For WM: Heroic 13 yr Old Boy and Parents Bravely Resist Court Ordered Chemotherapy

[Damocles]

Every time I read the title of this thread I am reminded of Sir Robin "The Brave"...

And Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Robin Bravely ran away....

 

[blackascoal]

To me, this is reflective of a larger problem in minors' rights. Children under 18 are not "free" in any true sense of the word. They are denied the right to sign contracts, to vote, to hold most jobs, and the right to make decisions like this that affect their well-being. Children in America are essentially the joint property of the parents and the state. They have no legal right to make decisions for themselves, even if they more capable than the state and parents understanding how those decisions will affect them.

This particular case aside, there are undoubtedly many minors under 18 who are perfectly capable of exercising these rights responsibly; indeed moreso than many people OVER 18. Yet under our current system they are denied the right to do so based on an arbitrarily chosen number.

I don't think children should be the property of the state, subject to whatever fleeting notion of childcare the public currently subscribes to. Nor should the parents be able to treat their children essentially as slaves until 18.

Not all children are capable of exercising their rights at a young age, but a great many are and I consider it unfair that they are forbidden from doing so. You may disagree with my political opinions, but any reasonable person would conclude that I was much more competent to vote at 13 than people like desh and Dixie are in their 40s.

12 and 13 year-old children are capable of taking care of themselves?

Is that your argument?

Are you aware of how many children are desperately roaming the streets in America because they thought they could take care of themselves?

Are they smart enough to determine if they should drink, do drugs, or have sex for money if they're hungry?

The notion that children don't need their parents or the state is just silly .. and only meant to support misguided ideology.

 

[Epicurus]

12 and 13 year-old children are capable of taking care of themselves?

Is that your argument?

Are you aware of how many children are desperately roaming the streets in America because they thought they could take care of themselves?

Are they smart enough to determine if they should drink, do drugs, or have sex for money if they're hungry?

The notion that children don't need their parents of the state is just silly .. and only meant to support misguided ideology.

Congratulations on a response that had absolutely nothing to do with my post. And as you point out, children are doing all of these things anyway under the current system.

 

[Epicurus]

Bac I'm sure as a parent you have a vested interest in believing that your daughter needed you.

Maybe she did. I don't know. But regardless you can't project your own situation and predispositions onto everyone else.

 

[blackascoal]

I consider a 9 by 9 prison cell a humiliating box

Then you shouldn't do crime .. not suggesting that you are.

If however you commit a criminal act and don't want to pay the consequences for it, why not just shoot yourself, not the officers who come to arrest you for your crime?

Either way, it ends with you dead.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Then you shouldn't do crime .. not suggesting that you are.

If however you commit a criminal act and don't want to pay the consequences for it, why not just shoot yourself, not the officers who come to arrest you for your crime?

Either way, it ends with you dead.

If I ended up committing a legitimate crime, the cops have nothing to worry about. I'd surrender peacefully. It's coming after me for something that is totally constitutional, yet calling it a criminal act, that they have to worry about. If I survive, i'm totally justified no matter how many I kill.

 

[Bonestorm]

To me, this is reflective of a larger problem in minors' rights. Children under 18 are not "free" in any true sense of the word. They are denied the right to sign contracts, to vote, to hold most jobs, and the right to make decisions like this that affect their well-being. Children in America are essentially the joint property of the parents and the state. They have no legal right to make decisions for themselves, even if they more capable than the state and parents understanding how those decisions will affect them.

This particular case aside, there are undoubtedly many minors under 18 who are perfectly capable of exercising these rights responsibly; indeed moreso than many people OVER 18. Yet under our current system they are denied the right to do so based on an arbitrarily chosen number.

I don't think children should be the property of the state, subject to whatever fleeting notion of childcare the public currently subscribes to. Nor should the parents be able to treat their children essentially as slaves until 18.

Not all children are capable of exercising their rights at a young age, but a great many are and I consider it unfair that they are forbidden from doing so. You may disagree with my political opinions, but any reasonable person would conclude that I was much more competent to vote at 13 than people like desh and Dixie are in their 40s.

I generally agree with you that there are certain decisions that some minors ought to be able to make for themselves without being overruled by their parents or the courts. That's why I oppose parental consent laws for abortion. But not all minors are capable of making these decisions in an informed and rational manner. The courts should function to ensure not that the minor makes the "right" decision, but that the minor is (1) capable of understanding the effects of his or her decision and (2) is reasonably informed of the alternatives.

