It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Convict sues after being denied sex change - wants Nebraska tax money to pay for it

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I say, tell him to get over it, and see if he carries through on his threat. If he does, he can get medical help for that, to reattach.

No way should taxpayers foot the bill for this nonsense. Did he get himself jailed just to get the surgery? Didn't read past the OP yet, so if already posted, I didn't see it.




posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
*snip*
Anyway, it is not up to us to decide what is a "legitimate medical concern". That's what doctors are for. When you get your PHD, you can state an opinion contrary to medical science and I just may consider it. Until then, your opinion on medical matters that run counter to what is currently an understood consensus in medicine means about as much as your opinion on sports or video games.


Nonsense. Legitimate medical concerns are about health and life-threatening conditions, not surgical mutilation in order to play make-believe. As I read in an article by a homosexual author recently, would we alter things for someone who believed they were Napoleon? Why, no, we would not. One doesn't need an MD (not sure how a PhD relates there...) to understand this.


originally posted by: Abysha
Besides, given this prisoner's circumstances, it is very likely she is suffering from something very different than gender dysphoria or an intersex condition. Again, we don't know. That's what doctors are for.


Again, no. Just no. He is in jail for sixty-two felony child-sex crimes. He knows what the other prisoners would do to him, and he wants this, most likely, so he can get into a womens' prison and avoid that. You know, if they placed him in general population, with open announcement of his crimes, I could almost go for that. I don't think he'd be as safe as he might think he'd be.


originally posted by: Abysha
What concerns me is that you would likely still have the same answer if the prisoner was incarcerated for tax evasion or any other non-violent or sexual crime.


My answer wouldn't change. No one should get such a thing paid for by taxpayers. No one. In or out of prison. Period.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Abysha
*snip*
Anyway, it is not up to us to decide what is a "legitimate medical concern". That's what doctors are for. When you get your PHD, you can state an opinion contrary to medical science and I just may consider it. Until then, your opinion on medical matters that run counter to what is currently an understood consensus in medicine means about as much as your opinion on sports or video games.


Nonsense. Legitimate medical concerns are about health and life-threatening conditions, not surgical mutilation in order to play make-believe. As I read in an article by a homosexual author recently, would we alter things for someone who believed they were Napoleon? Why, no, we would not. One doesn't need an MD (not sure how a PhD relates there...) to understand this.


originally posted by: Abysha
Besides, given this prisoner's circumstances, it is very likely she is suffering from something very different than gender dysphoria or an intersex condition. Again, we don't know. That's what doctors are for.


Again, no. Just no. He is in jail for sixty-two felony child-sex crimes. He knows what the other prisoners would do to him, and he wants this, most likely, so he can get into a womens' prison and avoid that. You know, if they placed him in general population, with open announcement of his crimes, I could almost go for that. I don't think he'd be as safe as he might think he'd be.


originally posted by: Abysha
What concerns me is that you would likely still have the same answer if the prisoner was incarcerated for tax evasion or any other non-violent or sexual crime.


My answer wouldn't change. No one should get such a thing paid for by taxpayers. No one. In or out of prison. Period.


Doctors decide. Neither you nor I have a MD. The author you quoted isn't authoritative just because she is gay. Is she a gay doctor? I know she isn't because if she were, she would know the difference.

Again, our opinions do not matter nor does the prisoner's crimes. US prisoners are US citizens, no matter how much we hate to claim some of them.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

.... do not matter nor does the prisoner's crimes.


Oh... I think they matter. I think they matter a whole lot. And they HAVE to be considered, when considering anything about this prisoner.

We're not talking about a kid selling weed at school... We're not talking about a drunk driver... We're not even talking about someone who committed white-collar embezzlement to get the money for a sex change...

We're talking about someone who commits (notice the present tense) violent sexual crimes against children.

And I think that matters.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
It's abundantly obvious to me eventually this kind of surgery wll be standard so included in all insurance types. I know not everything is a slippery slope, but a lot of things are especially this kind.

I think both sexes are being dismantled in reparation for a future when children will be engineered and, in the far future, grown apart from the human body. This will enable strict control of its growth. This might be a necessity when we start engineering a large part of our body. Why would we engineer a large part of our body? To improve on it or add functionality. We do that when we go to the doctor or wear eyeglasses.

I think in 10 years to 30 years time lesbians will be having children commonly. Male homosexuals will have children via a woman who offers her womb. The baby will fully represent their dna, not hers.

The sexes--I think--will still be around a long time. But their meaning will lose ground. In the long run these changes are good, but they're also risky and the short-term costs can be heavy for some people.

We're moving away from our animal roots and evolving our place in this universe. It could kill us but it could give us hte leverage to survive. It's hard to say. This is why it's such a contentious issue.

Things are always changing. Some things stay the same. Yet it tends to be the case a species is locked into a certain space/time. We're not interchangeable with other space/times. Change is like a gateway system or the drive system in a computer. You need to be compatible....
edit on 11/13/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
Doctors decide. Neither you nor I have a MD. The author you quoted isn't authoritative just because she is gay. Is she a gay doctor? I know she isn't because if she were, she would know the difference.

Again, our opinions do not matter nor does the prisoner's crimes. US prisoners are US citizens, no matter how much we hate to claim some of them.


Sorry, but again, no. Doctors do not get to decide whether or not taxpayers cover the cost for an elective procedure. No one's life is threatened by not having surgery done to make them look like the opposite sex. That is, by definition, elective. Worse, it's elective because of mental issues. Those mental issues are, in fact, one reason cited as as excuse for demanding these surgeries.
I didn't cite an author in the post you quoted. The one I cited elsewhere is a guy. Obviously, you didn't even check the link, because I'd think "Milo" would have been a tip-off.

Yes, as taxpayers, our opinions do matter. Doctors and people with mental issues don't get to decide what to do with our money.

Yes, that someone is a prisoner does matter. No one in prison has any right to any elective surgery.

Yes, the crime does matter. No guy convicted of sixty-two felony sex crimes against children has a right to anything at all. Even if the crime was something else, he doesn't have a right to demand taxpayers fund an elective procedure.



new topics

top topics
 
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join