WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Can anyone deny that there may be parents who feel they will gain some kind of prestige and attention to themselves by showing themselves as so progressive to be raising a transgender child? An offshoot of Munchhausen syndrome?
bob-tel especially... Can you even consider that?
I cannot even fathom doing any kind of chemical or surgical procedure on any child. They have no idea what sexuality is. Any kind of radical thing like that should not even be considered until the person at least reaches puberty, and most logically the age of consent.
As per the 'bullying' aspect, that is an issue for the culture, not for the law.

Not in a case where the transition is approved by the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician.

I'll continue to ask until I get an answer. How many kids do you know who've actually been in this position? Because from where I sit, your own insistence on your view of morality, knowing nothing about these kids, their families, or the doctors who are treating them, would condemn them to a least a childhood that (as noted in the study I linked above) far too many of them don't survive. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Can anyone deny that there may be parents who feel they will gain some kind of prestige and attention to themselves by showing themselves as so progressive to be raising a transgender child? An offshoot of Munchhausen syndrome?
bob-tel especially... Can you even consider that?
I cannot even fathom doing any kind of chemical or surgical procedure on any child. They have no idea what sexuality is. Any kind of radical thing like that should not even be considered until the person at least reaches puberty, and most logically the age of consent.
As per the 'bullying' aspect, that is an issue for the culture, not for the law.

Not in a case where the transition is approved by the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician.

I'll continue to ask until I get an answer. How many kids do you know who've actually been in this position? Because from where I sit, your own insistence on your view of morality, knowing nothing about these kids, their families, or the doctors who are treating them, would condemn them to a least a childhood that (as noted in the study I linked above) far too many of them don't survive. --Bob

We do know something about the kid. Chromosomes are XY. He has a penis. He is male. He needs help, but not the kind he is getting.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Can anyone deny that there may be parents who feel they will gain some kind of prestige and attention to themselves by showing themselves as so progressive to be raising a transgender child? An offshoot of Munchhausen syndrome?
bob-tel especially... Can you even consider that?
I cannot even fathom doing any kind of chemical or surgical procedure on any child. They have no idea what sexuality is. Any kind of radical thing like that should not even be considered until the person at least reaches puberty, and most logically the age of consent.
As per the 'bullying' aspect, that is an issue for the culture, not for the law.

Not in a case where the transition is approved by the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician.

I'll continue to ask until I get an answer. How many kids do you know who've actually been in this position? Because from where I sit, your own insistence on your view of morality, knowing nothing about these kids, their families, or the doctors who are treating them, would condemn them to a least a childhood that (as noted in the study I linked above) far too many of them don't survive. --Bob

How many do you know?

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Can anyone deny that there may be parents who feel they will gain some kind of prestige and attention to themselves by showing themselves as so progressive to be raising a transgender child? An offshoot of Munchhausen syndrome?
bob-tel especially... Can you even consider that?
I cannot even fathom doing any kind of chemical or surgical procedure on any child. They have no idea what sexuality is. Any kind of radical thing like that should not even be considered until the person at least reaches puberty, and most logically the age of consent.
As per the 'bullying' aspect, that is an issue for the culture, not for the law.

Not in a case where the transition is approved by the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician.

I'll continue to ask until I get an answer. How many kids do you know who've actually been in this position? Because from where I sit, your own insistence on your view of morality, knowing nothing about these kids, their families, or the doctors who are treating them, would condemn them to a least a childhood that (as noted in the study I linked above) far too many of them don't survive. --Bob

So I guess you are ok with giving drugs to and performing surgery on a physically healthy young child. Seems barbaric to me, but I don't live in your delusional world. If you are ok with cutting the penis off a 6 or 8 year old boy for any reason, I think you're insane.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Can anyone deny that there may be parents who feel they will gain some kind of prestige and attention to themselves by showing themselves as so progressive to be raising a transgender child? An offshoot of Munchhausen syndrome?
bob-tel especially... Can you even consider that?
I cannot even fathom doing any kind of chemical or surgical procedure on any child. They have no idea what sexuality is. Any kind of radical thing like that should not even be considered until the person at least reaches puberty, and most logically the age of consent.
As per the 'bullying' aspect, that is an issue for the culture, not for the law.

Not in a case where the transition is approved by the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician.