There is no indication that in this case the court did not undertake a proper inquiry. It seems that the court determined that this particular minor was not capable of making this particular decision. It that is the case, I have no problem with what the court did.

 

[blackascoal]

Bac I'm sure as a parent you have a vested interest in believing that your daughter needed you.

Maybe she did. I don't know. But regardless you can't project your own situation and predispositions onto everyone else.

What I know about my children is that neither they, nor anyother children are fully and responsibly capable of taking care of themselves when they were 13 .. or 14 .. or 15 .. or 16.

Nor in the best interest of their development SHOULD they have to deal with adult decisions.

My argument is not that minors are stupid. My argument is minors are minors, and being such, they have not yet developed the capacity they need for critical thinking on very serious issues.

This is not rocket science and our society understands this very well.

 

[blackascoal]

If I ended up committing a legitimate crime, the cops have nothing to worry about. I'd surrender peacefully. It's coming after me for something that is totally constitutional, yet calling it a criminal act, that they have to worry about. If I survive, i'm totally justified no matter how many I kill.

You won't survive .. nor should you survive if you kill innocent people because of something you don't think is unconstitutional. We have words for such people .. "criminals" and "murderers."

The constitution requires lawyers with years of specific training to even interpret the constitution .. yet on your own interpretation, you believe you have the right to murder innocent people.

Your death, like that of Tim McVeigh, will be celebrated.

 

[Epicurus]

I generally agree with you that there are certain decisions that some minors ought to be able to make for themselves without being overruled by their parents or the courts. That's why I oppose parental consent laws for abortion. But not all minors are capable of making these decisions in an informed and rational manner. The courts should function to ensure not that the minor makes the "right" decision, but that the minor is (1) capable of understanding the effects of his or her decision and (2) is reasonably informed of the alternatives.

There is no indication that in this case the court did not undertake a proper inquiry. It seems that the court determined that this particular minor was not capable of making this particular decision. It that is the case, I have no problem with what the court did.

I certainly agree not all minors are capable of making such decisions, and I even agree with you and SF in your assessment that this child was probably not capable of making this decision on his own due to his learning disability and propaganda from his parents.

As I addressed in my last post though, I feel that minors are denied too many rights and I would like to see some sort of mechanism other than the courts implemented to assess whether or not a minor is capable of understanding the consequences of the choice and is informed of the alternatives.

Perhaps a broad mechanism that would create a sort of petition for early majority or something, or a more narrow one that would empower the minor to make a particular decision after his/her understanding of the situation has been assessed.

 

[Epicurus]

What I know about my children is that neither they, nor anyother children are fully and responsibly capable of taking care of themselves when they were 13 .. or 14 .. or 15 .. or 16.

Nor in the best interest of their development SHOULD they have to deal with adult decisions.

My argument is not that minors are stupid. My argument is minors are minors, and being such, they have not yet developed the capacity they need for critical thinking on very serious issues.

This is not rocket science and our society understands this very well.

Why is a 16 year old incapable of making his/her own decisions when an 18 year old is?

I have asked you before in this thread to please explain to me what you think changes in this period, because their logical abilities are just as developed at 12 as they are at 18. The brain of an 18 year old has been exposed to more information and than a 12 year old brain. There is no difference in their logical capabilities.

If it can be shown that a 12 year old possesses sufficient information to make a decision, I see no reason why they should be forbidden from doing so. You are attaching far too much importance to age restrictions that are acknowledged even by developmental psychologists as arbitrary.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You won't survive .. nor should you survive if you kill innocent people because of something you don't think is unconstitutional. We have words for such people .. "criminals" and "murderers."

an argument that didn't work for the nazis at nuremberg. an enforcer for the gov, enforcing an illegal law, is not acting under the authority of the constitution. I can show a dozen supreme court cases citing that. It does not make one a murderer.

screwing up the constitution requires lawyers with years of specific training to even interpret the constitution .. yet on your own interpretation, you believe you have the right to murder innocent people.

fixed that for you.

what you intentionally refuse to understand is that the constitution was written so that it didn't have to be interpreted by lawyers with years of experience. It took those lawyers with years of experience to totally screw it up. Again, a police officer enforcing an unconstitutional law is not innocent, they are an enemy of freedom and are deserving of death. something the founders believed as well, but I know you hate the founders because they were stupid old white men with no vision of the future.

Your death, like that of Tim McVeigh, will be celebrated.

hallelujah.

 

[blackascoal]

Why is a 16 year old incapable of making his/her own decisions when an 18 year old is?

