Latest Biden admin euphemism: "gender-affirming healthcare" (IOW, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgical removal/replacement of breasts, genitalia) w/o necessary parent consent
This accompanies the disquieting upward trend in confusion among children regarding sexual identity--part of the "cancel culture" movement spread by leftists, particularly in MSM-promoted entertainment and a public education system based on coercion from all angles (attendance, financing, curricula), .
It's bad enough that they're being indoctrinated in school with communism, misanthropy, self-loathing and every perversion known to man.
Now they're being encouraged to sacrifice themselves on the LGBQ-whatever altar with mutilation.
The suicide rate is going to skyrocket with these kids. Maybe that's the ultimate goal with the powers that be, I don't know.
They are trying to kill us all. If one way doesn't work, they'll use another.
Potentially Sterilizing them! Let that sink in!
Of course, you realize this could just be the Chinese LONG Game sterilizing us!
So the broker had to have a signature of someone who could legally make a contract.
The current laws regarding medical treatments vary by state and the previous federal decision
(now overturned Roe-Wade) on abortion is probably what led to children being given legal
authority over their bodies that no average inexperienced person under 21 should have forced on them.
Children were protected in the past.
Women were protected in the past (- and are still unfairly protected in many divorce decisions.)
For the past 40 years, the law has been written to destroy the underpinnings of Western civilization.
That Deep State plan is succeeding, and it will succeed unless rational people stop obeying
unconstitutional federal edicts imposed by traitors in DC, NY, London, Brussels, Sacramento,
the WHO, the WEF.
But don't you dare ask for any kind of proof.
And once they get that Voters ID, they can vote by mail FORVER! never showing an ID to anyone, potentially NEVER HAVING an ID. Let that sink in!
I also assert that choosing assisted suicide should not be an option until age 18; before 18, only if three M.D.s concur with the patient and guardian(s) (most likely both parents) that life termination is the only reasonable option for the patient's well being.
If injury is so severe that a patient (even a minor) is comatose and can't make an informed choice, only with the approval of three M.D.s (and concurrence of the parents if the individual is a minor), the final decision to terminate life might be left to the court system, perhaps a majority-jury decision where arguments for the comatose patient's life or death can be heard by a group of unbiased, reasonable citizens who have no familial connection to the comatose individual.
ALL irreversible surgery (especially that involving sex organs) is a life-or-death matter that only the concerned individual should decide at adulthood. The decision to alter ones own anatomy, especially ones own sexual tissue, is a choice so personal and so vital that the state should by no means sanction such practice and rather make assisting or engaging in it at least a felony until the concerned person reaches nominal adulthood (age 18) at a minimum when there is the likely promise of a reasonable, personal decision.
Having had to make the decision to remove my child from life support, I don't take the matter of "assisted suicide" lightly. I am in principle against it. The philosophical difference to me is whether or not the person is - as was in my daughter's case - brain dead. In general, I am against allowing doctors the decision to either prolong or shorten life in such a case. (I can go into details as per my own experience but let's just say that the doctors were far more interested in treating my daughter as a guinea pig than in actually adhering to the Hypocratic Oath.)
"ALL irreversible surgery (especially that involving sex organs) is a life-or-death matter that only the concerned individual should decide at adulthood."
In general, I am in agreement. I would add voluntary to your description just to clarify. I have had two nephews who had to have surgery with the first few days or months of birth - one to correct a heart valve issue and the other to correct bowed legs.
You are repeating the arguments for circumcision that were popular about sixty-five years ago when about 90% of white baby boys were being circumcised here in the US (not in Europe, as Europeans rejected the practice).
Since then, medical science has reevaluated the practice of neonatal circumcision and found that the male foreskin has value, not only in sex, but in protecting male sexual sensitivity--the sensitivity that Kellogg hated and saw as perverse.
What happened to millions of white boy babies here in the US isn't something to cry about now. I can assure you that under no circumstances would I have ever permitted the circumcision of my son until he reached adulthood (and only if he personally elected the surgery at that time). To avoid the possibility of a mix-up and inadvertent circumcision over my own council, I had all my children born in a nation where circumcision is an exceptionally rare practice. My son has thanked me effusively for leaving him to be the one to make that decision--a choice/decision millions of grown American men were never allowed to make.
