You absolutely should. You're now okay with the government not only being in the business of determining what parents can decide but also why they decide it? You think that that's a valid or fair legal argument?

You're kidding, right?

What do you think happens in a court case? Each side presents arguments and one is chosen. The better the argument the better chance of being accepted.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

Huh?

What was unclear to you?

Why would you strip the license of a doctor for advocating for a transgender patient? Would you also strip the law license of the minors attorney?
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

Huh?

What was unclear to you?

Why would you strip the license of a doctor for advocating for a transgender patient? Would you also strip the law license of the minors attorney?


I don't think there is at all enough scientific evidence to warrant hormone replacement or sex reassignment as the prescribed treatment of claimed gender dysphoria in a minor. I think doing so, and especially taming part in a coirt proceeding that strips parents of a child specifically over that issue, is a galling misuse of a medical license and should warrant it's forfeiture.
Author:  storkinastorm [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?


Yes. You absolutely should. You're now okay with the government not only being in the business of determining what parents can decide but also why they decide it? You think that that's a valid or fair legal argument?

You're kidding, right?

What do you think happens in a court case? Each side presents arguments and one is chosen. The better the argument the better chance of being accepted.


Okay then, consider the following scenario:

A child wants to have breast implants to increase the size of her breasts. She is 14 years old.

Her parents won't allow her to, and the stated reason they don't want to allow her to is for religious purposes.

You believe the court should step in and allow her the breast implants because of the religious angle, yes?
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

Huh?

What was unclear to you?

Why would you strip the license of a doctor for advocating for a transgender patient? Would you also strip the law license of the minors attorney?


I don't think there is at all enough scientific evidence to warrant hormone replacement or sex reassignment as the prescribed treatment of claimed gender dysphoria in a minor. I think doing so, and especially taming part in a coirt proceeding that strips parents of a child specifically over that issue, is a galling misuse of a medical license and should warrant it's forfeiture.

Well luckily doctors don't answer to you and instead answer to regulatory organizations that have at a minimum allowed hormone therapy as valid current treatment even as long term outlooks are analyzed.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?


Yes. You absolutely should. You're now okay with the government not only being in the business of determining what parents can decide but also why they decide it? You think that that's a valid or fair legal argument?

You're kidding, right?

What do you think happens in a court case? Each side presents arguments and one is chosen. The better the argument the better chance of being accepted.


Okay then, consider the following scenario:

A child wants to have breast implants to increase the size of her breasts. She is 14 years old.

Her parents won't allow her to, and the stated reason they don't want to allow her to is for religious purposes.

You believe the court should step in and allow her the breast implants because of the religious angle, yes?

Make a bad argument in court and be ready to lose.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

Huh?

What was unclear to you?

Why would you strip the license of a doctor for advocating for a transgender patient? Would you also strip the law license of the minors attorney?


I don't think there is at all enough scientific evidence to warrant hormone replacement or sex reassignment as the prescribed treatment of claimed gender dysphoria in a minor. I think doing so, and especially taming part in a coirt proceeding that strips parents of a child specifically over that issue, is a galling misuse of a medical license and should warrant it's forfeiture.

Well luckily doctors don't answer to you and instead answer to...


And you can't talk about sports unless you've played the game, right?
Author:  Sneakers O'Toole [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
I think its a dude trying to be a girl. Hard to tell with this trend in journalism to use whatever pronoun people want

It's not.

Literally the first sentence in the article you posted wrote:
A Hamilton County, Ohio, judge took a transgender teen away from her parents on Friday because they refused to allow the 17-year-old to undergo hormone treatments as part of a female-to-male transition.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
And you can't talk about sports unless you've played the game, right?

Well when you suggest license removal for supporting a patient on valid medical procedures then you shouldn't talk about it.
Author:  storkinastorm [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?


Yes. You absolutely should. You're now okay with the government not only being in the business of determining what parents can decide but also why they decide it? You think that that's a valid or fair legal argument?

You're kidding, right?

What do you think happens in a court case? Each side presents arguments and one is chosen. The better the argument the better chance of being accepted.


Okay then, consider the following scenario:

A child wants to have breast implants to increase the size of her breasts. She is 14 years old.

Her parents won't allow her to, and the stated reason they don't want to allow her to is for religious purposes.

You believe the court should step in and allow her the breast implants because of the religious angle, yes?

Make a bad argument in court and be ready to lose.


So your purpose here isn't really to argue the potential impact of the ruling or the philosophical basis of the ruling but instead to highlight the rudimentary observation that some lawyers are better than others? Okay, I guess......
Author:  312player [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
312player wrote:
Rick..I'd bet it's already happened.. The surgeons should be locked up with the parents.

Why should the government step in?




The government isn't stepping in.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
And you can't talk about sports unless you've played the game, right?

Well when you suggest license removal for supporting a patient on valid medical procedures then you shouldn't talk about it.


The validity of the medical procedure is not the issue (see: straw man), it is that the medical procedure is perhaps unnecessary and is to be performed on a minor. Ordering unnecessary medical procedures, though they be otherwise valid, is certainly grounds for losing your license to practice medicine.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
And you can't talk about sports unless you've played the game, right?

Well when you suggest license removal for supporting a patient on valid medical procedures then you shouldn't talk about it.


The validity of the medical procedure is not the issue (see: straw man), it is that the medical procedure is perhaps unnecessary and is to be performed on a minor. Ordering unnecessary medical procedures, though they be otherwise valid, is certainly grounds for losing your license to practice medicine.

You had to work really hard there and it is still wrong. The procedure is valid and advocating in court about it certainly isn't worthy of losing your license.

If it were illegal and maybe it should be for minors or against medical guidelines then it would be. It's not right now though.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
And you can't talk about sports unless you've played the game, right?

Well when you suggest license removal for supporting a patient on valid medical procedures then you shouldn't talk about it.


The validity of the medical procedure is not the issue (see: straw man), it is that the medical procedure is perhaps unnecessary and is to be performed on a minor. Ordering unnecessary medical procedures, though they be otherwise valid, is certainly grounds for losing your license to practice medicine.

You had to work really hard there and it is still wrong. The procedure is valid and advocating in court about it certainly isn't worthy of losing your license.


Round and round we go. :roll:

I'm glad you think it's good that doctors order kids to redo their hormones and take them away from their parents because of it. Good on you. I don't share that view, in fact I think it is bad.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
I don't think minors should have hormone replacement. I just don't think doctors should lose their license for doing something medically acceptable and legal especially only a few months away from the patient being old enough to decide anyways and it's ludicrous to suggest even advocating in court for it should result in losing a license.

Pass a law along the lines of those banning gay conversion therapy which is just as bad.
Author:  FavreFan [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
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?

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?

No.

The logic you’re attempting here is all dangerous and potentially irreversible actions by a minor are equal. Bad argument.
Author:  pittmike [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
Anyone else see the “Exactly I was waiting for that” line by Brick as an acknowledgement he does this just to troll/argue? 55k posts. :lol:

Night.
Author:  America [ Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: This Ohio Judge
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ad/304671/

The legendary piece from the halcyon days of the internet that basically called the tranny plague bit by bit is back from underneath the paywall. Should be required reading.
Page 4 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/