"Thank you, Mom and Dad, for defending my right to get cervical cancer."

[sophia jane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301356.html

A couple things of interest in this article (in my opinion)-
that alot of our concerns here are concerns of others
that one of the politicians called it a vaccine against "cancer"
that the scientists involved in the development didn't consider it for mandatory innoculations
that nothing is known about how long the vaccine remains effective (that alone is scary to me, to promise all these girls that they're protected and then ten years from now they're surprised when they get HPV)
that it's not even known if the states can afford to cover the costs of making it mandatory

To me that all adds up to a rush job.

 

[Guest]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301356.html

A couple things of interest in this article (in my opinion)-
that alot of our concerns here are concerns of others
that one of the politicians called it a vaccine against "cancer"
that the scientists involved in the development didn't consider it for mandatory innoculations
that nothing is known about how long the vaccine remains effective (that alone is scary to me, to promise all these girls that they're protected and then ten years from now they're surprised when they get HPV)
that it's not even known if the states can afford to cover the costs of making it mandatory

To me that all adds up to a rush job.

amen sista.
amen.
isnt that just kinda what i said long ago?

 

[sophia jane]

amen sista.
amen.
isnt that just kinda what i said long ago?

Yep, me too.

 

[Guest]

Yep, me too.

And me, three!

Where's Selena? She would be part of the group. A foursome!

 

[Liar]

To me that all adds up to a rush job.

Someone wanted to be The Governor Who Cured Cancer, perhaps?

 

[Pure]

someone farted!

amicus at the keyboard, with a few old tapes

that umbrella of Constitutional guarantees of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

P: These are not constitutional guarantees, dummy. You remind me of the other religionists who want God back into public life since he's mentioned in the Declaration.

odd how the constitutionalist have to go outside the constitution--- and then override it.

those Rights, of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, are the Truths, that because they are innate

nope, one wrong. rights don't come because of conception or birth.

and axiomatic,

nope (outside of Atlas Shrugged); two wrong

are indeed a reflection of Beauty.

nope. three of three.
and you misquote Keats, in the bargain.

A: you want to put chemicals in our drinking water because you think it is right.

P: it's already been done, fella. it's called chlorine. it was democratically decided more than 50 years ago. yes, i know most of the electorate hasn't read your bible (Rand), but hey, ya gotta let people do what they want. isn't that called 'liberty'?

A: I may disagree, others may disagree. Enter the arena, make your case.

it's been done. move up to 1950 and let us know what you see.

 

[Pure]

drinking water history, from state of alaska website

Historic Milestones in Drinking Water History
Circa 400 B.C.: Hippocrates emphasizes the importance of water quality to health and recommends boiling and straining water.

Circa 200 B.C.: A Sanskrit manuscript observes that "It is good to keep water in copper vessels, to expose it to sunlight, and filter it through charcoal."

1774 A.D.: Chlorine is discovered in Sweden.

1804: The first municipal water filtration works opens in Paisley, Scotland.

1835: Chlorine is first applied to drinking water to control foul odors in the water.

1849: The cholera epidemics of 1849 claim 8,000 lives in New York City and 5,000 in New Orleans.

1854: Dr. John Snow discovers that victims of a cholera outbreak in London have all used water from the same contaminated well on Broad Street.

1877 -1882: Louis Pasteur develops the theory that disease is spread by germs.

1882: Filtration of London drinking water begins.

1890s: Chlorine is proven an effective disinfectant of drinking water.

1890s: Microbiologist Robert Koch attributes the low incidence of cholera in Altona, Germany, located downstream on the Elbe River from cholera-infested Hamburg, to water supply filtration practices in Altona.

1896: The Louisville Water Company innovates a new treatment technique by combining coagulation with rapid-sand filtration. This treatment technique eliminates turbidity and removes 99% of the bacteria from the water.

1902: Belgium implements the first continuous use of chlorine to make drinking water biologically "safe".

1908: A U.S. public water supply is chlorinated for the first time at Boonton reservoir supply, Jersey City, NJ. This inexpensive treatment method produces water that is 20 times purer than filtered water. Contested in the courts, a city's right to chlorinate its water supply was upheld as a safeguard to public health. This action paved the way for chlorination throughout America's drinking water supplies.

1912: Congress passes the Public Health Service Act which authorizes surveys and studies for water pollution -- particularly as it affects human health.

1914: The first standards under the Public Health Service Act become law. These introduce the concept of maximum contaminant limits for drinking water. The standards, however, apply only to water supplies serving interstate transportation because they are intended to protect the traveling public.

1955: An infectious hepatitis epidemic in New Delhi, India is traced to inadequately chlorinated water at one of the city's two treatment plants. An estimated 1 million people are infected.

1962: U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards Revision is accepted as minimum standards for all public water suppliers.

