Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (20436)	4/15/1998 3:10:00 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Well, I can understand that you are tired. I don't enjoy studying very much, either. I do hope you will consider answering the questions I asked later, however. I did read the url, and don't really understand what "mental health elites" are. (I have the sneaking suspicion that they are probably mostly from San Francisco and other very liberal places, though.) I read the whole thing, and the article makes very clear that family-oriented statutes do not change in any way the laws against abusing or neglecting children, and strengthen the ability of the state to take children out of horrible and dangerous situations more quickly permanently than the laws we have now. Am I totally misunderstanding something? I disagree with the laws about teenagers and medical care, which I assume is mostly to do with attempts to control their sexual behavior. While it sounds like a good idea on paper that parents should always know when a teenager chooses to have an abortion, for example, the studies I've read all indicate that almost all children already do confide in a parent, and the ones who do not are in VERY abusive homes, and may well be beaten if they tell. The other category of teenagers who don't tell come from incestuous homes, where the father or older brother may have impregnated the girl. I am personally against abortion, incidentally, although I reluctantly support its legality in the early stages of pregnancy, so I am not just reading from the very right wing press on this issue. One thing I was curious about in the article, was its position on parents who do not believe in medical treatment for their children. I read in the Sunday paper that 80 or 90 percent of these children who die would have lived had they had medical treatment. What do you think about this issue? Does your concept of parental rights include the right to reject medical treatment?