SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

[RileyG]

No one said it was the same, just that a lot of excuses for government interference in personal medical decisions would apply equally to cancer treatments.
Weird how these posts need bring up stuff no one wrote to try and avoid talking about the things that were actually written.

Ok. Maybe I misunderstood you is all.

 

[RileyG]

Not according to the testimony quoted in the OP.

Oh well, I have nothing more to add.

Take care

 

[Adam56]

Because adults... don't change their mind??

Because adults are people who can weigh risks of something and be held responsible for it.

There’s a reason the age of consent exists, because sex has risks and it should not be practiced by minors.

 

[Pommer]

No one said it was the same, just that a lot of excuses for government interference in personal medical decisions would apply equally to cancer treatments.
Weird how these posts need bring up stuff no one wrote to try and avoid talking about the things that were actually written.

Hypotheticals are a device to enable us to get closer to the underlying principles of a subject without having “real-world” examples at hand.
Some get caught up in these examples and disregard the principles altogether.

 

[rjs330]

If you're just going to ignore the rest of my post I'll just restate the facts from it :


They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

Plus the similarity you brought up that people are encouraged to ask their doctor about both of them.

Treatment for cancer which is a disease which will kill you is not remotely the same thing. You aren't going to die because you might think you are opposite sex.

Still not even close to comparable. Unless you are trying to say being trans is a disease?

 

[rjs330]

Because adults... don't change their mind??

Adults can change their mind and they are adults. Once you become an adult you are completely responsible for your own actions. Are you going to claim that kids ought to be treated like adults?

 

[rjs330]

I guess we will just add this to the list of well evidenced research that will be overturned any minute now.

It already has been. We are just waiting for the US to catch up.

 

[Belk]

It already has been. We are just waiting for the US to catch up.

 

[rturner76]

"I hate the concept of transgender"

I agree, was an interpretation of (I can't stand the LGBTQ agenda." That makes me wonder who has a national LGBTQ agenda that a united group or lobby that has specific demands agreed upon in a national consensus other than the right to be treated equally.

So I retract that statement, it was exaggerated. Having said that, have you spoken with anyone who has the opinion that transgenders are freaks or they would prefer not to see one? I surely have.

If you think secular = "disagreement with Christians" you're wrong. Secular nations and Christian nations alike agree on a whole cornucopia of laws from murder to theft.

I don't think that secularism needs to be against the church's rules. Christianity and humanism are almost the same. They both believe in helping others, basically feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. They have different ways of going about these using humanitarian values. One difference is Christians are more likely to support things like going on an offensive war, approving of the death penalty, or regulating women's reproductive rights.

The cool thing about democracy is that if you can get enough Christians to agree on a Christian value-based law, you can get it passed provided it doesn't violate the Constitution.

The problem here is that a bunch of people who can't justify their beliefs or make a rational argument or debate openly without prejudice or attacking someone's character have decided that anyone who disagrees with them has to stay silent... or they're doing some kind of imaginary "harm" ....are trying to push their moral views on others because it gives them an undeserved sense of righteousness.

Don't both sides do this? Have you seen one of those protests where both sides are there like Abortion or the death penalty, even stem cell research can cause a big mess.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and no one is harmed by words.

I agree but words can also intimidate, threaten, and command.

Nobody needs to be told what words they should use by anyone else nor does anyone have any reason to believe themselves morally superior to anyone else.

I understand we shouldn't have to but when is it really appropriate to abandon basic decency? If you are talking about pronouns, I no we don't have to use them by law but what's the harm in calling someone by the pronoun they wish to be called. If someone has on makeup and a dress, I don't think it would be hard to remember they prefer to be called "she." People don't have a duty to do this but how is it harmful? You said yourself that

 

[rturner76]

You aren't adverse? Is this an informed opinion or the opinion of a rank amature? And if it's informed does your information match what's being done in other countries and suppirted by science and the therapeutic community?

It's a moral opinion to be specific. I wouldn't be opposed provided it was safe and done as a part of an overall treatment consisting of a doctor, Psychiatrist, psychologist or counselor, and group therapy.

 

[rturner76]

So now you agree it's experimenting is being done? Im.really confused. You asked the question earlier making it sound like you do t think experimenting on kids is being done. And now you are saying that it's okay that's it's being done.

Or are you saying it isn't being done, but should be?

When you put it that way, it is part of an experiment. The thing is, every new drug or medical advance has to be tested. It's better to complete the experiment in order to track any harm that could be done. It is preferable to do the lab experiments than just rolling it out all over. It's kind of a loaded word to me. In what I would call "field trials," they track what going right and what isn't and adjust accordingly until they either get the best outcome with the lowest possible risk, or they call it a failed experiment and drop the whole thing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only one of yours I quoted. Keep clicking the little curly arrow until you get to it.

Lol oh...I didn't think that was a statement anyone would contest.

Do you want me to quote one of the other legislators talking about the bill to prove that the quote in the OP isn't the only one?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Really? We shouldn't treat childhood illnesses unless they're life or death? That's really the number 1 reason?

Really....nobody is dying from being trans, so experimenting on children with drugs that appear to be sterilizing them is unethical.

 

[rjs330]

It's a moral opinion to be specific. I wouldn't be opposed provided it was safe and done as a part of an overall treatment consisting of a doctor, Psychiatrist, psychologist or counselor, and group therapy.