 

[amicus]

The 'Clown' and Axiomatic Truth

I have not replied to the ‘clown’ of the forum since he uttered anti-semitic hatred against me some time ago. I did not place him on ignore because I wish to keep track of his dishonest, evil methods of cleverly assaulting axiomatic or innate ‘truths’ of any kind.

His attack against my assertions concerning the efficacy of the principles of the founding documents of this nation, I.E. ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit…’, were weak and unsubstantiated and he knew it would not stand alone.

In typical ‘clown’ fashion, he cleverly segueyed into chemical additives to drinking water, knowing full well it was not Chlorides, but Fluorides, I used as my unstated example.

Both Chlorides and Fluorides are harmful to human life in certain quantities, but in controlled quantities, can be beneficial. But, again, apples and oranges, both fruits, but different.

The use of Chlorides to purify water is something akin to a third wire, a grounding wire, on an electrical circuit, proven technology used to protect the population from exposure to danger. Chlorination of water is a factor of purification, not an additive for a political purpose as Fluoridation of water for the prevention of tooth decay is.

So the ‘clown’ cleverly set up what is known in Philosophy as a ‘straw man’ argument. He diverted from the original assertion I made, substituted one of his own and refuted that. Clever, doncha think?

The following is the ‘chemical’ additive to drinking water I was referring to:


http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/flouride.htm

Hidden Danger in Your Drinking Water and Toothpaste


Fluoride and Fluoridated Water's Link to Thyroid Disease
This common additive to your water supply, and ingredient in the toothpaste you and your children use may be contributing to the increased rates of hypothyroidism -- and other health concerns -- in the U.S. . . without improving dental health

What is Fluoride?

Fluoride is an element from the halogen group, as are iodide and chloride. It is commonly added to the water supply as hydrofluosilicic acid, silicofluoride or sodium fluoride. Fluoride is also found as an additive in toothpastes and some mouthwashes, as a tooth decay preventive ingredient.

Why is Fluoride Used?

Fluoride is used to fight tooth decay in children. The key initial studies purporting to demonstrate its effectiveness as an anti-cavity fighting compound were performed back in the 1940s.

Those studies, conducted in Grand Rapids, MI in 1945, in Newburgh, NY in 1945, in Brantford, Ontario in 1945, and in Evanston, IL in 1947, are now being called into question. According to Dr. Philip Sutton, author of "The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation" *A Factual Book, Lorne, Australia, 1996), these studies are actually of dubious scientific quality.

More recently, other studies attempting to document the effectiveness of fluoride have been conducted. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis examined the raw data from a large study that was conducted by the National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR). He concluded that fluoride did not appear to have any decay preventing success, as there was little difference in the DMFT values (the mean number of decayed, missing or filled teeth) for approximately 40,000 children. It did not matter whether they grew up in fluoridated, non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities. (Yiamouyiannis, J.A. "Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren", Fluoride, 23, 55-67, 1990).