I always felt it was curious that AR never addressed this personal issue as it was during her lifetime that circumcision was being performed routinely on nearly every white baby boy being born in the US.
I don't know how she could have reconciled the idea of disallowing a man to make this choice personally when she was generally a proponent of personal liberty--extending to the right of a woman to have an abortion, as she argued that fetal life was not human life because it lacks the immediate potential for human consciousness--and it's the immediate ability to posses distinctly human consciousness that separates humans from other animal species. Humans routinely kill other animal species (that do not possess the immediate capacity for human consciousness) for food and pleasure.
I believe, although I never addressed the question to her when she was alive, that AR refused to comment on male circumcision for practical reasons--as a large number of her New York City champions and enthusiasts were of Reform Jewish stock, IOW atheistic Jews. Nearly all of these men were circumcised and likely circumcised their own boys according to Jewish tradition. To have written or spoken against ritual Jewish circumcision, or male circumcision in general, would have alienated or demoralized a large percentage of her subscribers and colleagues.
I don't know Nathaniel or Barbara Brandon's views on the subject either, although the west-coast school of Objectivism (after the late-60s breakup), represented by N./B. Brandon, probably had substantially fewer circumcised males as proponents than did AR's post-breakup New York City school (carried on by Peikoff).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ha...
https://circumcision.org/functions-of...
With her opinion of “immediate potential for human consciousness “ would that not also apply to a person in a comatose state ? If Ayn was suggesting
a fetus in the first term that , at that point could not survive out of the womb it makes a bit more sense .
Please correct me ,but the adverb of immediate suggests a time frame . What is it? A week? a month? a year?
Some people have been unconscious in comatose state for over 2 decades and have awakened. What about severely autistic people? Not trying to be an ass , Just opinionated like most everyone else.
I have some unconscious neighbors who vote for Kakistocrats and advertise their ignorance with yard signs , can’t say I would miss them if they had been aborted, but there is still hope I suppose of them choosing life and liberty vs death and enslavement in the future.
"Thank you for your letter of August 6, and your invitation to take part in a television series dealing with 'Cultural Conservatism."
...I'm NOT a Conservative...I am an Objectivist...
This year in particular, I would be ashamed to be connected with the so-called Conservatives in any way. Their anti-abortion stand is outrageous--and so is their mixture of politics with religion.
...I can not accept your invitation."
Obviously if AR was generally okay with a woman opting for an abortion, she was also okay with terminating fetal life. If she regarded a fetus as a human being, how could she condone a woman opting for abortion?
On many occasions in Ayn Rand's writings, eg. For the New Intellectual, 1961 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/...], Ayn Rand noted that it is human consciousness that separates human beings from other animals. If Ayn Rand thought that a fetus was capable of human consciousness (before birth), she obviously did not consider a fetus to be a human being.
You argue that a comatose individual would be subject to being killed if this definition of human life was applied to a comatose (or presumably sleeping/sedated) individual. Actually a comatose individual is capable of recovering from coma and regaining consciousness--even immediately. A fetus doesn't have this potential until it becomes a baby at birth when there is something to be conscious of.
In 29 years a fetus could be performing brain surgery.
Here are just a few of the conflicting principles brought up in this discussion:
1) Parental rights
2) Bodily autonomy
3) Religious expression/personal expression
4) Doctor-patient confidentiality
5) Government intrusion
I'm sure there are others, but the principle which keeps coming back to me is that governmental restrictions should be the last option and should only be entertained when there is a clear overriding principle involved, such as a fundamental human right. Abortion deals with a fundamental right (the right to life) which is why it properly falls within the sphere of government regulation: government has a vested interest in the survival of the species and the protection of its citizens. In the case of male circumcision, I'm failing to see an overwhelming case for government intervention.
They are reasonable.
Screw this system.
Oh, well.