There wouldn't be much need for any of that if they were given the drugs. It's too late for any real therapy to take place to work through the issues on why they feel they are trans. They are already medicalized to be trans. It would be no different than giving someone insulin and then working on finding out if they are diabetic of not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I meant, that if they could eliminate a disorder just by outlawing the treatments for it until the sufferers turn 18 years of age, they could do something useful with power such as that.

Well, for the sake of honesty and consistency, Gender Dysphoria seems to be unique in that it's one of the few where researchers and clinicians have seemingly been content (or pretend to be content) to throw in the towel and say "well, placation is what makes the patient feel the best...so no need for further research"

If they'd approached things like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and clinical depression with the same shallow approach, a lot of people would've been a lot worse off.

"We've found that for a person going through a severe bout of a depressive phase of bipolar or a schizophrenic episode, giving them a hug and speaking to them in a calm, reassuring voice and agreeing with what they say produces better outcomes than saying "snap out of it"...therefore, the science is settled and reassurance and hugs are the optimal treatment plan, no need for further exploration, if you say otherwise, you're either anti-science or hate people with bipolar disorder and are schizo-phobic"

This idea that "whatever makes the patient feel the best in the here and now must be the ideal solution" is a sharp deviation from established clinical treatments.

The thing that makes a heroin addict feel the best is more heroin...that doesn't mean that "just keep giving them heroin" should be seen as the be-all end-all solution to that situation as a long term approach.


I don't doubt that there are people with gender dysphoria that don't have any great options right now other than affirmation, but that doesn't mean that exploring potential better options should be taboo and branded as bigotry...which is what's it's become. To even suggest that it's a "problem that needs to fixed" has become taboo in favor of the attitude that it's completely normal to need to cut off certain body parts and get new ones put on and take exogenous hormones for the rest of your life "this is a completely normal thing to do".

 

[Pommer]

Still not even close to comparable. Unless you are trying to say being trans is a disease?

It’s a medical condition, the treatment of which, for the children of South Carolina, is verboten by the good people in the State’s legislature…because politicians have a been view of what is “acceptable” than the medical professions who are out there working with these kids, somehow.

 

[rjs330]

When you put it that way, it is part of an experiment. The thing is, every new drug or medical advance has to be tested. It's better to complete the experiment in order to track any harm that could be done. It is preferable to do the lab experiments than just rolling it out all over. It's kind of a loaded word to me. In what I would call "field trials," they track what going right and what isn't and adjust accordingly until they either get the best outcome with the lowest possible risk, or they call it a failed experiment and drop the whole thing.

So, here we have the US and other countries using these drugs on kids. Experimenting on them. No trials no lab experiments and no field trials. The difference is the Europeans figured this out and realized experimenting was being done on the kids without the proper scientific safeguards and procedures. So they stopped. The US on the other hand hasn't. They continue to experiment on the kids without the proper procedures and safeguards. This is why it has to stop in the US. We shouldn't be experimenting in kids like this. This isn't like a cancer drug where controlled trials are being done and kids are receiving experimental treatments to a deadly disease. You would be up in arms over this if it were any other serious drug or any other condition I volving kids except transgenderism.

 

[rjs330]

It’s a medical condition, the treatment of which, for the children of South Carolina, is verboten by the good people in the State’s legislature…because politicians have a been view of what is “acceptable” than the medical professions who are out there working with these kids, somehow.

Is every medical condition the same? Do we treat every medical condition the same way? Is schizophrenia the sane thing as heart disease?
Are they even comparable other than they are a medical condition?

How long are you going to ignore the facts on the ground relating to the facts that medical professionals who work with these kids actually are the ones who have determined using the Affirnative Care model is the wrong one? Let me know because you are just repeating yourself now and I'm tired of debunking the same old argument over and over again.

 

[Pommer]

So, here we have the US and other countries using these drugs on kids. Experimenting on them. No trials no lab experiments and no field trials. The difference is the Europeans figured this out and realized experimenting was being done on the kids without the proper scientific safeguards and procedures. So they stopped. The US on the other hand hasn't. They continue to experiment on the kids without the proper procedures and safeguards. This is why it has to stop in the US. We shouldn't be experimenting in kids like this. This isn't like a cancer drug where controlled trials are being done and kids are receiving experimental treatments to a deadly disease. You would be up in arms over this if it were any other serious drug or any other condition I volving kids except transgenderism.

If a “medical condition” is discovered in childhood, why would we delay treatment.
Are there transgender people who are younger than 18?
That is what the State is saying, “You are only eligible for treatment of this ‘condition’ after you turn 18 years of age, you’re allowed to have this condition if you are younger than 18 but aren’t allowed to ‘get treated’ for it.”
This is so that we don’t “make mistakes” and ruin kids’ lives.
Transgender people need therapy to “accept reality”, nothing more.
Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care, the same God who said that a tiny bit of faith is all that is needed to move a mountain.

Oh wait, if this bill was “passed” why does it look as if it’s stuck in committee?

 

[KCfromNC]

Treatment for cancer which is a disease which will kill you is not remotely the same thing.

If you're just going to ignore what I wrote I might as well just restate it :

They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

Plus the similarity you brought up that people are encouraged to ask their doctor about both of them.