(Beginning excerpts from article tied to the link provided.)

~~~

The Pro Fluoridation people, like the Pro Immunization of eleven year old girls people, the SheReads and Pures of this world are the ones who think they are so superior and know so much more than the general ‘democratic’ voting public, all who have those ‘guaranteed’ rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit…” they do not wish us to voice an opinion, they wish to impose their will upon us.

Kiss my ass.


Amicus…

 

[S-Des]

I invested the hour or so it took to read through each and every post of this thread; well worth the time.

My first thought is to suggest a sincere apology to S-Des. From time to time people appear on this forum with personal attacks and insults attempting to cover their lack of intellectual ability to present a logical or rational disagreement.

I love this forum and most of the people who participate, it is one of the best and most open and intellectual online forums I have ever found. As such, I want to do my part to keep it that way.

It lowers the standards of the forum when the personal attacks are made and not risen up against by all, except in the case of Amicus, of course, who is always fair game for any and all. (Thanks Shereads. I notice even after I have been away for weeks and have not previously contributed to this thread, you made an exception of me, I think you secretly wanna jump me.)_

If no such apology to S-Des is forthcoming, or even if it is, I offer mine, for the forum in general, such a personal attack was uncalled for and showed a lack of class that is usually upheld here.

That is very nicely said Ami, and I appreciate it. It is unnecessary, as I was more than capable of saying my peace, and have moved on. I made a half-assed post when I was tired and managed to convey something that I wasn't trying to, which Minsue caught and very nicely (and correctly) pointed out to me. Hopefully I can clarify what I meant to say.

What I was trying to express was my outrage that all 11 year-olds would be forcibly exposed to this vaccine (which any number of AHers has expressed concerns over) because everyone assumes you have to do it then or it will be too late. They are considering vaccinating tens of millions of girls, dozens of times throughout their lives, with something that hasn't been thoroughly tested and has side-effects that are so extreme that some of the test group had to withdraw (and those are the ones we know about). This affects an incredibly small portion of our society (not the HPV, but the cervical cancer that comes from it...that is the 70% of those that the vaccine actually treats). According to the CDC, less than 10,000 cases a year are diagnosed and around 3000 women die from it (and the number has been declining steadily for a decade). This isn't a plague exploding on our society, it affects a relatively small portion of our population and is getting better through information and health care.

My problem with this isn't that kids are going to want to go have an orgy because of it. It's that out of the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to disease, this is one so small it doesn't even make the regular list. How many drugs do we inject into our children before bad things start happening? As I said, if there were a hundred vaccines, each with side effects ranging from headaches, to nausea, to internal bleeding, but they kept your kid from ever getting cancer, would you subject them to a daily regimine of illness to "save them" (not to mention the possible consequences to all the chemicals in their systems)? Of course I believe everyone should have access to this. My mother had breast cancer and beat it, only to die from Pituitary cancer. If my daughter wants to take the HPV vaccine, I will be 100% behind her (although I will make sure she has all the information). My problem is forcing it on children before they are remotely close to being ready to handle the concept of painful injections that make them sick, but which they "have" to take because someday a boy is going to put his penis inside her and it might give her a disease that will someday kill her. I think that's a conversation that can wait until she's a little older. If people believe that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

BTW, for those bringing up rape as a reason to start early...If the total number of women dying from this annually is 3000 (that's the 70% of CC that is caused from the HPV's this treats), how much smaller does that number get when you start trying to use the exceptions? Although you're right, it does happen, it's a much smaller percentage. Again I ask, how many drugs do we stick into our kids to "protect" them? Shouldn't we at least wait on some until they can help make the decision (since it is their body, after all).

 

[S-Des]

Someone wanted to be The Governor Who Cured Cancer, perhaps?

Maybe the Governor did have visions of granduer, but maybe it had more to do with the kickbacks he gets from the drug companies. After all, tens of millions of girls, vaccinated every few years for the rest of their lives at $360 a pop is kind of a lot of money. Hmmm, I can't imagine any motivations other than honorable ones from the Pharmacuetical company or the politicians working with them.

 

[angelicminx]

...

I wonder what the reaction would be to a vaccine that showed promise of preventing HIV infection. Would there still be the argument that preventing AIDs is not a public health issue because it can't be transmitted by air or touch?

I can give you my reaction. It would be the same. I don't want it mandated, or made into a law. I want further information about the vaccine itself and all of the possible consequences/ side effects. From that information I will choose whether to vaccinate my child or myself.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Personally, I think that laws should have sunset provisions, most of the time. That is, expiring after certain dates, unless a compelling case can be made to renew them....

I think this is absolutely BRILLIANT. Sev, why aren't you running for office somewhere?

Everyone loves SK...that much at least everyone on this thread can agree with....okay, end of threadjack....

and ...

Where's Selena? She would be part of the group. A foursome!

Foursome? *perk*
Adding my "me, too!" to the chorus

A: you want to put chemicals in our drinking water because you think it is right.

