Skip to main content

View Diary: Right-Wing Groups Announce Lawsuits to Stop CA SB 1172 (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sometimes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S F Hippie, dejavu, sfbob, YucatanMan

    The government needs to take away some liberties in order to protect the people. I don't think that we should allow these Christian assholes to destroy these minors' lives just because of their backwards beliefs. This "therapy" is child abuse, and should be treated like such.

    I don't care if its "religious freedom" that is being attacked. We don't allow "religious freedom" that harms people to be exercised. We won't let some death cult commit murder in the name of "religious freedom". We don't let Muslims stone women who walk around uncovered. We let all of these people have their personal beliefs, in their churches and gatherings. We DON'T let these beliefs harm other people.

    •  Does this law only apply to treatment of minors? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you then agree that if this law applies to adults who want this treatment for themselves that it is unconstitutional?

      BTW, if you think that the government can prohibit this treatment for minors, what about abortion for minors?

      •  I don't feed trolls (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dejavu

        .

        •  Or you've just discovered that your position is (0+ / 0-)

          logically indefensible.

          Ouchy.

          •  No, I think Xenulives has it right. (0+ / 0-)

            The FDA has banned many medical treatments as being "quackery".  Isn't that coming between a doctor and their patient?  

            Your arguments don't hold water.  They are nothing but a head fake.

            I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

            by tle on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 08:38:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  or you made a false equivalency, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan

            a fairly juvenile attempt at equating a medical procedure with something that some people are born with.

            However, as you manage to expose - the "tell" that tips your hand- your objections to both have one thing in common - your objections are based upon a misreading of the Bible, and are both attempts at forcing Right Wing Christian dogma upon others.

            Do yourself a favor- go read the entire book of Matthew- that's Jesus telling his followers what they must do, if they are to be Christians. IF you can't do that, if you think you have to parse Jesus' words, if you think that you can ignore that, well, when you get to Matthew 25, 31- 46

            http://www.biblegateway.com/...

            They you can read your fate.

            "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

            by azureblue on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 08:47:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't remember citing the bible and since I have (0+ / 0-)

              never read it don't see how I could misread it.

              your objections are based upon a misreading of the Bible, and are both attempts at forcing Right Wing Christian dogma upon others.
              I'm also not Christian or right wing.

              Mind telling me where you got any of this from?  Are you confusing me with another commenter?

              Do yourself a favor- go read the entire book of Matthew- that's Jesus telling his followers what they must do, if they are to be Christians. IF you can't do that, if you think you have to parse Jesus' words, if you think that you can ignore that, well, when you get to Matthew 25, 31- 46
              What on earth is the relevance of that to a question about US Constitutional law?  You do realize that we do not have an Christian equivalent of Shariah, right?  Our legal system does not derive from the bible.
      •  all sorts of medical quackery (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        is prohibited.   Such was the cause of starting the FDA.

      •  again, bogus. (3+ / 0-)
        BTW, if you think that the government can prohibit this treatment for minors, what about abortion for minors?
        since both the "condition" and the "treatment" are bogus, the constitution provides the gov't the ability to ban it, for the "public welfare".

        clearly, this doesn't apply in the case of abortion for minors, since they are pregnant (a real condition), and abortion is a legitimate medical procedure.

        there ya go. see how simple that was?

        •  First off, you are confused about the difference (0+ / 0-)

          between federal and state power.  The General Welfare Clause is in the US Constitution but we are discussing actions by the State of California.  The only issue here is whether this action violates any of the protections in the US Constitution, most importantly the right to privacy.

          since both the "condition" and the "treatment" are bogus, the constitution provides the gov't the ability to ban it, for the "public welfare".

          clearly, this doesn't apply in the case of abortion for minors, since they are pregnant (a real condition), and abortion is a legitimate medical procedure.

          I notice that you are using the word "condition" which is rather vague, rather than illness, disease, injury, etc.

          That is presumably because you can't shoehorn a normal pregnancy into any of the normal categories that we expect medical treatment for.

          But don't you think that having sexual impulses that make you uncomfortable or that you are not happy about is a disorder at least when your unhappiness reaches a certain level of intensity?  That seems much more accurately a disorder than a normal pregnancy is.

          So now you are left with the issue of whether a treatment is "legitimate" or not.  I'm not sure how you define "legitimate" but I think it is pretty clear that a large minority of Americans consider abortion not to be legitimate and that a majority consider certain types of abortion (ie. partial birth abortion, late term abortion) to be illegitimate.

          Finally, note that the California bill is a bit more extreme than even that.

          It does not prohibit a particular method of trying to change sexual orientation.  It prohibits any attempt to change sexual orientation using any method at all, whether or not such a method works.

          For example, if you agree that homosexuality is controlled by genes that in turn control brain chemistry and/or morphology then a medical intervention to change sexual orientation (in either direction) is at least theoretically possible.  Such a treatment could be safe and effective.

          Do you think a law that bans such a treatment would be Constitutional?

          As far as I can tell, the California law would ban such a treatment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site