rushmc 18 #76 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIs it? Should it be public knowledge that person "A" has been institutionalized for addiction problems, while person "B" has been treated for cirrhosis and chlamydia? Patient privacy laws extend to ALL patients. I think I agree with you if I am following you. But, if you think a child under leagal age should have those rights when considering thier parents then we disagree I agree that it is odd that a hospital has to have parental permission to treat a minor, but a school nurse, social clinic or abortion clinic does not. I think we are on the same page"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 January 6, 2008 On an emotional level, I disagree with the distinction between the two areas. From a logical standpoint, I can understand WHY the laws came about - I just wish they could have found another (read "better") way to do it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #78 January 6, 2008 In this case the law is irrealvant (for the case of this discussion) because what is right is right. YOU should not have the power to deal with my under age children as you see fit when is comes to sex or birth control. The law is very relevant when it's YOU deciding to abide by it or break it. It's easy for you to say that it's irrelevant when I'm the one at whom the law is directed. The law concerning my practice of medicine is very relevant. You haven't answered my question about how you view people who break the law....even when it's a law they disagree with. Is it okay to break laws that you disagree with on a fundamental level? Should people who break laws that they disagree with be punished???-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #79 January 6, 2008 You want to hide behind the law in the context of this discusion. Fine. I can only hope you think your position is OK when it comes to your children. What you support is wrong. Legal or not, it is wrong. You have to live with that. That, is a choice you have to make."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 January 6, 2008 QuoteYou want to hide behind the law in the context of this discusion. Fine. I can only hope you think your position is OK when it comes to your children. What you support is wrong. Legal or not, it is wrong. You have to live with that. That, is a choice you have to make. Marc - ease off, dude... she's not "hiding behind the law"... she's CONSTRAINED by it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #81 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteYou want to hide behind the law in the context of this discusion. Fine. I can only hope you think your position is OK when it comes to your children. What you support is wrong. Legal or not, it is wrong. You have to live with that. That, is a choice you have to make. Marc - ease off, dude... she's not "hiding behind the law"... she's CONSTRAINED by it. Very good point but, I am trying to talk about what is right. If I missed a point please excuse me."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #82 January 6, 2008 QuoteWhat you support is wrong. Seems pretty subjective, doesn't it? .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #83 January 6, 2008 You want to hide behind the law in the context of this discusion. Fine. I can only hope you think your position is OK when it comes to your children. It's hard being a parent. But I do think I'm covering all of the bases where my boy is concerned...at least in the context of this discussion. I'm personally open to what my son has to learn from other adults. If he were to go to a male physician to talk about sex, I'd be good with it myself. Being a single mom and someone who works waaaay too many hours, I appreciate help from the outside from time-to-time. If I'm not giving him all he needs in this regard, then I'm glad there are people who are willing to fill in the gaps. I don't think you're really appreciating where I'm coming from. I do wish I could call the shots here. On one hand, there are kids who get NOTHING from their parents. These kids are at great risk. I'm glad that they can come to me for some guidance. I'll spend as much time as they need...backing up the waiting room, of course. For these kids...whom most people would like to see off the dole....having someone to go to that they can trust may be their only opportunity to do things differently. I try to help them make decisions about all kinds of things that will affect their futures.... It's one of the things I do that I HIGHLY value. There are other kids who come from families that DO care and make real efforts at guiding their children in the right direction. When those kids come to me, I do not break their confidentiality, but I try really hard to get them to allow their parents to be involved. If they will not involve their parents, I still take care of them, and I protect their confidentiality....even when I don't think it's the right thing to do.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 January 6, 2008 QuoteVery good point but, I am trying to talk about what is right. If I missed a point please excuse me. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate here. My personal view is that parents *SHOULD* be told about any interaction their child has with medical or social personnel - as long as knowledge of the interaction doesn't pose a threat to the child (abuse/molestation cases). Now...with that said...you're getting onto Doc Linz about something that she is constrained by Federal law not to reveal - and, something that parents *should* (IMO) already either have taken care of at home (education) or known about in some form (social work or abortion/STD clinic interaction) if they are doing an effective job of parenting and communicating with their child.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #85 January 6, 2008 Quotesomething that parents *should* (IMO) already either have taken care of at home (education) or known about in some form (social work or abortion/STD clinic interaction) if they are doing an effective job of parenting and communicating with their child. EXACTLY! The problem is that there are way too many young people (they aren't JUST children) who don't get this education until they are in an irreversable, life-altering situation. