They Certainly Are Coming For Our Children

[seer]

There are parents that physically or sexually abuse their children. There are parents that kill their children.

The OP was about children who had run away from home. I'm sure that the vast majority of times children run away from home they are not serious about it and are just acting out and expected to be picked up by their parents within the day. But some cases are going to be more serious. Some cases are going to involve really serious rifts in the family, and potentially involve physical or sexual abuse by the parents. Some cases aren't just the kid trying to get away from home for an hour or two, but intending to be away from home permanently. Some cases are going to be the kid being permanently kicked out of their home by parents who refuse to raise them anymore.

I'm not speaking of abuse, which is often a subjective consideration. Are parents who love their kids but are dead set against transitioning abusive? And what I'm speaking of is the state then taking the child and performing these life changing and for the most part irreversible medical treatments. Treatments I might add again, that other countries are ending for minors.

I guess one could argue all law is fiction, since laws on paper, no matter who made them, are not equivalent to reality. However, as far as legal fictions go, recognition by every country in the world is reasonably impressive. In terms of US recognition, the US constitution provides a process for US Senate voting on the ratification of treaties which makes them into a part of US law.

I sure can't take credit for inventing human rights, the major international declaration and affirmation of them in 1948, following the Holocaust, was long before I was born.

Really? Recognized by China, North Korea, Muslim Countries, half or more of African Countries? And you can offer no rational argument for 'inalienable' rights apart from assertion.

[rogue06]

I believe children have human rights.

Really?

At what point given you are on record supporting their being "aborted" several weeks and even months after they were born.

If you oppose their most basic right, the right to life, how can you claim to support their rights?

Or by rights do you mean being allowed to lop off body parts and take puberty blockers.

[Starlight]

And what I'm speaking of is the state then taking the child and performing these life changing and for the most part irreversible medical treatments.

Taking the children? I don't recall seeing any reference in the OP to that? Did you read an article about the state providing aid to homeless kids and somehow twist that in your mind into thinking it was about taking children away from parents?

Really? Recognized by China, North Korea, Muslim Countries, half or more of African Countries?

Officially yes. Practice may differ of course. Plenty of people would accuse the US of similar issues.

And you can offer no rational argument for 'inalienable' rights apart from assertion.

The reality of historical events, laws and agreements doesn't stand or fall on my personal ability or inability to provide a justification for it. Nor do the people who participated in such events or agreements necessarily all personally have the same view on how they are justified. The US Founding Fathers presumably did not all have identical views in their head of the philosophical justification of what they were doing, nor when any given modern law is passed, do the hundreds of congressional representatives voting for it necessarily have identical opinions of why they are voting to pass it, what it's achieving, or why it's philosophically justified. There are many different philosophical approaches to arguing for why we should recognize human rights, and many approaches to what their philosophical underpinnings should be or are.

[Starlight]

Really?

At what point given you are on record supporting their being "aborted" several weeks and even months after they were born.

If you oppose their most basic right, the right to life, how can you claim to support their rights?

I have explained extensively previously on this forum that I view moral rights as developing in proportion to the development of mental functions. Thus the moral rights of a newly born baby are minimal, and the rights of a 16 year old pretty extensive. (Legal rights of course will vary across countries and times and ages)

It's not a difficult concept and I would expect even you to have been able to comprehend that very basic idea after being told it a dozen or so times by me over the years. A lot of you seem to really mentally struggle with the fact that I am generally more supportive of people's right to life (and to other rights) than you guys but think there are a small proportion of people (namely those with minimal mental functions like a fetus) who those rights don't apply to. You guys seem to not be able to mentally comprehend that basic idea, no matter how many times I repeat it or explain it. You don't have to agree with my viewpoint, or think that my viewpoint is logically sound or justifiable, but it would be nice if you could actually demonstrate that you understand what I am saying, instead of acting completely baffled every time this is mentioned.

[rogue06]

I have explained extensively previously on this forum that I view moral rights as developing in proportion to the development of mental functions. Thus the moral rights of a newly born baby are minimal, and the rights of a 16 year old pretty extensive. (Legal rights of course will vary across countries and times and ages)

It's not a difficult concept and I would expect even you to have been able to comprehend that very basic idea after being told it a dozen or so times by me over the years. A lot of you seem to really mentally struggle with the fact that I am generally more supportive of people's right to life (and to other rights) than you guys but think there are a small proportion of people (namely those with minimal mental functions like a fetus) who those rights don't apply to. You guys seem to not be able to mentally comprehend that basic idea, no matter how many times I repeat it or explain it. You don't have to agree with my viewpoint, or think that my viewpoint is logically sound or justifiable, but it would be nice if you could actually demonstrate that you understand what I am saying, instead of acting completely baffled every time this is mentioned.

We are so blessed to have someone such as yourself willing to determine when someone should be afforded basic rights.

Of course, as has been noted, if mental development were the standard for determining who has rights, those in deep commas would lose all of theirs.

And it looks like old Joe's rights are slipping away on a daily basis.

