FWIW I came back from Vietnam in late 1970 (Marine Corps grunt). The only place where I even got a hint of rude treatment was the couple of times I foolishly stepped into a VFW post, hoping to share some time. The generation gap was huge. The WWII guys were...well, whatever. They had their own issues to deal with. The left? College students? Protesters? Curious, concerned, even helpful.
Worked at a VA hospital for a time. Good care was given. Benefits were good and easily obtained.
Anyway, that was my experience.
I'm uncomfortable with being thanked. We shouldn't have been there and we shouldn't have been doing what we were doing. I was a part of a wrong thing. No thanks needed. And hero? Good lord...
karl -- "...an adult whose decision-making cannot be trusted to be uncoerced?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
tod -- Hell, I raise red flags wherever I go! Also, three more quick anecdotes: #1: a very close friend teaches English. His 7th grade student fell in love with him and hit on him. He declined. When she was 18 and a senior in high school, she still loved him and hit on him again. He declined (though it was a bit tougher). She graduated college, came back at 21, and hit on him again. He accepted. Married for years. Anecdote #2: my brother married the first girl he ever dated. He is in his late 50's and has never even kissed another woman. Anecdote #3: back in 1968 I worked with a woman in her late 50's. She left home and got her own apartment when she was 11. She married when she was 14, telling her 21 year old husband that she was 18. Five kids. When I knew her, she was a constantly smiling, happy lady who flew all over the country to visit her five kids (all college grads).
I have trouble with these absolute statements about who is suited for whom. The heart is a large place. Dangers abound -- but anyone who has ever fallen love knows that from the start.
Tod et al. -- I'm obviously doing a really bad job of expressing myself here. I'm not in favor of these kinds of relationships; the greater the power discrepancy, the worse the situation can be. I understand completely the risk of abuse. I've been trying to say that treating her as less than an active participant, a victim, is not quite accurate and, oddly enough, demeans her. She decided to do what she did, willingly, enthusiastically, if I remember correctly. (For my money, any coercion in a relationship, be it mental, physical, or professional, could be construed a rape.)
So, let me re-phrase it as a question: When a boss hits on an employee, or an employee hits on their boss, does the employee then automatically lose their "adult" status and become instead an "adult with diminished capacity" whose decision-making is not to be trusted? Does participating in such an affair automatically delete the less-powerful person's ability to decide? Does Ms. L, despite the spectacular disparity in status and power, retain any responsibility for what she does? Or is she completely a helpless victim?
And, doggone it (because I'm starting to sound like the world's biggest apologist for power inequities in affairs) Dr. Saunder's comment below makes me respond: my widowed mother married her doctor -- marriage lasted 27 years until his death (and he remained her doctor).
Teacher -- I guess this is where it starts sounding a bit off to me. (I am not a lawyer, so I can't address how the law handles these things). To me, if we are discussing an adult's behavior, I always presume consent. If I am then shown clear signs of coercion, or diminished capacity, or something along those lines (in other words, something that overrides the "adultness" of the less powerful person in question), then I can qualify the stated consent with: "they didn't know what they were saying" or "they were forced into it", etc. But being "adult" means to me: I get to make, and take responsibility, for my actions. All of them.
None of this is to be construed as approving of behavior in the situations that you outlined above, or between Clinton and Lewinsky, or even between myself and my boss (despite our positive outcome). Abuse of power over a subordinate is always going to be bad, and it has to be watched out for, and dealt with. But all relationships that have, as a component, different levels of power, are not necessarily wrong. Abuse is not a necessary component in these situations.
Your examples are powerful and probably come up more than would be desired. It is very clear that these things can cause huge disruptions in the workplace. My comment was not meant to suggest that anything like that is o.k. But just because one party in the affair has more power, that does not remove all agency from the other party.
Ms. L and President C both knew what they were doing was wrong. They were both adults and decided to do it anyway. They suffered consequences for it. Nothing that I have heard in their story suggests to me that she was coerced in any way. It must have been quite a thrill for her, there in the office, with the President of the United States. I get temptation. But I haven't seen much evidence of her being victimized by anything other than her own desires and decisions. I feel she should be judged as an adult, and not as a helpless victim.
greg -- sort of a sliding scale to me. The more he used his power and position to seduce, cajole, maneuver, coerce her, the worse the crime. My recollection (not that good, perhaps, because I really didn't follow the story that closely) is that it was pretty consensual. That doesn't mean that it was all o.k. (and I tried not to state that it was) but it does mean that she was a full voluntary participant. If he used his position to corner her (emotionally or physically) then that would be one thing. If she grinned and hopped right in, that would be another.
Her adulthood seems extremely relevant to me. Had she been underage...
