XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, comp.os.linux.advocacy, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.transgendered   
   From: joelcrump@gmail.com   
      
   "Scout"  wrote:   
      
   >> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.  This   
   isn't a   
   >> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.   
   >   
   >Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is   
   >unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.   
      
      
   Wrong.   
      
      
   >If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay for   
   >this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any future   
   >costs than may result from it.   
   >   
   >Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say 'no'   
   >then the above conditions above would apply.   
      
      
   What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?   
      
      
   > If they chose to proceed, then   
   >a Court would have to render an independent judgment for the minor as to the   
   >acceptability of such,  and the parents would have to accept whatever   
   >current and future costs and liabilities that might exist due to this to   
   >whatever amount the judge decides. If they don't like that decision they can   
   >still say 'no'.   
   >   
   >After 21 the person can mutilate their body however they want as long as   
   >they can afford to pay for it. The parents would have no legal obligation to   
   >be involved or provide funds to do so nor would they ever be liable for such   
   >a decision or the ramifications of that decision even if taken to court, as   
   >they are now a legal adult and totally responsible for their own decisions   
   >and the consequences of those decisions.   
   >   
   >In short. once you are a legal adult you can make your own decisions and   
   >assume the expense and results of those decisions.   
   >   
   >As a minor, your parents/law decide. If it's a matter of law, then the   
   >parents should not be liable for any part of it, including monetary.   
      
      
   Drivel.   
      
   --   
   Joel W. Crump   
      
   Amendment XIV   
   Section 1.   
      
   [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall   
   abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the   
   United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of   
   life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;   
   nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal   
   protection of the laws.   
      
   Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are   
   liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)