P: it's already been done, fella. it's called chlorine. it was democratically decided more than 50 years ago. yes, i know most of the electorate hasn't read your bible (Rand), but hey, ya gotta let people do what they want. isn't that called 'liberty'?

A: I may disagree, others may disagree. Enter the arena, make your case.

it's been done. move up to 1950 and let us know what you see.

Pure...

Ami wasn't saying it HASN'T been done... (I knew he was talking about fluoride, btw, and I think, so did you...) But he's saying we have the RIGHT TO DISAGREE. And debate. And decide amongst a "free people" what is and isn't right as a whole. And a MANDATE - i.e. administrative law - doesn't give the public sufficient time/notice to protest and disagree and debate. Or come to some compromise (i.e. an "opt out" clause) As She mentioned, it's being debated in the legislature in some states. Great. As I said, if it became a law in my state, I'd move. There are states I refuse to live in because of their laws now. Against homeschooling, home birthing, vaccinations, midwifery, you name it. It would be no different.

She...

Minxie was kind enough to respond to your question... personally, I think Ami's right, no one has responded because what's hidden behind your question is an agenda. "If we have a guideline... then..." in other words, if there's some sort of map, we can ALWAYS follow said map and get to the same place. It doesn't work in this realm, as logical as that sounds. It just doesn't work. Given your question, I gave you what amounted to the ONLY answer possible that would work as a "map" to get to the same place, all the time: in the case of IMMINENT THREAT to a child's life. I had hoped you and others might see how ridiculous your question was in lieu of that response.

You didn't like that answer, because it didn't include all the horrors like child porn, beatings, etc. Well, guess what? You can't have a "road map" that gets to the same place with THOSE issues. Not possible. As a free people, we have a right to disagree and debate those issues (and really, any issue, even a b&w one such as Ami's assumed "right to life"). I have PERSONALLY known people who have had their parental rights TERMINATED... forever... because they had naked pictures of their children in a bathtub. Or because they smacked their teenager across the face.

Your "guideline" would have something like that be perfectly justified.

That's why I proposed what I did. Criminalizing criminal behavior (which, as JJ pointed it, most already are) and DROPPING the rest.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Again I ask, how many drugs do we stick into our kids to "protect" them? Shouldn't we at least wait on some until they can help make the decision (since it is their body, after all).

"Princess, would you like to have a vaccine against cervical cancer?"
"Gaaah gaaah gooh gaaaaaah!"
"She doesn't want to have the vaccine. It's her body. Her decision."

OK, I know I'm stretching it a bit using a baby as an example, but seriously, do you really expect CHILDREN to understand the value of vaccines? We're talking about creatures who, a few years later, can't even understand the value of condoms!
Kids just think needles=pain=don't want to; not needles=vaccine=protection against diseases. Some things have to be done TO children, in order to protect them. We vaccine our kids against numerous diseases for their own good. I can understand if there's a question on whether or not the vaccien actually works, that part of your hesitation makes perfect sense.

But if it does work, and it can protect a girl against cancer, then I can't see any reason on this earth why we shouldn't vaccinate little girls en masse!

 

[angelicminx]

shereads:Thanks, Minx.

You're welcome.

Every new law threatens someone's freedom.

I agree. I cringe every time a new law is passed.

The freedom to drive your car at what you consider a safe speed, based on your driving skills.

Brings to mind some interesting scenarios. I actually wouldn't object to this, but I might find myself making the choice to drive less often. I believe there is a state (I don't recall which one. Montana?) which has a 'reasonable speed for the conditions' speed limit on the interstate. Then I begin to wonder about the speed limit already set in residential areas. 25 seems like a reasonable speed, but sometimes even that's too fast, IMO. There are already people who abuse the posted speed limit. It makes me shiver to think what not having a speed limit would do. People have their own definition of 'reasonable'.

The freedom to follow your religion even if it means choosing prayer over a blood transfusion for your child.

I agree with this. It would rip me apart if the child died, but I defend parents freedom to follow their religion. Other things come to mind, however. For instance, how old is the child? Can the child make their OWN informed decision? What does the child choose to do? So many questions, so many factors.

I would have difficulty myself with a blood transfusion for my child, but not for religious reasons. The idea terrifies me. I hear horror stories about contaminates in blood all the time. The possibility of being arrested for 'medical neglect' would NOT sway my decision, but I would request a direct transfusion from a matching family member before a transfusion from a 'stranger'. In the event of an emergency, when there isn't time for weighing the long term consequences, I'd give her the blood and pray it was the right decision.

My mother has a different view for herself. She doesn't want a blood transfusion. If she ever requires one we are to insist on a direct transfusion from a family member, and if that is not an option we are to let her die. Not something I want to happen, but I will respect her wishes. (Yes, she has this in writing. My family has learned the hard way to document everything to have a legal leg to stand on.)

The right to dispose of factory waste or household garbage as you see fit; the right of your neighbors who live downstream or downwind, to breath clean air and drink clean water.

I agree with the majority of waste disposal guidelines. If we don't take some steps to protect the environment, we won't have an environment. I'd have to do some research to develop a conclusive answer.

It seems as if we each evaluate a law as necessary or unfairly invasive, based on how well it fits with our own lifestyle and beliefs. Outlaw marijuana, and people who don't smoke marijuana are all for it; use the same reasoning to bring back Prohibition, and a nation of beer drinkers would overthrow the government.