I might be prejudiced here. I have never been a boss, but I have had more than one boss with whom I had affairs. Some weren't such a good idea. That last one? We've been married 30 years now. ;)
Tod -- excellent essay. Can I trouble you with one small quibble that has always bugged me? Clinton/Lewinsky. Absolutely agree that he was in power and dealing with what was essentially an employee who was subject to his power; and granted, she was not making the proper decisions in that situation. But I have always objected to phrases like "...it should have been about the inherent abuse of power that takes place in sexual harassment cases..." when discussing this case. She was an adult. She enthusiastically participated in the situation. I find it a bit demeaning (ironically enough) that she is often portrayed as a total victim, as opposed to an excited, excitable young person having a great time.
They both should have known better, but she was a fully functional adult. Being an adult does not protect anyone from bad decisions, but it does entail responsibility for them. She wasn't a meek girl scout cowering in a corner; she was a full-fledged woman doing exactly what she wanted to do (if I remember correctly, often initiating the activities). There is no need to diminish her to accentuate the wrong-doing.
I suppose that's where we part company. I imagine that, in polite conversation, I have probably said: "Since there is no evidence for X, I believe that X doesn't exist." And never felt that the two clauses were either contradictory or redundant. Your two sentences there, at least in this context, seem to express the same thing to me. Just a different phrasing of basically the same thought.
Is it the word "believe" that gives us trouble? Here's a sentence: "Yes, I believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4." I have no trouble with that sentence. And that sentence doesn't begin to imply any uncertainty about the sum mentioned.
While the words "believe" and "belief" can be extremely important to a religious person, they are also just words used in day-to-day conversation. "I believe I'll have the cheeseburger." "Well, that's beyond belief!" etc. It's an accident of English that an atheist says: "I don't believe in god." That's a different usage (ironically enough) from when a religious person says: "I believe!"
I honestly don't understand how this gets to be such a weird and confusing issue. Be honest with yourself -- isn't there an almost endless list, inside your head, of things that you don't believe exist? Examples: easter bunny; hobbits; dragons; a hollow area at the center of the earth where dinosaurs roam; a monster in your closet. (YMMV - compose your own list) You don't have any doubts about any of those things, do you? You'd be happy to admit to their existence if you ever had any evidence of it, correct? But you are certain that they don't. Well, just add "god" to that list for me. No more complicated than that. The thing just isn't there. Is that just my opinion? Sure. Do you differ in your thoughts? I imagine so. But how is it so hard to understand not believing in a thing when you yourself have so many things that you don't believe in?
My mother handed me "Catcher in the Rye" when I was eleven. And "Cyrano." The closest thing I can remember to difficulty or trauma in reading stuff that might have been too mature for me was at the age of 9 when "Huckleberry Finn" confused the hell out of me with a simple syllogism:
1. Slavery is evil.
2. Abolitionists hate slavery.
3. Huckleberry hates abolitionists.
WTF?
Long conversations with the parental unit to iron that one out.
good only triumphs when evil is scared shitless. sorry, but it’s true.
99% of the people alive on the planet today are going to have an o.k. day. Isn't that good?
My life (and yours, I'd be willing to bet, given that the only thing that I know about you is that you are using a computer) is spectacularly better than most lives lived by most people through history, which at least strongly implies an awful lot of progress through the years.
Other than the basic human need to over-emphasize our own suffering so as to compete with those who are truly having a bad time, what have you got to support your statement above?
And just to change the subject a bit (and perhaps start some good flaming), from my first reading back in the 60's on, I always thought that Tolkien totally messed up a pretty fine tale with "The Scouring of the Shire." Sharkey??? Are you kidding me?
Favorite literary quote: "Christ, John, not another fishing elf."
I guess I'm just having no trouble accepting that there is great evil in the world, and then trying to talk myself out of the notion that, to some extent, I'm part of it -- and that by taking up arms when I did, I promulgated it.
Is my only defense that fact that others have done worse?
I hear you, MrP. And it doesn't take much effort to replace the word "Neocons" in your post with names like McNamara and Rusk to take it back a few decades.
It's probably putting a lot of strain on an analogy that it can't bear, but I have to admit, watching the LOtR films, that I kept seeing a small, agrarian, isolationist culture being threatened by a great, industrialized, militaristic power.
Moral Rational Person #1 -- Human life begins at conception. Therefore, at all stages of gestation (no matter where that gestation is occurring - womb or petri dish) that is a human being in there. Therefore, to purposefully end its life is murder. Emotional add-on -- it's an innocent baby.
Moral Rational Person #2 -- When human life actually begins is up in the air. Not as early as conception; not as late as birth. Also, the entity in question slowly approaches its humanity in the confines of a woman's body. Therefore, the woman has, at the beginning of the process, a great deal of leeway in dealing with the situation. That leeway diminishes as we approach birth, but for many weeks there the woman's decision is paramount, overriding the concerns of what it is her womb. Emotional add-on -- it's my body, keep your (religious, patriarchal, objectifying) opinions to yourself. If I want the baby, I will not smoke or drink for a while; if I don't want the baby, I have the right to go to the clinic.
