Boy In California Being Drugged With Hormones Violates Criminal Law There

Again, we have a 60 member hate group on one side of this issue. And the 100,000 members of the APA and the American Academy of Pediatrics on the other.

There's a reason that the law sides with the APA and the AAP and not a random hate group.
People who protect children from manifest child abuse are not "haters". You can't label a learned institution (the American College of Pediatrics) or its President acting to protect children "a hate group". Sorry, your semantics may have carried you far, but they won't carry you into legitimizing child abuse. Or in legitimizing putting women and children at risk in their private hygiene areas like bathrooms, locker rooms or showers etc.
 
Again, we have a 60 member hate group on one side of this issue. And the 100,000 members of the APA and the American Academy of Pediatrics on the other.

There's a reason that the law sides with the APA and the AAP and not a random hate group.
People who protect children from manifest child abuse are not "haters".

And by 'manifest child abuse', you mean whatever hapless pseudo-legal nonsense you pretend to believe? Remember, if you *actually* believed your own claims....you'd have called the police.

You didn't. Because you don't. Even you know you're abuse claims are meaningless hysterics.

You can't label a learned institution (the American College of Pediatrics) or its President acting to protect children "a hate group". Sorry, your semantics may have carried you far, but they won't carry you into legitimizing child abuse. Or in legitimizing putting women and children at risk in their private hygiene areas like bathrooms, locker rooms or showers etc.

And by 'learned institution', you mean an anti-LGBT hate group founded in 2002 by 60 odd fellas?

Meet the Anti-LGBT Hate Group that Filed an Amicus Brief with the Alabama Supreme Court

That's a hate group, Sil. And your 'source'.
 
No, by "manifest child abuse" I mean drugging kids to retard normal growth with carcinogenic hormones not approved for that use by the FDA, all in a coercion to lead them to amputation of healthy organs leaving them mutilated and disabled for life.
 
No, by "manifest child abuse" I mean drugging kids to retard normal growth with carcinogenic hormones not approved for that use by the FDA, all in a coercion to lead them to amputation of healthy organs leaving them mutilated and disabled for life.

Again, if you actually believed that these two parents caring for their special needs child was 'child abuse' you'd have called the police.

But you didn't. Because you don't. You'll offer us your insane anti-gay conspiracy theories, you'll offer us rambling pseudo-legal diatribes splattered across thousands of pages and 70+ anti-LGBT threads. But you know your gibberish is meaningless.

WHich is why when tested, you blinked. And still have yet to call the police to turn these parents in. The reason is obvious: caring for their child isn't child abuse.
 
^^ strawman evasion of the definition of manifest child abuse.

Your pseudo-legal gibberish doesn't define 'child abuse'. As you demonstrated by your failure to ever report these imaginary 'crimes' to the actual police.

You blinked, Sil. You showed us what YOU think of your pseudo-legal nonsense. Even you ignore you.
 
This is a debate about whether or not what's being done at Stanford to kids like Tommy is child abuse. I've won the debate. Now you're using a strawman.
 
This is a debate about whether or not what's being done at Stanford to kids like Tommy is child abuse. I've won the debate. Now you're using a strawman.

With you citing your own pseudo-legal gibberish as the law. And demonstrating that even *you* don't believe you.

If even you are going to ignore you, surely you'll understand why I have little use for your pseudo-legal ramblings.

And the child's parents are going to keep raising their kid while you continue to do nothing.
 
Child abuse doesn't require any legal terminology when it is obvious and manifest.
 
Child abuse doesn't require any legal terminology when it is obvious and manifest.
If you believed it was child abuse, you would have turned that family into authorities while Tammy was a child.
 
Child abuse doesn't require any legal terminology when it is obvious and manifest.

Nothing you've described is child abuse. Again, Sil......we don't base our laws on whatever nonsense you tell yourself.
 
Child abuse doesn't require any legal terminology when it is obvious and manifest.

Nothing you've described is child abuse. Again, Sil......we don't base our laws on whatever nonsense you tell yourself.
So drugging a boy in a way that renders him sterile for life, before he is of age to consent, based solely on delusions he agrees with the adults around him on, to lead him later to be a butchered eunuch halfling with a surgical gash, never ever female, is "not child abuse" according to Skylar.

If you open a daycare Skylar, please post those viewpoints at the door so parents know where you stand.
 
Child abuse doesn't require any legal terminology when it is obvious and manifest.

Nothing you've described is child abuse. Again, Sil......we don't base our laws on whatever nonsense you tell yourself.
So drugging a boy in a way that renders him sterile for life, before he is of age to consent, based solely on delusions he agrees with the adults around him on, to lead him later to be a butchered eunuch halfling with a surgical gash, never ever female, is "not child abuse" according to Skylar.

If you open a daycare Skylar, please post those viewpoints at the door so parents know where you stand.

The child, her parents, her doctors and her mental health professionals are in a far better place to tell us what is in the child's best interest.....than you who can't even give us the child's name without referencing an article she read once in 2013.

Sorry, Sil.....but your compulsive obsession with this lesbian couple in Berkeley doesn't embue with any insight. Their care of their own child on a daily basis does.
 
This is a thread about a boy. Calling him "her" is a form of child abuse. Maybe you weren't aware of it, but do make a note of it from now on..
 
This is a thread about a boy. Calling him "her" is a form of child abuse. Maybe you weren't aware of it, but do make a note of it from now on..

Says you, citing your own meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Back in the real world, the child refers to *herself* as 'her'. That you disagree with Tammy is gloriously irrelevant. As you're irrelevant to the child's life. She and her parents, her doctors and her mental health professionals will continue her treatment in her best interest. And you'll continue to do nothing.

See how that works?
 
I'm pretty sure I'm a member of "mass hallucination" then if it's just my imagination calling a boy "he"...
 
I'm pretty sure I'm a member of "mass hallucination" then if it's just my imagination calling a boy "he"...

I'm pretty sure that with your insane conspiracy theories about 'gay mafioso' kill squads murdering children and the Pope being blackmailed by 'the gays', you're not in a good position to talk to anyone about 'hallucinations'.

I'll stick with the child, her parents, her doctors, and her mental health professionals over you and your batshit conspiracy ramblings about 'lesbian overlords'.
 
This is a thread about a boy. Calling him "her" is a form of child abuse. Maybe you weren't aware of it, but do make a note of it from now on..
Her name is Tammy. Are you accusing me of child abuse? If so, isn’t your civic duty to report me to the authorities?
 
His name is Tommy. Feeding into a child's delusions to the point of physical butchery that tops stuff the Nazi war criminal doctors did to Jewish kids in death camps, is child abuse defined.
 

Forum List

Back
Top