I'll continue to ask until I get an answer. How many kids do you know who've actually been in this position? Because from where I sit, your own insistence on your view of morality, knowing nothing about these kids, their families, or the doctors who are treating them, would condemn them to a least a childhood that (as noted in the study I linked above) far too many of them don't survive. --Bob

We do know something about the kid. Chromosomes are XY. He has a penis. He is male. He needs help, but not the kind he is getting.

So you've never met her. You don't know the family. All you know is what you've read about her on the Internet.

And you have the colossal arrogance to believe that you know better than her mother, the guardian ad litem specifically appointed to protect her interests, the judge who's actually heard the evidence, and the treating physician what's good for her.

You have the bigotry to insist on referring to her by male pronouns no matter what effect it may have on her.

And you're willing to use the force of government to impose your views, not just on her, but on everyone like her, all to force her to live in conformance with your own narrow-minded beliefs.

This is exactly the same argument that people try to use to justify "curing" gay people "for their own good." And that bigotry has done an awful lot of harm to an awful lot of people.

You know what turned the tide on same-sex marriage? When it actually started happening. When people started realizing that all of the parade of horribles that people used to oppose same-sex marriage had nothing to do with the neighbors they'd gotten to know, the parents of their kids' friends, and their co-workers. When people started realizing that their own lives demonstrated that the scare tactics were bullshit.

So I'll continue to ask. Do you know even one person who has transitioned? Because if you don't, then you have no idea what you're talking about and you're letting your own bigotry and prejudices try to ruin the lives of an awful lot of kids. And that's worth fighting against, anywhere it happens. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Not in a case where the transition is approved by the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician.

I'll continue to ask until I get an answer. How many kids do you know who've actually been in this position? Because from where I sit, your own insistence on your view of morality, knowing nothing about these kids, their families, or the doctors who are treating them, would condemn them to a least a childhood that (as noted in the study I linked above) far too many of them don't survive. --Bob

We do know something about the kid. Chromosomes are XY. He has a penis. He is male. He needs help, but not the kind he is getting.

So you've never met her. You don't know the family. All you know is what you've read about her on the Internet.

And you have the colossal arrogance to believe that you know better than her mother, the guardian ad litem specifically appointed to protect her interests, the judge who's actually heard the evidence, and the treating physician what's good for her.

You have the bigotry to insist on referring to her by male pronouns no matter what effect it may have on her.

And you're willing to use the force of government to impose your views, not just on her, but on everyone like her, all to force her to live in conformance with your own narrow-minded beliefs.

This is exactly the same argument that people try to use to justify "curing" gay people "for their own good." And that bigotry has done an awful lot of harm to an awful lot of people.

You know what turned the tide on same-sex marriage? When it actually started happening. When people started realizing that all of the parade of horribles that people used to oppose same-sex marriage had nothing to do with the neighbors they'd gotten to know, the parents of their kids' friends, and their co-workers. When people started realizing that their own lives demonstrated that the scare tactics were bullshit.

So I'll continue to ask. Do you know even one person who has transitioned? Because if you don't, then you have no idea what you're talking about and you're letting your own bigotry and prejudices try to ruin the lives of an awful lot of kids. And that's worth fighting against, anywhere it happens. --Bob

You have no idea of the long term experiences or outcomes of these folks, nor do your beloved guardian ad litum, physician or parent. Do you?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
We do know something about the kid. Chromosomes are XY. He has a penis. He is male. He needs help, but not the kind he is getting.

So you've never met her. You don't know the family. All you know is what you've read about her on the Internet.

And you have the colossal arrogance to believe that you know better than her mother, the guardian ad litem specifically appointed to protect her interests, the judge who's actually heard the evidence, and the treating physician what's good for her.

You have the bigotry to insist on referring to her by male pronouns no matter what effect it may have on her.

And you're willing to use the force of government to impose your views, not just on her, but on everyone like her, all to force her to live in conformance with your own narrow-minded beliefs.

This is exactly the same argument that people try to use to justify "curing" gay people "for their own good." And that bigotry has done an awful lot of harm to an awful lot of people.

You know what turned the tide on same-sex marriage? When it actually started happening. When people started realizing that all of the parade of horribles that people used to oppose same-sex marriage had nothing to do with the neighbors they'd gotten to know, the parents of their kids' friends, and their co-workers. When people started realizing that their own lives demonstrated that the scare tactics were bullshit.

So I'll continue to ask. Do you know even one person who has transitioned? Because if you don't, then you have no idea what you're talking about and you're letting your own bigotry and prejudices try to ruin the lives of an awful lot of kids. And that's worth fighting against, anywhere it happens. --Bob

You have no idea of the long term experiences or outcomes of these folks, nor do your beloved guardian ad litum, physician or parent. Do you?