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #86 January 6, 2008 Evolution and Intelligent Design are both trying to do the same thing. Make sense out of the incomprehensible reality we find ourselves in. Chance occurrence, the omnipotent force behind evolutionary change, explains alot. But it also has some gaping holes. Intelligent Design is not provable, but is a logical explanation for the gaping holes left by the theory of evolution. Absolute reality, what ever it may be, is more likely a mix of physical and the metaphysical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #87 January 6, 2008 QuoteEvolution and Intelligent Design are both trying to do the same thing. Make sense out of the incomprehensible reality we find ourselves in. Chance occurrence, the omnipotent force behind evolutionary change, explains alot. But it also has some gaping holes. Intelligent Design is not provable, but is a logical explanation for the gaping holes left by the theory of evolution. Absolute reality, what ever it may be, is more likely a mix of physical and the metaphysical. So "god did it" explains the gaping holes and we as scientists should just accept that and discontinue our research? EVERY scientific branch of study is incomplete, but discoveries along the way fill these areas of incompleteness. That's the difference between the scientific method of discovery and a "god did it" explanation - which has absolutely no use in any branch of the physical sciences. ID is completely useless and belongs in the church or (sadly) at home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #88 January 6, 2008 Quote WELL THEN, I am glad YOU have more power over what MY children learn than I FUCKING NOT!!! This is a Liberal view that has to be stopped This is not a liberal view, it is dealing in reality - the fact is that when hormones start raging almost all kids are going to have sex. It's a fact of life, and it's perfectly natural. To try to stop them will be counter to nature and could even be dangerous. This is why "abstinence-only" programs fail miserably - always have and always will. I for one would not interfere in the raising of your two sons. They are your children, not mine. I would only wish that you would expose yourself to the many statistical studies that verify my statement above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #89 January 6, 2008 >Evolution and Intelligent Design are both trying to do the same thing. >Make sense out of the incomprehensible reality we find ourselves in. You are correct. One is scientifically supportable, one is not. One should be taught in science class, the other should be taught in religion class. The attacks on 9/11 are somewhat understood, but there are gaping holes in our understanding. For example, no one knows much about what really happened on board the two aircraft that hit the WTC, nor do we know all the details about what happened in the tops of the Twin Towers after the collisions. The theory that Bush caused 9/11 to happen isn't provable, but fills in some gaping holes in what we saw that day. Should children be taught that Bush might have pulled off 9/11, so they can make their own decisions? Or should we instead teach them the most likely, most provable and most accurate account of that day? Similarly, we don't know everything about evolution, but everything we _have_ learned fits in with the rest of what we know about molecular biology, genetics, palenotology, geology, ecology, behavioral sciences, morphology and half a dozen other fields. We've seen it happen in the lab and we understand the mechanisms. We've watched new species evolve, we've seen antibiotics evolve to survive our antibiotics, and we've watched gray wolves be forced to evolve into chihuahuas. Should children be taught the best explanations we know for how life in the world evolved to what we see today? Or should they be taught that they came from Kephri, the great Scarab Beetle and the Creator per the Egyptian creation myths? After all, that could explain a few things! Personally, I think evolution should be taught in science class, and Keprhi (and Adam and Eve, and Ginnungagap and Ymir, and all those other creators) should be discussed in a religion class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #90 January 6, 2008 It's not a freaking disease nor liberal BS like you implied. Open your freaking eyes and realize that kids now a days are exposed to more sex than any other time in history. Just turn on MTV and watch 20 min of it, or open up any magazine. So you think its liberal BS that a 16 wants to learn about STDs but is too scared to ask a parent and should be denied access to information on safe sex and VDs just because he or she is under 18. Hell with your thinking we should deny sex-ed and leave it to the parents. Wake up to the 21rst century. KIDS ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX and YES I think we should teach them about SAFE SEX and STDS even if they are under 18. Hell, we teach them about drugs why not about sex. An unplanned pregnancy at 16 can ruin several lives. I really dont understand why Americans are so scared about sex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #91 January 6, 2008 - --- ----- - - - - - - Drunk and right! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,626 #92 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteVery good point but, I am trying to talk about what is right. If I missed a point please excuse me. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate here. My personal view is that parents *SHOULD* be told about any interaction their child has with medical or social personnel - as long as knowledge of the interaction doesn't pose a threat to the child (abuse/molestation cases). Now...with that said...you're getting onto Doc Linz about something that she is constrained by Federal law not to reveal - and, something that parents *should* (IMO) already either have taken care of at home (education) or known about in some form (social work or abortion/STD clinic interaction) if they are doing an effective job of parenting and communicating with their child. I don't think that is "devil's advocate", that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #93 January 6, 2008 QuoteHas nothing to do with interpetation. It has to do with the Constitution. Quite simple. Nobody has a right (under any law) to teach my children what is moral or not moral. What the hell, man? TeachingKids about STD's, pregnancy, and how to protect themselves against them if they have sex is not teaching morality. How could it possibly count as teaching morality? When kids learn in biology about how sperms meet the egg is that morality? When they learn how sexual organs work is that morality? What about when they get taught about explosives in chemistry, is that morality? After all, if they made a bomb they could kill loads of people! Horrors!