[seer]

Taking the children? I don't recall seeing any reference in the OP to that? Did you read an article about the state providing aid to homeless kids and somehow twist that in your mind into thinking it was about taking children away from parents?

Then tell me, if a kid runs away from home because they want to transition, but the parents do not support that. And keep refusing that option, should the state have the right to begin the process of transition apart from parental consent?

Officially yes. Practice may differ of course. Plenty of people would accuse the US of similar issues.

So a paper tiger...

The reality of historical events, laws and agreements doesn't stand or fall on my personal ability or inability to provide a justification for it. Nor do the people who participated in such events or agreements necessarily all personally have the same view on how they are justified. The US Founding Fathers presumably did not all have identical views in their head of the philosophical justification of what they were doing, nor when any given modern law is passed, do the hundreds of congressional representatives voting for it necessarily have identical opinions of why they are voting to pass it, what it's achieving, or why it's philosophically justified. There are many different philosophical approaches to arguing for why we should recognize human rights, and many approaches to what their philosophical underpinnings should be or are.

So you have no justification for 'inalienable' rights. At least the Theist can make a rational argument for transcendent human value.

[Machinist]

I heard about this the other night on the news. What a tragedy.

I have a question: How far do you think this will go? Sweden and other European countries have made an about face on the issue. Do you think in a few years after all the damage has been assessed, that these blue states will also stop practicing gender affirming care?

Is there something inherent about America that might cause this to become normalized and legalized throughout the land? The observation here is that if Sweden recognized the evil in this practice, and stopped it, then America should too at some point. Is there some evil here in America that isn't present everywhere else?

[Gondwanaland]

I believe children have human rights. You are spectacularly dehumanizing them and ignoring their own role in the situation when you describe it as being a matter of it being only a matter of parental rights and the state.

Get help. See a counsellor.

The infanticide supporter says he believes children have human rights and accuses people of dehumanizing children. Now I've heard it all.

[Starlight]

We are so blessed to have someone such as yourself willing to determine when someone should be afforded basic rights.

Don't pretend I'm uniquely special for having opinions in this forum.

Of course, as has been noted, if mental development were the standard for determining who has rights, those in deep commas would lose all of theirs.

If I bought a powerful and high spec computer, and someone said "you don't own a powerful and high spec computer anytime it's turned off", I would just regard that person as not understanding the basics.. To me the coma argument is the same.

[Starlight]

Then tell me, if a kid runs away from home because they want to transition, but the parents do not support that. And keep refusing that option, should the state have the right to begin the process of transition apart from parental consent?

A correct version of your second sentence would ask if the kid should have the right. The state is not forcing transition on the kid, the kid is the one making that choice.

Should, generally speaking, kids have a right to access healthcare? General answer is yes. My sister is a doctor and I've asked her about what happens if a kid comes wanting to get a covid vaccine when she knows the parents are against it, and her answer was that if in the doctor's assessment the kid understands what they are asking for and understands the doctor's explanations of the risks, then the doctor is then obligated to provide best-practice healthcare (healthcare is free for kids in my country so the parents don't need to be contacted to pay for it).

Part of your argument, of course, is against the doctors' recognition that transition can constitute current-best-practice-healthcare for people with gender dysphoria. I am immensely skeptical of your pretense to know more on that subject than the medical profession, and I will defer to them about what is or isn't appropriate medical treatment for any given health condition.

So you have no justification for 'inalienable' rights. At least the Theist can make a rational argument for transcendent human value.

You're really a stuck record aren't you?

[Starlight]

The infanticide supporter says he believes children have human rights and accuses people of dehumanizing children.

Perhaps you didn't understand the point that Seer was talking about 14 year olds as if they had absolutely no right to an opinion or interests of relevance?

In his pros and cons assessment the only entities he listed as having an interest in something happening to a 14 year old was the parents and the state, and he completely omitted all mention of the person themselves who was making the conscious choice and informed decision about a major thing in their own life.

Fetuses/newly born infants are a different category. They do not make informed decisions because they don't have the mental ability to do so.

[seer]

A correct version of your second sentence would ask if the kid should have the right. The state is not forcing transition on the kid, the kid is the one making that choice.

So a 14 year old girl can consent to having a radical mastectomy, a 13 year old can consent to using puberty blockers and hormones? Maybe they can also consent to having sex with a 40 year old man.

Part of your argument, of course, is against the doctors' recognition that transition can constitute current-best-practice-healthcare for people with gender dysphoria. I am immensely skeptical of your pretense to know more on that subject than the medical profession, and I will defer to them about what is or isn't appropriate medical treatment for any given health condition.

Whose best practice? Big medical and Pharma? WPATH which is more of a political advocacy group? And tell me Star why are countries like Sweden pretty much ending medical intervention for those under 18? Do you know better than their medical professionals? The fact is, Science is not my God, as it is for you. In this case they are selling a lie, you can not change sex...

