well reasoned. The State ultimately does not bear any risk in the decision. How can they be a moral stakeholder? (pardon my use of the term)

it is so weird how I found it. I have a post about a purchase of a penny from 1792. anyway, it's stamped with the phrase "liberty parent of science and industry" obviously a nod to enlightenment principles. but when I did a search this came up and I read it. very interesting. then I saw j's comment.

I went to the grand opening at the distillery in Kirby in Dec 2012, got two bottles of batch #1 in my gun safe. In truth, it's decent. I even spoke to Steve Nally (Google him), the master, and told him it needed more time in the barrel. He agreed.

It sure is!!!

This is excellent. Thank you very much.

+1000 if I could.

But in this case, the parents acceded to the desires of their daughter. They reasoned things out and all agreed on the outcome. It wasn't as if the parents weren't involved in the decision - they were the ones who sued the State to allow their decision to stand!

I would further posit this: how are we supposed to expect our teenagers to make good decisions when outside the home if we as parents make all their decisions for them prior to that time? If they have never been forced to exercise their judgement skills and reap the consequences until the moment they leave the home, I think it pretty unreasonable to expect them to magically (and I do mean magically) acquire such wisdom in the two steps they take leaving the house.

(Personal aside - I knew of one such young man who lived next door to me whose mother was, shall we say, "over-protective". He was never allowed to make any decisions and his mother frequently overrode them anyway. It took this young man nearly a decade after leaving the house to finally take charge of his own life.)

I would also point out several potential fallacies involved:
1) That the parents actually know what is best for the daughter. I would contend that this is precisely the logic the government is using to say that it gets to override the parents. I think that this reasoning must be cut off at the source or one must concede a slippery slope argument.
2) That ANYONE - doctors included - actually can predict with any degree of certainty the outcomes involved. Though there have been great medical advances, I can tell you from VERY personal experience in the life/death of a child that doctors often have their own agenda in such high-cost practices. Their objectivity can very easily be called into question here.
3) Probably the most important - that somehow the parents' will SHOULD override the will of a daughter who in this case I would deem to be fully competent in making her own decisions. Most states allow 17-year-olds to make their own decisions to graduate early. Most allow driving at sixteen. Most set the age of consent at 16. And are not those similarly life-defining events?

we have no idea what her chances are. what her doctors told her. The doctors on the other hand, now have to worry about liability so they become snitches in the healthcare slavery game. We have no idea what the girl's maturity level is-and I know the State has no idea. She faces an extremely risky treatment which gives her some percent boost at survival. You may disagree with their logic, but we don't have all of the facts in order to judge, I think.

it is all about the money. no treatment no doctors or hospital bills. no taxes taken out of salaries from the workers. if she lives or dies is not the concern just the cash flow she generates at the moment. the costs are high i guess. you can kill someone and get 7 years in jail on average, but hurt cash flow to the government they will stop at nothing to stick it to you. when she is 18 can she just walk?

True enough, but in Biblical times, age 12 or 13 was considered adulthood. Even now, bar mitzvahs are at age 13 for this reason.

here is the history of how that came to be. Note: the Framers would not be happy:
Parent Liberty
http://www.quaqua.org/commonlaw.htm

we let them go to war

I don't disagree with what you said except that in this case, the parents are NOT the final arbiters. The state is the final arbiter in this case.

At what point do parents need to respect the decision-making capacities of their children - especially when it is over their own lives? No one is going to argue that a four-year-old is incapable of fending for himself/herself, but this is a seventeen-year-old. This is someone who will be on their own in the very near future and should be largely autonomous.

It sounded to me like they had discussed the matter as a family and that the young lady had persuaded her parents on the matter. I think it's pretty presumptuous of us to armchair quarterback.

this is how we felt about Colorado. There was no one decision point, but it was striking how the two senators completely ignored half of the state (which is conservative). Here was the second largest city in the state, less than an hour from Denver, abandoned by the state government's decisions. But as Conservatives in CS focused on social issues, the city fell to politicians who said they were conservative but actually as RINO and crony as can be. sad, really

Yeah. That was certainly a doozy. No more property rights if the government says so.

Yes, indeed it does.

And, did I mention we've got a distillery in WY?
http://wyomingwhiskey.com/wp/

Haven't tried it yet.
But that will change soon.

Blarman, nothing, absolutely nothing about CT surprises me.
I made up my mind to get out right after the SCOTUS Kelo vs New London decision.

When you and Mr. NMA are ready, there is a place for you here.
Cheyenne is a city that feels like a small town.

In the short time we've been here, Joan and I have identified a few "like-minded-enough" people:
A homesteader (Farm fresh eggs and 12 acres for a farming co-op)
A sausage-maker (Made on site - found that one yesterday, we got anduille. Woo-hoo!)
An auto-mechanic (The Tea Party candidate for governor stops by the garage often for coffee).

As for firearms companies, I believe Mag-Pul moved to WY from CO after Hickenlooper and the Marxocrats tried their BS.

Joan know about a couple of other, I will PM you with info.

Seriously, why stay?
Plus, I read yesterday that that fault line through CT that everyone's been warning about since I was a kid went active last week?
5 quakes in less than a week?
One of them 3.3 another 3.1?

The worst WY has is that you're sitting atop a mega-volcano ;)
Oh yeah, and Cheyenne is probably #2 on the list of places in the US to get the crap nuked out of it.

I knew a young girl in Connecticut a few years ago who went through chemo, and we all thought she had beat cancer. A year or so later, it came back, when she was 14. Chemo was so bad and her chances so slim, she elected to skip it knowing full well she would die. She died 6 months later. I guess the government is intervening more now.

A few years ago, as an experiment, I asked on an Objectivist forum if people thought forced vaccination was a good idea. At least half said "yes". I still marvel at that. I understand the arguments. It's the premise that gets ya, isn't it?

Need those anywhere. You're certainly welcome out west!

Need any artists/firearms manufacturers out there????