Moral Rational Person #3 -- Human life begins at conception, however, human life is not sacred; we all rate it on a gray scale. Under some circumstances (largely determined by each individual) it is acceptable, perhaps even desirable, to kill other human beings. Under other circumstances (largely determined by each individual) some human beings are declared much more valuable and thus killing them is much more abhorrent.
Personally, I have absolutely no problem seeing moral and rational people adopting any one of those notions. Demonizing one's opponents is a sad, but effective, tactic.
Again, off-topic. Sorry. But now this stuff is running through my head. Weren't MOS's different depending on service branch? My 0311 (Marine Corps) was something else in the Army. (?) Is that true?
Also, service number. I have to struggle for my phone number and SSN, but my service number is evidently tattooed on my frontal lobe.
I've always had a bit of pity for the guys who were smart enough/lucky enough to avoid service in the Viet Nam days, and today feel that it's somewhat demeaning to their manhood to have done so. I understand the urge to embellish a bit. Except for the chicken-hawks, of course. They can go... well, let's keep this civil.
DEROS = Army. RTD (Rotation Tour Date) = Marine Corps.
No DD-214 in my wallet, but when I got out, I swore that I would never blather on about my time in. And then I got on the 707 (paid extra for a ticket so I could wear my civvies) and walked down the aisle of the airplane, grinning like a shaved-head idiot, shoving my DD-214 in everybody's face. "I just got out! This is my DD-214! Hey, look..."
Gives me the giggles. I calmed down as the plane flew over MCRD San Diego and I saw the obstacle course. Put my middle finger on the window and THEN I was out.
Sorry. Off topic. Back to lurking. Thanks for the giggle.
Do I believe that the state should mandate vaccinations? Yes. Blood typing and cross-matching before surgeries? Yes. Emergency room treatment for any child with a broken leg? Yes.
(Your second question used the word "unnecessary," so I have no cute answer.)
Do I think that the state should be "meddling" in medical procedures? Absolutely. I want the physician licensed and regularly tested. And I do not trust the physician, or the AMA, as much as I trust to state to make those things happen properly.
That creates an odd little circle -- if the mother consents to the daughter's procedure, no matter how much the daughter objects, then can a medical procedure be called "assault?" Where is the line?
This is truly a question, and not a sneaky comment...does the mother have the "power of consent" (or equivalent legal term) for the daughter? In other words, in some legal sense, despite the daughter's objections, does the mother have the legal power to essentially "say yes" to the procedure? And since that "yes" was legally obtained, and valid, does that eliminate "rape" from consideration, no matter how bitterly contested by the daughter?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Memorial Day”
FWIW I came back from Vietnam in late 1970 (Marine Corps grunt). The only place where I even got a hint of rude treatment was the couple of times I foolishly stepped into a VFW post, hoping to share some time. The generation gap was huge. The WWII guys were...well, whatever. They had their own issues to deal with. The left? College students? Protesters? Curious, concerned, even helpful.
Worked at a VA hospital for a time. Good care was given. Benefits were good and easily obtained.
Anyway, that was my experience.
I'm uncomfortable with being thanked. We shouldn't have been there and we shouldn't have been doing what we were doing. I was a part of a wrong thing. No thanks needed. And hero? Good lord...
On “Sex Scandal Extravaganza!!!”
karl -- "...an adult whose decision-making cannot be trusted to be uncoerced?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
tod -- Hell, I raise red flags wherever I go! Also, three more quick anecdotes: #1: a very close friend teaches English. His 7th grade student fell in love with him and hit on him. He declined. When she was 18 and a senior in high school, she still loved him and hit on him again. He declined (though it was a bit tougher). She graduated college, came back at 21, and hit on him again. He accepted. Married for years. Anecdote #2: my brother married the first girl he ever dated. He is in his late 50's and has never even kissed another woman. Anecdote #3: back in 1968 I worked with a woman in her late 50's. She left home and got her own apartment when she was 11. She married when she was 14, telling her 21 year old husband that she was 18. Five kids. When I knew her, she was a constantly smiling, happy lady who flew all over the country to visit her five kids (all college grads).
I have trouble with these absolute statements about who is suited for whom. The heart is a large place. Dangers abound -- but anyone who has ever fallen love knows that from the start.
"
Tod et al. -- I'm obviously doing a really bad job of expressing myself here. I'm not in favor of these kinds of relationships; the greater the power discrepancy, the worse the situation can be. I understand completely the risk of abuse. I've been trying to say that treating her as less than an active participant, a victim, is not quite accurate and, oddly enough, demeans her. She decided to do what she did, willingly, enthusiastically, if I remember correctly. (For my money, any coercion in a relationship, be it mental, physical, or professional, could be construed a rape.)