[Starlight]

So a 14 year old girl can consent to having a radical mastectomy

Generally I do not support physical body-changing operations on people of that age, as there is little downside in waiting until they are older. From what I've seen of the data, most doctors appear to agree, and it would be extraordinarily rare for that procedure to be performed on someone that age (that is not an invitation for you to post examples of rare instances of it occurring: I agree it does occur in rare instances and I do generally think that is bad).

a 13 year old can consent to using puberty blockers and hormones?

Puberty blockers and hormones are a very different story to invasive surgical procedures like mastectomies. One reason they are a different story is because they can't be as easily delayed until later in life the way a mastectomy can.

Obviously the decision needs to be made before puberty as to whether to let the body go through puberty. If is does so, it will acquire physical characteristics strongly associated with the physical sex to a degree that it is difficult to alter later in life. A person who has gone through puberty as one gender may never be able to successfully change their body later in life to a point where they "pass" as they other gender. So this is clearly not a decision that can be delayed until later in life the way a mastectomy can.

Puberty blockers are a way to delay that decision and give the child more time to make a fully informed decision before puberty hits. They may indeed eventually decide to go through puberty as their birth sex as you would want them to. Or they may not. Their life, their decision. Not yours.

Puberty seems to be a double edged sword for transgenderism, because there is research showing a fair proportion of people with transgenderism have it reduced by going through puberty and tend to become not-transgender-but-homosexual (I'm not sure if you think that's better?), while for those whom the transgenderism remains present the process of going through puberty as what they perceive to be the 'wrong' sex for them can be intensely mentally upsetting (to the point of suicide). I think doctors obviously should be cognizant of this and tread very carefully in terms of doing their absolute best to discern which of these two responses to puberty a given patient is likely to have.

From what I have read, the research seems to imply that the outcome of puberty can be predicted fairly strongly by both the strength and time of onset of the transgenderism: People who have had strongly feelings of transgenderism from a very young age (e.g. < 8 years old) are highly unlikely to have their transgenderism self-resolve during puberty, while people who have weak feels of transgenderism that developed in their teenage years are highly likely to have their transgenderism self-resolve during puberty. From what I observe of US culture, I think sometimes liberals make the mistake of supporting the second ground in transitioning, and conservatives make the mistake of trying to prevent the first group from transitioning.

Maybe they can also consent to having sex with a 40 year old man.

Our culture recognizes the developing mental faculties of children and teenagers and so assigns ever-increasing rights to them as they age. e.g. the age of being able to purchase alcohol; the age of being able to drive a car; the age of being able to have sex; the age of being able to be charged for criminal actions as an adult, etc. In this way our society agrees with my basic idea that the rights of children increase with their developing mental faculties. Obviously there is no objectively correct age to set for the age to buy alcohol etc and different states and countries will set it slightly differently and bicker as to whether it should be moved up or down by a year or two, but everyone does seem to agree that there is some sort of mental development which makes it sensible to have these rights and responsibilities kicking in as the child develops.

Whose best practice? Big medical and Pharma?

Ideally evidence-based medicine.

Capitalist corruption such as Big Pharma. is certainly a problem in general. Ideally, IMO, we should abolish big pharma and instead have all governments pledge to put 1% of GDP toward medical research and make all drugs discovered in this way available at cost (~1c each) worldwide. It is better than those same governments putting that same money in subsidies to Big Pharma companies and then having them price gouge everyone and corrupt everything with massive political bribery in order to make mammoth profits selling the drugs they've discovered with government money back to the government and populace at a mammoth mark-up.

And tell me Star why are countries like Sweden pretty much ending medical intervention for those under 18?

From what I read of what you quoted previously, you are overstating this. Tweaking it to dial it down a little isn't "ending". As I said above, I think it's really important to thread the needle in puberty in distinguishing cases likely to self-resolve from cases unlikely to. You US conservatives seem to get it wrong in one direction and overzealous US liberals seem to get it wrong in the other direction. It's important to be evidenced based and not simply apply your pre-existing ideology like you are doing (or like the liberals are doing in the opposite direction).

[seanD]

The definition of (subtle) grooming and indoctrination...

Transformers

It's not even causally referenced as an aside, they're specifically teaching them what it means as if it's something normal. The problem is that kids don't have their own opinion, it's being forced on them via indoctrination and brainwashing from every cultural direction.

[Starlight]

The definition of (subtle) grooming and indoctrination...

Transformers

It's not even causally referenced as an aside, they're specifically teaching them what it means as if it's something normal. The problem is that kids don't have their own opinion, it's being forced on them via indoctrination and brainwashing from every cultural direction.

I think that was a bit cringe. However, it seemed an accurate depiction of how I've seen some people act in the US currently.

Are you suggesting TV should not be allowed to show such true-to-life instances of how some people act currently in society?

If your argument is that the TV depicting people acting a certain way is subtle encouragement for those watching it to act in that way... then do we need to ban all instances of the baddies committing crimes (subtle encouragement to commit crimes?) and ban all instances of fights or conflict or violence (subtle encouragement to do violence?). That doesn't strike me as sustainable. You'd ban nearly all TV if you applied those principles.