Still not answering my question. How many people do you personally know who have been through this? Because in this case, the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician all know at least one, which sounds like it's one more than you know. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:So you've never met her. You don't know the family. All you know is what you've read about her on the Internet.

And you have the colossal arrogance to believe that you know better than her mother, the guardian ad litem specifically appointed to protect her interests, the judge who's actually heard the evidence, and the treating physician what's good for her.

You have the bigotry to insist on referring to her by male pronouns no matter what effect it may have on her.

And you're willing to use the force of government to impose your views, not just on her, but on everyone like her, all to force her to live in conformance with your own narrow-minded beliefs.

This is exactly the same argument that people try to use to justify "curing" gay people "for their own good." And that bigotry has done an awful lot of harm to an awful lot of people.

You know what turned the tide on same-sex marriage? When it actually started happening. When people started realizing that all of the parade of horribles that people used to oppose same-sex marriage had nothing to do with the neighbors they'd gotten to know, the parents of their kids' friends, and their co-workers. When people started realizing that their own lives demonstrated that the scare tactics were bullshit.

So I'll continue to ask. Do you know even one person who has transitioned? Because if you don't, then you have no idea what you're talking about and you're letting your own bigotry and prejudices try to ruin the lives of an awful lot of kids. And that's worth fighting against, anywhere it happens. --Bob

You have no idea of the long term experiences or outcomes of these folks, nor do your beloved guardian ad litum, physician or parent. Do you?

Still not answering my question. How many people do you personally know who have been through this? Because in this case, the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician all know at least one, which sounds like it's one more than you know. --Bob

You know none. What makes you an expert remotely?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: You have no idea of the long term experiences or outcomes of these folks, nor do your beloved guardian ad litum, physician or parent. Do you?

Still not answering my question. How many people do you personally know who have been through this? Because in this case, the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician all know at least one, which sounds like it's one more than you know. --Bob

You know none. What makes you an expert remotely?

Would you care to bet on that? (Not that I'd ever specifically identify anyone here, given the level of abuse that would be hurled in their direction.)

But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

The right? The First Amendment.

Basis? Biology, genetics, life, etc.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Still not answering my question. How many people do you personally know who have been through this? Because in this case, the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician all know at least one, which sounds like it's one more than you know. --Bob

You know none. What makes you an expert remotely?

Would you care to bet on that? (Not that I'd ever specifically identify anyone here, given the level of abuse that would be hurled in their direction.)

But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

How do you know they're competent? Let me add, if the child's neighbor and uncle and mother decided this was necessary would you be okay with that?

Beebs52 wrote: How do you know they're competent? Let me add, if the child's neighbor and uncle and mother decided this was necessary would you be okay with that?

Well, the court (a judge, probably a lawyer by training) decided they are competent. We've never seen judges make poor decisions have we?

Bob78164 wrote:
But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Lol, bless your heart. Theocracy has zero to do with this issue, at least for me. Common sense, that's the ticket.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Again, on what basis do you stand that they are right?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:
Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Again, on what basis do you stand that they are right?

They've met her. The doctor has examined her. You haven't.

If you want to claim that the people who have met her and care about her, as a person and not as a pawn in some theological game, got it wrong, the burden of proof is on you. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Again, on what basis do you stand that they are right?

They've met her. The doctor has examined her. You haven't.

If you want to claim that the people who have met her and care about her, as a person and not as a pawn in some theological game, got it wrong, the burden of proof is on you. --Bob

Good luck dude. I'm folding on this exercise of narcissism.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
But that's irrelevant in this particular case. The experts and people who, unlike you (or me) actually know the girl involved here -- the mother, the guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician -- all agree on what's right for this girl. What gives you the right or the basis to say they're wrong? --Bob

Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Maybe we should "question with boldness" the issue of what rational ideology leads to the question of "Do little girls need to be castrated?" And/or in how many of these cases is Mama just trying to create a facsimile of the little girl that she always wanted?

WTH, do we go from here,now that we are castrating 8 year olds?

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:
Obviously, we have all long since figured out that Bob's tag line of "Question with boldness...." is meaningless claptrap. The man has never questioned his ideology in his life.

Looking at his statement above-he is saying we can't question "Experts" however they are defined. We can never question a parent who is in favor of castrating her little boy-but,apparently, the parent who is not in favor of castration is fair game.

