The Problems with Trans-ideology

#2,784
#2,784
AM64 said:
But is it malpractice for trying to fix stupid? She was the one claiming she was a boy, and actions do come with consequences. Maybe there should be a law protecting minors from themselves.
Click to expand...
For a 13 year old? No, she is not at fault here.

There ARE protections in place. It’s called “age of consent”. Those rules are in place to protect minors - often from themselves.

There are some decisions children cannot make, even with a note from mommy.

At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, AM64 and HammondB3Vol
#2,787
#2,787
85SugarVol said:
For a 13 year old? No, she is not at fault here.

There ARE protections in place. It’s called “age of consent”. Those rules are in place to protect minors - often from themselves.

There are some decisions children cannot make, even with a note from mommy.

At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Click to expand...

My fault. I didn't do the last sentence in blue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#2,789
#2,789
85SugarVol said:
Why would you sue the parents? That makes no sense.

You sue the doctors and institutions performing these procedures on minor children that are incapable of providing consent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if the parents agree with the kid and give consent or worse the parents convince the kid, it's hardly fair to sue docs and hospitals. We're living in the age where people always want to blame someone else, and the legal profession makes it possible. Consider the guy who took his car to the dealership for work; the dealership assigned a kid who didn't know how to drive a manual the job of bringing the car into the shop; the kid screwed up and killed another employee; the family (I believe) sued and the owner rather than the dealership was judged to be at fault. Assume the following: the owner bought the car from the dealer, the transmission and clutch were stock and fully legal, the owner had no say in who drove the car once parked on the dealer's lot - common sense says there's just no way the car owner is liable, but the court said differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Sea Ray
#2,791
#2,791
85SugarVol said:
For a 13 year old? No, she is not at fault here.

There ARE protections in place. It’s called “age of consent”. Those rules are in place to protect minors - often from themselves.

There are some decisions children cannot make, even with a note from mommy.

At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Click to expand...

I will agree that docs should know better when doing stuff like this even with the parent's blessing. It seems to be one of those times that just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. It's a lot easier to respect someone who turns down a job and explains why he thinks it's not the right choice than one who will take on anything for the money. Of course, that still leaves the ones who are ready and willing to maim for the cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#2,792
#2,792
AM64 said:
Yeah, but if the parents agree with the kid and give consent or worse the parents convince the kid, it's hardly fair to sue docs and hospitals. We're living in the age where people always want to blame someone else, and the legal profession makes it possible. Consider the guy who took his car to the dealership for work; the dealership assigned a kid who didn't know how to drive a manual the job of bringing the car into the shop; the kid screwed up and killed another employee; the family (I believe) sued and the owner rather than the dealership was judged to be at fault. Assume the following: the owner bought the car from the dealer, the transmission and clutch were stock and fully legal, the owner had no say in who drove the car once parked on the dealer's lot - common sense says there's just no way the car owner is liable, but the court said differently.
Click to expand...
But now you have state and private institutions working hand in hand to get the sex-change going for minor children without the parents consent or knowledge, and if the parent finds out and intervenes they can be prosecuted. I think there have been situations where the parents have been threatened into allowing these surgeries to take place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and AM64
#2,793
#2,793
The red states have child protection in place, but unfortunately children in the green states are in danger.

GenderAffirmingCare_v11_DP_1684779909414_hpEmbed_1x1_992.jpg
 
#2,794
#2,794
85SugarVol said:
Why would you sue the parents? That makes no sense.

You sue the doctors and institutions performing these procedures on minor children that are incapable of providing consent.
Click to expand...

You sue the parents because they signed the consent. That's what the consent is all about. That makes them responsible. Once the doctors have consent, they can say they did their due diligence
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,795
#2,795
CobbVol said:
The red states have child protection in place, but unfortunately children in the green states are in danger.

GenderAffirmingCare_v11_DP_1684779909414_hpEmbed_1x1_992.jpg
Click to expand...
The left and their complicit media are spinning this as transphobic legislation. The right should not sit back and let them have that narrative
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,796
#2,796
Sea Ray said:
You sue the parents because they signed the consent. That's what the consent is all about. That makes them responsible. Once the doctors have consent, they can say they did their due diligence
Click to expand...
Who is suing these parents? Their children? For what?

A child cannot form consent here. Even with a note from their mother.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top