State of California Law Barring Parents From

[ArmedProgrammer]

I don't know nor understand such therapy. I honestly have no dog in that fight. And I won't speak one way or the other of it, in my ignorance. Nor would I personally choose ANY therapy IGNORANTLY for me or my child. You sound quite well versed in it - with a good bit of understanding. Or maybe you have an axe to grind - I have no way of knowing, and I sure won't judge that in advance.

I do understand the Constitution enough to know that we need to be VERY CAREFUL in this area - it's a VERY slippery slope. What may make a lot of sense in one area can cause a crapload of unintended consequences.

If these therapies are truly torture and malpractice (and I'm not arguing that they are or are not - one way or the other), would it not make sense to outlaw the practice entirely? I guess my point is this - if a practice is that heinous - why should we allow it at all? It should not just be a case of "parents cannot have it done on their children" -it should be verboten altogether. No one should be subjected to torture.

There's a lot of folks here that will be very conflicted on this issue - as 88GT mentioned.

I also have to agree with littletommy - this issue affects an extremely small number of children in California. I would think that the Legislature there has a heck of a lot of better things to worry about - and they are things that will affect a LOT more children. This may be a worthy cause, and it may not be. But the California Legislature (as has often been the case) has the cart before the horse.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know nor understand such therapy. I honestly have no dog in that fight. And I won't speak one way or the other of it, in my ignorance. Nor would I personally choose ANY therapy IGNORANTLY for me or my child. You sound quite well versed in it - with a good bit of understanding. Or maybe you have an axe to grind - I have no way of knowing, and I sure won't judge that in advance.

I do understand the Constitution enough to know that we need to be VERY CAREFUL in this area - it's a VERY slippery slope. What may make a lot of sense in one area can cause a crapload of unintended consequences.

If these therapies are truly torture and malpractice (and I'm not arguing that they are or are not - one way or the other), would it not make sense to outlaw the practice entirely? I guess my point is this - if a practice is that heinous - why should we allow it at all? It should not just be a case of "parents cannot have it done on their children" -it should be verboten altogether. No one should be subjected to torture.

There's a lot of folks here that will be very conflicted on this issue - as 88GT mentioned.

I also have to agree with littletommy - this issue affects an extremely small number of children in California. I would think that the Legislature there has a heck of a lot of better things to worry about - and they are things that will affect a LOT more children. This may be a worthy cause, and it may not be. But the California Legislature (as has often been the case) has the cart before the horse.

Very well said. I will run with the idea that it is not necessarily the issue at hand, but the unintended consequences. This is particularly troublesome when the focal point is an emotionally charged issue which tends to prevent those on both sides from thinking rationally but rather go with their feelings. I was clearly reminded of this recently when some folks among us demonstrated that they do not think others are entitled to their opinions even when they consider it proper to keep their personal opinion our of their policy opinion and in practice shared a large measure of agreement. It truly is one of the great downfalls of the human condition that otherwise rational people can have fits of being completely ruled by their emotions and by extension be ruled by manipulative politicians who are skilled at taking advantage of those times of very unclear and irrational thought.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

This should be interesting. I think some INGO members are going to have some internal conflict with this one.

Any time the state seizes imdividual liberty, all citizens should have internal conflict. Agree with the idea or not, parents should have say over how they raise their children (insert obligatory qualifying statement disavowing abuse).

 

[drillsgt]

It's okay INGO the State of CA heard all your complaints and decided to concentrate on some serious issues such as not letting kids out in public with, wait for it, BB guns.

Ready, fire, aim -- BB gun law misses the real target - latimes.com

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Those people have their collective heads so far up there - they could sit on a ice cream cone and tell us all what flavor it was...

 

[rambone]

I'm against the State telling parents what doctors they are "allowed" to attend. Licenses of any kind are never about safety; they serve as a way to collect revenue and a way to discriminate. If I want to go to a Witch Doctor that chants and lights incense, that's my right. In return, I think you have the right to go to a mainstream drug dealer that recommends drugging your infant from the hour of his birth.

I'm pro-choice on health care.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There are no licensed reparative therapists, because no reputable professional medical or psychological organization would sully their name by sanctioning such snake oil. Or else, Religious fanatics dedicated to torturing homosexuals will form their own, incestuous, niche organization for the specific purpose of "licensing" such reparative therapy quacks.

 

[Loco179]

While I am certain this issue exists in some homes, I am equally certain that it can't be legislated away. Unfortunately, our leftist friends don't realize that passing laws has little effect on human nature.

Amen! They have more important issues on the table. Oh well Cali is gonna fall flat on its face soon anyway.

 

[wagyu52]

I thought it was a choice.

Yep, everything is now a personal choice.

http://www.celebritiessurgery.com/michael-jackson-before-and-after-plastic-surgeries/summary-michael_jackson/

 

[beararms1776]

State of California Law Barring Parents From

being parents.

 

[Doug]

And in Germany, they're discussing outlawing circumcision.
(Where's my Hitler smilie?)

Emoticon found //:=|

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

There are no licensed reparative therapists, because no reputable professional medical or psychological organization would sully their name by sanctioning such snake oil. Or else, Religious fanatics dedicated to torturing homosexuals will form their own, incestuous, niche organization for the specific purpose of "licensing" such reparative therapy quacks.

Do tell...which religious groups specifically are "dedicated to torturing homosexuals?" I'm not aware of any so I am definitely intrigued...

 

[Doug]

Do tell...which religious groups specifically are "dedicated to torturing homosexuals?" I'm not aware of any so I am definitely intrigued...

You haven't been paying attention. Not supporting gay marriage is torturing homosexuals.
Just like, supporting the idea of a balanced budget is racist.

 

[level.eleven]

And in Germany, they're discussing outlawing circumcision.
(Where's my Hitler smilie?)

Emoticon found //:=|

I am as well. That is a legitimate role of the state. The prevention of newborn genital mutilation. There certainly are not two consenting parties.

 

[rambone]

If I thought something was a bad practice, and I wanted to save other people's children, I would prefer to work on it through education, rather than dreaming up more laws regulating parents. This could be said for anti-gay counseling sessions, drugging children at birth, or circumcision. Either all of these are your parental rights, or none of them are.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Except that, unlike the daily operations of Child Protective Services, we're not talking about the state acting in contravention of the family's wishes. We're talking about the state preventing the parents from acting in contravention of societal norms and scientific/medical truths.

One's societal norms are another's freakish behavior...thus the concept of Liberty.

From what I've read on this post, our world views are radically different - and that's okay. Please don't impose your views on me or my children and I will refrain from same.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

I am as well. That is a legitimate role of the state. The prevention of newborn genital mutilation. There certainly are not two consenting parties.

I hear you...when I was circumcised as an infant, I didn't walk for a year!

I'm all for you not having your children circumcised if you believe it is "genital mutilation." Why impose your will on society which may not agree?

Might there be health benefits of circumcision? Sexual Health: Circumcision

 

[Birds Away]

I'm all for you not having your children circumcised if you believe it is "genital mutilation." Why impose your will on society which may not agree?

Liberals don't care if you agree or not. They are right and who are you to dispute it?

 

[Doug]

What a fun world!

Circumcision is mutilation.
You can't get counseling for your child if he/she has questions about his/her sexual attractions.
But, abortion for convenience is a woman's right.

 

[Citizen711]

While I am certain this issue exists in some homes, I am equally certain that it can't be legislated away. Unfortunately, our leftist friends don't realize that passing laws has little effect on human nature.

I agree. There should probably be a law against uttering the words, "there should be a law...".