I have asked you before in this thread to please explain to me what you think changes in this period, because their logical abilities are just as developed at 12 as they are at 18. The brain of an 18 year old has been exposed to more information and than a 12 year old brain. There is no difference in their logical capabilities.

If it can be shown that a 12 year old possesses sufficient information to make a decision, I see no reason why they should be forbidden from doing so. You are attaching far too much importance to age restrictions that are acknowledged even by developmental psychologists as arbitrary.

Developmental phychologists are behind the decision to remove corporal punishment from child-rearing .. which pretty much explains how much they should be listened to.

What is different about a 16 year-old than an 18 year-old? Obviously you haven't spent much time talking to 16 or 18 year-olds .. I have and their level of conversation, interpretation, and critical thinking is markedly different.

There are always exceptions, but the exception should not be the rule.

As I said, in cases or the extreme or emergency, the court stands as the arbitrator of what is the exception, but minors are minors and any attempts to define them as adults or hurry them into being adults is most definately not in their best interest.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I generally agree with you that there are certain decisions that some minors ought to be able to make for themselves without being overruled by their parents or the courts. That's why I oppose parental consent laws for abortion. But not all minors are capable of making these decisions in an informed and rational manner. The courts should function to ensure not that the minor makes the "right" decision, but that the minor is (1) capable of understanding the effects of his or her decision and (2) is reasonably informed of the alternatives.

There is no indication that in this case the court did not undertake a proper inquiry. It seems that the court determined that this particular minor was not capable of making this particular decision. It that is the case, I have no problem with what the court did.

So... should the court assess whether a minor looking for an abortion fully understands the consequences of such an action?

 

[blackascoal]

an argument that didn't work for the nazis at nuremberg. an enforcer for the gov, enforcing an illegal law, is not acting under the authority of the constitution. I can show a dozen supreme court cases citing that. It does not make one a murderer.

fixed that for you.

what you intentionally refuse to understand is that the constitution was written so that it didn't have to be interpreted by lawyers with years of experience. It took those lawyers with years of experience to totally screw it up. Again, a police officer enforcing an unconstitutional law is not innocent, they are an enemy of freedom and are deserving of death. something the founders believed as well, but I know you hate the founders because they were stupid old white men with no vision of the future.

hallelujah.

I'm bettin' this is nothing more than macho bravado blowhard speak.

"freedom" ???

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm bettin' this is nothing more than macho bravado blowhard speak.

"freedom" ???

eh, you're free to think that. I know what I'll do. It's actually pretty easy, i'm not afraid of death anymore. Haven't been for some years now. Having had my life controlled by outside forces without the ability to break free, i've determined that it will never happen again without just cause.

Better to die on my feet, than to live on my knees.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"What I know about my children is that neither they, nor anyother children are fully and responsibly capable of taking care of themselves when they were 13 .. or 14 .. or 15 .. or 16."

While your child might not have been, to project that onto all teenagers is ridiculous. I was fully capable of taking care of myself at that age had I needed to.

"Nor in the best interest of their development SHOULD they have to deal with adult decisions."

I agree they should not have to be on their own. But that does not mean a teenager shouldn't be a part of the decision making process on an issue that the vast majority are certainly capable of understanding.

"My argument is not that minors are stupid. My argument is minors are minors, and being such, they have not yet developed the capacity they need for critical thinking on very serious issues."

This is contradictory.... In the same breath you say they aren't stupid, but they aren't smart enough for critical thinking? Completely bogus argument.

This is not rocket science and our society understands this very well.

Our society is designed to take the burden off of the kids as much as we can. That does not equate to the teenagers being incapable of making an informed decision on something important.

 

[blackascoal]

eh, you're free to think that. I know what I'll do. It's actually pretty easy, i'm not afraid of death anymore. Haven't been for some years now. Having had my life controlled by outside forces without the ability to break free, i've determined that it will never happen again without just cause.

Better to die on my feet, than to live on my knees.

That all sounds very Chuck Norrisish, but it ignores the fact that there are other more intelligent ways to address your concern without the bravado .. and you ending up dead.

But if dead is your desire, who am I to stop you.

 

[Bonestorm]

So... should the court assess whether a minor looking for an abortion fully understands the consequences of such an action?

Not necessarily. Nor should a court necessarily assess whether a minor looking to carry a pregnancy to term assess whether she fully understands the consequences of such an action.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not necessarily. Nor should a court necessarily assess whether a minor looking to carry a pregnancy to term assess whether she fully understands the consequences of such an action.

but it should for chemotherapy?