Spot on, and a great argument for legalization. I don't use it, but I don't fault people who do. Same goes for other drugs. Some of the arguments against drug use could be posed for alcohol use. Hmm... would legalization bring about new laws regulating ingredients? Probably. There are both good and bad points to that as well.

There seems to be no logic to it; legislators pass the laws that a majority of us either want, or are willing to put up with. The result is a legal system so full of inconsistencies, it's hard to find a thread of fairness or common sense.

Some laws are even passed without majority knowledge. It IS hard to find a thread of fairness or common sense, which is why I think the laws should be thrown out and we should start over. There are still laws on the books which no longer apply, but are enforced when law enforcement wants to make a point.

Take, for instance, a law I heard of recently which says that someone being released from prison is to receive a plot of land, a gun and a horse. Most likely the released prisoner is a felon, and it's against the law to for a felon to possess a gun. Law enforcement arrests them for gun possession.

In Los Angeles, it is still against the law to spit. 10-15 years ago, my husband got a ticket for spitting. The punishment? 6 months to 1 year in county jail. No, he didn't serve the time. The case went to court and the judge threw it out based on an outdated law and an overzealous police officer. Some might say, "So what? He wasn't punished." I would argue that the case still cost us, the taxpayers, money.

Some of the 'witch laws' are still on the books. What if someone wanted to enforce them?

I could go on and on about this. I'm well versed in the idiocy of law.

It gets even more unfair and confusing when it comes to enforcement, which is uneven at best; and sentencing, which can seem as if it's based on Magic 8-Ball. In some states, people convicted of first-offense drug possesion have been sentenced to longer jail terms than rapists and killers. Not because it made sense, but because it made political sense.

The going joke in my family is if you're going to attack someone you'd best make sure you kill them, because you'll get less time. There have been cases on the national news where 'attempted murder' or 'attempted manslaughter' has carried a heavier sentence than 'first degree murder'.

Another layer of confusion is added when decisions are subjective, as in the custody case you mentioned that was settled in favor of the non-smoking parent.

When it comes to government acting on behalf of children, I think society only recently began to consider children as having certain rights apart from what their parents might choose for them - the right to an education, for one. The right to a childhood, protected by a legally mandated "age of consent." For every law that's ever been passed to protect the rights of children, there have been parents who objected to what they considered unwarranted interference. Sometimes they're right. Other times, they manage to exert enough influence that the law doesn't go far enough, and children fall through the cracks.

The right to an education. This is a tough one for me. I believe it's in the best interest of society as a whole that we educate our children. I also believe that we should educate our adults. But at the same time, I also believe we do infringe on parental rights to raise children as they see fit.

I applaud the parents who have fought for the right to homeschool their children. It HAS been a huge fight. I had the intention of homeschooling my daughter, from the moment I discovered I was pregnant. I gave up that course of action when she was in her preschool years. I was scared I wouldn't be able to teach her to read, we have entirely different learning styles.

Then there are parents who say they are homeschooling after a child has been expelled, who aren't. They allow the child to do as they wish. I had one of those children as a neighbor for a few years. The child had four children by the time they moved, when she was 17.


I'm not sure what you mean by "The right to a childhood, protected by a legally mandated 'age of consent'". How does a legally madated 'age of consent' give them the right to a childhood? I fail to see the connection. (I may be a little dense this morning.)

My question has always been, 'Who decides what the age of consent should be?'. In some states the legal age of consent is 14. In others 16 or 18. In Kentucky it's 16. I've been told that a girl can marry as early as 14 with parental consent, and a boy can't marry until he's 18, period. I don't know how valid that information is.

I agree that society has only recently begun considering children as having certain rights apart from what their parents might choose. I also agree that children should have certain rights. I think they've gone too far, however.

Remember, for every responsible parent who demands the right to make an informed decision, there are dozens of parents who don't give a damn about their children's health. How do we protect those children, without laws that may be unfair to resonsible parents?

Case by case. Who decides when those children need protection? What guidelines do we use?

I've stated in the past that I believe parenting should require a license, but then I wonder who decides what's on the test and who passes? Then it also opens the door for more government revenue. I do think basic first aid and CPR should be required before a child is allowed to leave the hospital.

My question is still open to anyone who wants to take it on: define a guideline that you consider fair and consistent, under which the law should interfere with personal freedom.

In my own opinion, every adult should be free to choose any course of action, from shooting heroin to marrying triplets; government should pass laws to protect us from each other, but not from the risks we choose for ourselves. If an adult wants to marry his twin brother and their mother, fine. Just don't mandate my attendance at the wedding.

I agree. This also cracked me up.

Government also has an obligation to protect its weakest citizens. Deciding what is and is not in their best interests is not an exact science. In the case of a vaccine, as with global warming, waiting until all the results are in seems to promise more serioius consequences than plunging ahead and being wrong.