We also can't question a physician-because apparently Doctors are always right.

What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Maybe we should "question with boldness" the issue of "Do little girls need to be castrated?" And/or is Mama just trying to create a facsimile of the little girl that she always wanted?

You want to claim that the people on the spot who actually know the girl are getting it wrong, it's on you to explain your basis for believing that.

What you're doing is just as appropriate as if I were pontificating on the way you run your land.

And by the way, how are soybean prices doing? I'm still waiting for the follow up you promised after Donny announced tariffs. Are we going to have to do the work ourselves to test whether your prediction was right or wrong? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:What basis do you have for believing that this parent, this guardian ad litem, this judge, and this treating physician all are wrong and that you, who have never met the girl in question and can't bring yourself to refer to her as a girl, know better than they do what's best for her? I think you've amply demonstrated that you can't answer that question without reference to the way your god insists the world works, but please feel free to keep trying. It's illuminating to see just how far down the road toward theocracy many Republicans are willing to travel. As long as it's a theocracy that imposes the views they happen to agree with, of course. --Bob

Maybe we should "question with boldness" the issue of "Do little girls need to be castrated?" And/or is Mama just trying to create a facsimile of the little girl that she always wanted?

You want to claim that the people on the spot who actually know the girl are getting it wrong, it's on you to explain your basis for believing that.

What you're doing is just as appropriate as if I were pontificating on the way you run your land.

And by the way, how are soybean prices doing? I'm still waiting for the follow up you promised after Donny announced tariffs. Are we going to have to do the work ourselves to test whether your prediction was right or wrong? --Bob

Obviously, you have thrown the whole age of consent thing away, but that is truly what bothers most of us here. Nice try with the theocracy distractor, tho.

Me (and others here)-"It might not be a good idea to castrate little boys."

Bob-"You Theocrat."

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote: Maybe we should "question with boldness" the issue of "Do little girls need to be castrated?" And/or is Mama just trying to create a facsimile of the little girl that she always wanted?

You want to claim that the people on the spot who actually know the girl are getting it wrong, it's on you to explain your basis for believing that.

What you're doing is just as appropriate as if I were pontificating on the way you run your land.

And by the way, how are soybean prices doing? I'm still waiting for the follow up you promised after Donny announced tariffs. Are we going to have to do the work ourselves to test whether your prediction was right or wrong? --Bob

Obviously, you have thrown the whole age of consent thing away, but that is truly what bothers most of us here. Nice try with the theocracy distractor, tho.

Me (and others here)-"It might not be a good idea to castrate little boys."

Bob-"You Theocrat."

You (and others here): We know better than the people who actually know this girl, whom we insist on referring to as a boy, what's good for her, and we're willing to use the government to force her to abide by our judgment, not the judgment of the people who know her and care for her. But that's not because we're theocrats. We're just smarter than they are and we know her better than she knows herself. Even though we've never met her. --Bob

you know better than the girl's (she's not a boy) mother, her guardian ad litem, the judge, and the treating physician what's good for her.
We know better than the people who actually know this girl

I would hazard to guess that the child's father knows the child as well or better than any of these people. Why is he ignored?

bob-tel, you have no grounds to argue 'theology'. Your politics is YOUR religion. Your religion somehow considers the castration of a 6 year old child as a noble, holy undertaking? Sounds pretty insane to me. Just by reading your self-righteous rantings, you seem to be an evangelistic zealot for your religion.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I would hazard to guess that the child's father knows the child as well or better than any of these people. Why is he ignored?

He wasn't ignored. Judges have to make decisions about children's welfare when the parents disagree all the time. And often one parent's wishes are granted as opposed to the other. That doesn't mean that the other is ignored. The judge made a decision based on all the facts in front of him. The father testified, as did the mother. She brought in medical testimony. He brought in the same sort of theological arguments you seem to adore. You want to make a contrary decision based on your prejudices not knowing any of the facts.

Bob and I believe in science and the legal system.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I would hazard to guess that the child's father knows the child as well or better than any of these people. Why is he ignored?

He wasn't ignored. Judges have to make decisions about children's welfare when the parents disagree all the time. And often one parent's wishes are granted as opposed to the other. That doesn't mean that the other is ignored. The judge made a decision based on all the facts in front of him. The father testified, as did the mother. She brought in medical testimony. He brought in the same sort of theological arguments you seem to adore. You want to make a contrary decision based on your prejudices not knowing any of the facts.

Bob and I believe in science and the legal system.

Except for the science that says XY=male?