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #94 January 6, 2008 QuoteYou and your liberal I can fuck who I want to fuck liberal mind set bull shit are part of what will destroy this country if it is allowed to happen. I will fight you with every fiber of my being to make sure this does not continue. Just curious, what action have you taken 'with every fibre of your being' to make this stop? (Apart from using ALL CAPS on an internet message board.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #95 January 6, 2008 QuoteEvolution and Intelligent Design are both trying to do the same thing. Make sense out of the incomprehensible reality we find ourselves in. Unfortunately you'll find that you're wrong there. Evolution is a scientific explanation of the origin of species based on observable evidence. Intelligent Design is an attempt to pave the way to teaching Genesis in schools based on religous fanaticism. Not quite the same goal.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #96 January 6, 2008 Quote It's not a freaking disease nor liberal BS like you implied. Open your freaking eyes and realize that kids now a days are exposed to more sex than any other time in history. Just turn on MTV and watch 20 min of it, or open up any magazine. So you think its liberal BS that a 16 wants to learn about STDs but is too scared to ask a parent and should be denied access to information on safe sex and VDs just because he or she is under 18. Hell with your thinking we should deny sex-ed and leave it to the parents. Wake up to the 21rst century. KIDS ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX and YES I think we should teach them about SAFE SEX and STDS even if they are under 18. Hell, we teach them about drugs why not about sex. An unplanned pregnancy at 16 can ruin several lives. I really dont understand why Americans are so scared about sex. Open my eyse and scared about sex. Compltelty off point. This is about a nanny state, some one else telling me as a parent what and how it should be taught to my children and then to top it off, teach them what they can do to help reduce the risk a bit when they do something I teach them they shouldnt do while telling me they will do it anyway. What ever twist is added to it, the argument is still removing parents rights and giving it to the state. Talk about intrusion"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #97 January 6, 2008 QuoteCompltelty off point. This is about a nanny state, some one else telling me as a parent what and how it should be taught to my children and then to top it off, teach them what they can do to help reduce the risk a bit when they do something I teach them they shouldnt do while telling me they will do it anyway. Again, sex ed classes aren't telling your kids to do things you don't want them to do. They are not aying 'go out and have sex'. They're telling them about how to reduce the dangers of sex if they go out and have it. Would you simply never let your kids know about condoms? If you want to have complete control over what is taught to your kids then you'd better be prepared to homeschool them, ban them from watching TV or reading the newspaper and never let them out of the house.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #98 January 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteCompltelty off point. This is about a nanny state, some one else telling me as a parent what and how it should be taught to my children and then to top it off, teach them what they can do to help reduce the risk a bit when they do something I teach them they shouldnt do while telling me they will do it anyway. Again, sex ed classes aren't telling your kids to do things you don't want them to do. They are not aying 'go out and have sex'. They're telling them about how to reduce the dangers of sex if they go out and have it. Would you simply never let your kids know about condoms? ==================================== WHAT??? I really do not know where you got this. I am saying it is not the states job. It is mine. To take the debate to the point of saying "but but, some parents dont" is just an excuse used to be able for you to teach my kids what they are to be taught and how. ==================================== If you want to have complete control over what is taught to your kids then you'd better be prepared to homeschool them, ban them from watching TV or reading the newspaper and never let them out of the house. Again, just the off topic argument to make you feel better about your position, but in a broader sense, yes, parents SHOULD have complete control of the non three R's taught in school at a local level, as was inteneded"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #99 January 6, 2008 but in a broader sense, yes, parents SHOULD have complete control of the non three R's taught in school at a local level, as was inteneded ...which is why they shouldn't be taught religion in science class.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #100 January 6, 2008 Quotebut in a broader sense, yes, parents SHOULD have complete control of the non three R's taught in school at a local level, as was inteneded ...which is why they shouldn't be taught religion in science class. If the parents in that school think is should then it should. (which gets back to the OP of this thread). Seperation of church and state, as it is used today, is bogus. As it is used today is contrary to the constitution. Why are people so threatened by this anyway?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
