On 7/13/06, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The same argument by your statement could be made for allowing parents to > decide whether their kids can smoke cigarettes and drink booze before the > age of 19 (21 in the US). Why shouldn't a child be able to smoke and booze > it up if the parents choose to allow it? The reason is because a child is > not mentally mature enough to understand the long term effects of his or > her > actions and choices.
And Gruss would make that argument. Remember, he wants everyone to have unlimited access to heroin :) > That is no where even close to the point I was arguing. My argument was in > the case where a child has a life threatening condition, then the child's > welfare is more important than the parental choice. I don't think you can make that separation. For the first 18 years, legally and practically speaking, a child'd welfare is the sole responsibility of their legal guardians...aka parents. As long as a court rules that their parents are 1) mentally competent and 2) acting in what they believe is the best interest of their children, there is nothing more that a court should be able to do. You and I may think these people are quacks...but frankly, that's their right as American parents. Now if their 16 year old son wanted to challenge his parents....that would be a different argument (I think a 16 year old should have more rights, legally)...but that isn't even an issue here as he's in agreement with his legal guardians. Case closed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211088 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