WHY does the Government have an obligation to protect its weakest citizens? No, deciding what's in the best interest of someone else isn't an exact science. What may be in one person's best interest may not be in mine, and vice versa.

I disagree with waiting promising more serious consequences than plunging ahead and being wrong. Seems to me the consequences, in some things, are equal.

Global warming falls into a whole separate category for me. I grant you, I don't know much about global warming, but I DO know global warming doesn't involve injecting a drug into my body with unknown long term consequences.

 

[angelicminx]

...

OK, I know I'm stretching it a bit using a baby as an example, but seriously, do you really expect CHILDREN to understand the value of vaccines? We're talking about creatures who, a few years later, can't even understand the value of condoms!

Kids just think needles=pain=don't want to; not needles=vaccine=protection against diseases. Some things have to be done TO children, in order to protect them. We vaccine our kids against numerous diseases for their own good. I can understand if there's a question on whether or not the vaccien actually works, that part of your hesitation makes perfect sense.

But if it does work, and it can protect a girl against cancer, then I can't see any reason on this earth why we shouldn't vaccinate little girls en masse!

I can only answer your question based on MY child. The answer for her is a resounding YES, I can expect her to understand the value of vaccines. She understands more than some people would give her credit for. Yes, she would be hesitant about getting a shot based on pain value alone, but her final decision would be based on the value of the benefit.

My daughter had eye surgery at the age of 6. While ultimately is was MY decision, I took her opinion into consideration. I explained the whole procedure to her, holding nothing back, as well as the eventual benefit. I told her that she would be given an IV, a needle in her arm. I told her about the gas she would be given to make her sleep. I described the operation to her and I told her of the doctors warning about the surgery running the risk of death. I also explained to her that if we did this surgery, she would be able to see out of her left eye. Upon weighing all of the information, her only request was that I be there to hold her hand while the needle was being inserted and that I be there when she woke up.

Her pediatric eye doctor had a practice of sneaking up on his patients when it came to dialation. He did this to her once in the 3 years we were seeing him and learned from that mistake that when it comes to my daughter it was better to be upfront and honest. Every time after that he explained what he was going to do and why, garnering her full cooperation. Even when it was something that scared her or hurt.

When the time came for booster shots, I also explained the benefit of those, not keeping it a secret that it involved a shot and a minor amount of pain. She trusts me to keep her informed and she knows I value her opinion.

When the time comes I will use the same practice with regard to sex that I have always used. I'll lay out the facts, the consequences and the benefits. I have no doubt that she will understand the value of a condom. Now whether she will use them in the heat of the moment I can't say. I pray to God that she will, but I'm almost 100% certain I won't be there.

She is reaching puberty. She is aware of her body changes, she knows WHY those changes are happening and she knows that boys go through changes too. She's not quite ready for the 'sex' talk, but it's coming soon.

I completely disagree that there are things we need to do TO children, 'for their own good'. With the exception of an infant, who has no voice, there is no reason on earth that a child can't be included in the decision. A child of 11 has a voice and is entitled to have an opinion. My daughter, from the time she could understand, has been kept informed of everything that was being done 'for her own good'.

I believe some of the fear children have about shots, pain still being a factor, has to do with their trusted adults not explaining why beforehand. I may be wrong, but it's something I fully believe. (I've also met some children whose trusted adults threaten them with getting a shot if they don't behave. )

 

[Pure]

ami clarifies his thinking, such as it is...

A: you want to put chemicals in our drinking water because you think it is right.

P: it's already been done, fella. it's called chlorine. it was democratically decided more than 50 years ago. yes, i know most of the electorate hasn't read your bible (Rand), but hey, ya gotta let people do what they want. isn't that called 'liberty'?

Amicus In typical ‘clown’ fashion, he cleverly segueyed into chemical additives to drinking water, knowing full well it was not Chlorides, but Fluorides, I used as my unstated example. […]]

OH, SORRY AMI, i didn't read your mind. I thought "chemicals" meant "chemicals", not "flourides."


The use of Chlorides to purify water is something akin to a third wire, a grounding wire, on an electrical circuit, proven technology used to protect the population from exposure to danger. Chlorination of water is a factor of purification, not an additive for a political purpose as Fluoridation of water for the prevention of tooth decay is.[…]

GOOD THINKING AMI. adding chlorine is 'a factor for purification', whereas flourine is 'an additive for political purposes'?

What might those purposes be? no doubt commie mind control, right?

So why is Chemical A "proven technology" and Chemical B "political"?
Because Ami says so?


[..]The following is the ‘chemical’ additive to drinking water I was referring to:

==

The issue was a government adding a "chemical" to water. The principle is that it has that right, where the public good is involved. The representatives approved it as being for the public good. It's been done.

the principle is established

the debate over chemical A or B or neither, can of course go on, and maybe A is good and B is bad--one later finds-- but the principle is established.

why ami's ideas take precedence over American democratic processes has never been made clear. i guess it's the secular version of the 'pipeline to God,' claim by Pat Robertson and his ilk.

sk said,
But he's saying we have the RIGHT TO DISAGREE. And debate. And decide amongst a "free people" what is and isn't right as a whole.

Ami can do his flatulence anywhere. it's a constitutional right until he threatens people. BUT the issue was the governments right to add chemicals. It has that right. He denied it. The issue was settled in the courts some time ago. He can rant about it forever, like a southerner who's unhappy that slavery was abolished.

 

[angelicminx]

I think this is absolutely BRILLIANT. Sev, why aren't you running for office somewhere?

I agree. I just didn't get around to saying so.

She...

Minxie was kind enough to respond to your question... personally, I think Ami's right, no one has responded because what's hidden behind your question is an agenda. "If we have a guideline... then..." in other words, if there's some sort of map, we can ALWAYS follow said map and get to the same place. It doesn't work in this realm, as logical as that sounds. It just doesn't work. Given your question, I gave you what amounted to the ONLY answer possible that would work as a "map" to get to the same place, all the time: in the case of IMMINENT THREAT to a child's life. I had hoped you and others might see how ridiculous your question was in lieu of that response.

You didn't like that answer, because it didn't include all the horrors like child porn, beatings, etc. Well, guess what? You can't have a "road map" that gets to the same place with THOSE issues. Not possible. As a free people, we have a right to disagree and debate those issues (and really, any issue, even a b&w one such as Ami's assumed "right to life"). I have PERSONALLY known people who have had their parental rights TERMINATED... forever... because they had naked pictures of their children in a bathtub. Or because they smacked their teenager across the face.

Your "guideline" would have something like that be perfectly justified.

That's why I proposed what I did. Criminalizing criminal behavior (which, as JJ pointed it, most already are) and DROPPING the rest.

I didn't see the question as having a hidden agenda.

I agree that we can't have a 'road map'. Criminalizing criminal behavior is the best idea I've heard to this point. But that still brings up what criminal behavior would be, and who decides.

Love ya, Selena. And I'm loving the hell out of this thread. My brain is whirling, in a good way for a change.

 

[Pure]

note to angelic

AM My daughter had eye surgery at the age of 6. While ultimately is was MY decision, I took her opinion into consideration. I explained the whole procedure to her, holding nothing back, as well as the eventual benefit. I told her that she would be given an IV, a needle in her arm. I told her about the gas she would be given to make her sleep. I described the operation to her and I told her of the doctors warning about the surgery running the risk of death. I also explained to her that if we did this surgery, she would be able to see out of her left eye. Upon weighing all of the information, her only request was that I be there to hold her hand while the needle was being inserted and that I be there when she woke up.

Her pediatric eye doctor had a practice of sneaking up on his patients when it came to dialation. He did this to her once in the 3 years we were seeing him and learned from that mistake that when it comes to my daughter it was better to be upfront and honest. Every time after that he explained what he was going to do and why, garnering her full cooperation. Even when it was something that scared her or hurt.

When the time came for booster shots, I also explained the benefit of those, not keeping it a secret that it involved a shot and a minor amount of pain. She trusts me to keep her informed and she knows I value her opinion.

P: That sounds very caring and humane, what you did. You should value her reactions and opinions. However, does she have a veto?
At what age? 4, 8, 12?

Suppose at age 6, she said, "I'm too afraid to go ahead with this eye operation." Do you go by that?

I agree children are sometimes tyrranized 'for their own good.' That's why society gets involved. OTHER adults, not the just parents, who may be loonies like Amicus, get involved. There is the issue of what *reasonable, informed adults* consider to be vital to the child's interest. The parent has much, almost unlimited, latitude over non-vital, non health related issues, like how long the skirt is, covering the head, etc. BUT limited latitude where the child's health or life is seriously at issue.

The right of the "state" (i.e., social workers who represent 'society') to intervene for child welfare probably comes from the Bill of Rights, the rights to life and liberty for all persons, subject to agreed limitations. IT's the same right exercized when elder abuse occurs. Relatives do not have a right to harm or take the life of a child or an elder.

Ancient Hebrew and Roman law disagreed. The father had a right of life or death over children. He HAD that right in that society, but doesn't have it in our society, HENCE the right of the child is not 'innate' (something she's born with).

 

[angelicminx]

Pure

P: That sounds very caring and humane, what you did. You should value her reactions and opinions. However, does she have a veto?

Yes, depending on the reason for the veto.

At what age? 4, 8, 12?

Never had a set age. Ability to comprehend what was going on, and the individual situation determined that.


Suppose at age 6, she said, "I'm too afraid to go ahead with this eye operation." Do you go by that?

Depending on her reasons, yes. If we had needed to postpone the surgery I would have in a heartbeat. The way the doctor presented the 'risk of death' to me damned near made me decline, and I told her that. We talked about all of the benefits and consequences together and made an informed decision, together.

I agree children are sometimes tyrranized 'for their own good.' That's why society gets involved.

Society gets involved because children are being tyrannized? Most times, it seems to me, that society is the one doing the tyrannizing.

OTHER adults, not the just parents, who may be loonies like Amicus, get involved.

I take offense to Amicus being categorized as looney. He's expressed strong beliefs, yes, and a lot of things I don't necessarily agree with, but looney he is not.

Looney: Etymology: by shortening & alteration from lunatic
Date: 1872
: crazy, foolish

Lunatic: 1 a: affected with lunacy : insane b: designed for the care of insane persons <lunatic asylum>
2: wildly foolish <a lunatic idea>


There is the issue of what *reasonable, informed adults* consider to be vital to the child's interest. The parent has much, altmost unlimited, latitude over non-vital, non health related issues, like how long the skirt is, covering the head, etc.

The right of the "state" (i.e., social workers who represent 'society') to intervene for child welfare probably comes from the Bill of Rights, the rights to life and liberty for all persons, subject to agreed limitations. IT's the same right exercized when elder abuse occurs. Relatives do not have a right to harm or take the life of a child or an elder.

Ancient Hebrew and Roman law disagreed. The father had a right of life or death over children. He HAD that right in that society, but doesn't have it in our society, HENCE the right of the child is not 'innate' (something she's born with).

This last part... I'm just not sure where you're going with it, therefore I have no response at this time.

 

[Pure]

I take offense to Amicus being categorized as looney. He's expressed strong beliefs, yes, and a lot of things I don't necessarily agree with, but looney he is not.

Looney: Etymology: by shortening & alteration from lunatic
Date: 1872
: crazy, foolish

foolish... QED. (my point is proved).

do you know anyone else arguing it may have been a mistake to allow women to vote?

==
Pure: I agree children are sometimes tyrranized 'for their own good.' That's why society gets involved.

Angelic Society gets involved because children are being tyrannized? Most times, it seems to me, that society is the one doing the tyrannizing.

no, most kids who are killed, are killed by parents; most kids who are injured by assault, are so because of the parents or caretakers.

other than insisting that 5 year olds go to school, with clothes on, and with vaccinations, i don't see society [or strangers] doing much 'tyrannizing' of kids [where there are no serious threats to their welfare]. what is it you have in mind?

 

[mckai777]

foolish... QED. (my point is proved).

do you know anyone else arguing it may have been a mistake to allow women to vote?

Quod erat demonstratum, indeed.

 

[Pure]

from the wit and wisdom of amicus

ami My male character almost always performs cunnilingus and cunnilinctus on the female

QED.

 

[amicus]

Angelicminx....Your post#140 was wonderful and real and this brought tears to my old eyes: " Upon weighing all of the information, her only request was that I be there to hold her hand while the needle was being inserted and that I be there when she woke up...."

Thank you

amicus

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I completely disagree that there are things we need to do TO children, 'for their own good'. With the exception of an infant, who has no voice, there is no reason on earth that a child can't be included in the decision. A child of 11 has a voice and is entitled to have an opinion.

And I disagree with you. True, it's good if you let children voice their opinion, and even better if you raise them to understand what this or that alternative means so that they can make a decision by themselves rather than by what their parents tell them is good or bad. We agree on this much.

But I still believe that some things are too serious for kids to decide. Heck, some things are too serious for their own parents to decide! We have fanatics out there who scream that "Vaccinating your kids shows that you don't have faith in God!" - I'm all for freedom of religion, but when some people use it as an excuse when they stop their children from having basic vaccination and health care, that's when I think that we're abusing the concept of "freedom of choice".

 

[angelicminx]

Pure I take offense to Amicus being categorized as looney. He's expressed strong beliefs, yes, and a lot of things I don't necessarily agree with, but looney he is not.

Looney: Etymology: by shortening & alteration from lunatic
Date: 1872
: crazy, foolish

foolish... QED. (my point is proved).

And you proved him foolish how? In my understanding of 'foolish', that person lacks sense. Amicus has voiced many controversial viewpoints, but those viewpoints make sense to him as well as some others. Just because I may not agree doesn't mean he lacks sense. He has also voice those views in a typically clear and concise manner, which also shows he doesn't lack sense.

QED: quod erat demonstrandum (literally, "that which must be demonstrated") I've seen no demonstration of foolishness.

do you know anyone else arguing it may have been a mistake to allow women to vote?

Plenty. Most of them from the older generations, a few from mine, a few more from younger generations.

I'm a woman and I'm thrilled I have the right to vote. I'm an intelligent female, who finds out what the issues are before I exercise that right. Unfortunately I'm related to women who just 'push a button' because they have that right. I disagree with blanket view on women voting, but I see where the argument has merit. (But then, there are men who also just 'push a button'. )

==
Pure: I agree children are sometimes tyrranized 'for their own good.' That's why society gets involved.

Angelic Society gets involved because children are being tyrannized? Most times, it seems to me, that society is the one doing the tyrannizing.

no, most kids who are killed, are killed by parents; most kids who are injured by assault, are so because of the parents or caretakers.

other than insisting that 5 year olds go to school, with clothes on, and with vaccinations, i don't see society [or strangers] doing much 'tyrannizing' of kids [where there are no serious threats to their welfare]. what is it you have in mind?

You do love to go to the extreme end don't you.

Hmm... ARE most of the children who are killed killed by parents?

I can't argue that most injuries by assault on children are perpetrated by their parents or caregivers, because I'd say you're likely right there. Not exactly what I was referring to, however.

Tell me about the child that was tyrannized at home that society tried to save by telling her she can't see her grandmother until she is 18, simply because the grandmother wrote a letter to a judge voicing her opinion about social service investigations.

I'll have to think about the rest of this, and research some examples for you.

What would you define as a 'serious threat' to a child's welfare?