So, let me re-phrase it as a question: When a boss hits on an employee, or an employee hits on their boss, does the employee then automatically lose their "adult" status and become instead an "adult with diminished capacity" whose decision-making is not to be trusted? Does participating in such an affair automatically delete the less-powerful person's ability to decide? Does Ms. L, despite the spectacular disparity in status and power, retain any responsibility for what she does? Or is she completely a helpless victim?
And, doggone it (because I'm starting to sound like the world's biggest apologist for power inequities in affairs) Dr. Saunder's comment below makes me respond: my widowed mother married her doctor -- marriage lasted 27 years until his death (and he remained her doctor).
O.k., enough from me...
"
Teacher -- I guess this is where it starts sounding a bit off to me. (I am not a lawyer, so I can't address how the law handles these things). To me, if we are discussing an adult's behavior, I always presume consent. If I am then shown clear signs of coercion, or diminished capacity, or something along those lines (in other words, something that overrides the "adultness" of the less powerful person in question), then I can qualify the stated consent with: "they didn't know what they were saying" or "they were forced into it", etc. But being "adult" means to me: I get to make, and take responsibility, for my actions. All of them.
None of this is to be construed as approving of behavior in the situations that you outlined above, or between Clinton and Lewinsky, or even between myself and my boss (despite our positive outcome). Abuse of power over a subordinate is always going to be bad, and it has to be watched out for, and dealt with. But all relationships that have, as a component, different levels of power, are not necessarily wrong. Abuse is not a necessary component in these situations.
Your examples are powerful and probably come up more than would be desired. It is very clear that these things can cause huge disruptions in the workplace. My comment was not meant to suggest that anything like that is o.k. But just because one party in the affair has more power, that does not remove all agency from the other party.
Ms. L and President C both knew what they were doing was wrong. They were both adults and decided to do it anyway. They suffered consequences for it. Nothing that I have heard in their story suggests to me that she was coerced in any way. It must have been quite a thrill for her, there in the office, with the President of the United States. I get temptation. But I haven't seen much evidence of her being victimized by anything other than her own desires and decisions. I feel she should be judged as an adult, and not as a helpless victim.
"
greg -- sort of a sliding scale to me. The more he used his power and position to seduce, cajole, maneuver, coerce her, the worse the crime. My recollection (not that good, perhaps, because I really didn't follow the story that closely) is that it was pretty consensual. That doesn't mean that it was all o.k. (and I tried not to state that it was) but it does mean that she was a full voluntary participant. If he used his position to corner her (emotionally or physically) then that would be one thing. If she grinned and hopped right in, that would be another.
Her adulthood seems extremely relevant to me. Had she been underage...
I might be prejudiced here. I have never been a boss, but I have had more than one boss with whom I had affairs. Some weren't such a good idea. That last one? We've been married 30 years now. ;)
"
Tod -- excellent essay. Can I trouble you with one small quibble that has always bugged me? Clinton/Lewinsky. Absolutely agree that he was in power and dealing with what was essentially an employee who was subject to his power; and granted, she was not making the proper decisions in that situation. But I have always objected to phrases like "...it should have been about the inherent abuse of power that takes place in sexual harassment cases..." when discussing this case. She was an adult. She enthusiastically participated in the situation. I find it a bit demeaning (ironically enough) that she is often portrayed as a total victim, as opposed to an excited, excitable young person having a great time.
They both should have known better, but she was a fully functional adult. Being an adult does not protect anyone from bad decisions, but it does entail responsibility for them. She wasn't a meek girl scout cowering in a corner; she was a full-fledged woman doing exactly what she wanted to do (if I remember correctly, often initiating the activities). There is no need to diminish her to accentuate the wrong-doing.
On “The Passionate Zeal of the Rebel Outcast – A Question for the League”
I suppose that's where we part company. I imagine that, in polite conversation, I have probably said: "Since there is no evidence for X, I believe that X doesn't exist." And never felt that the two clauses were either contradictory or redundant. Your two sentences there, at least in this context, seem to express the same thing to me. Just a different phrasing of basically the same thought.
Is it the word "believe" that gives us trouble? Here's a sentence: "Yes, I believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4." I have no trouble with that sentence. And that sentence doesn't begin to imply any uncertainty about the sum mentioned.
While the words "believe" and "belief" can be extremely important to a religious person, they are also just words used in day-to-day conversation. "I believe I'll have the cheeseburger." "Well, that's beyond belief!" etc. It's an accident of English that an atheist says: "I don't believe in god." That's a different usage (ironically enough) from when a religious person says: "I believe!"
"
I honestly don't understand how this gets to be such a weird and confusing issue. Be honest with yourself -- isn't there an almost endless list, inside your head, of things that you don't believe exist? Examples: easter bunny; hobbits; dragons; a hollow area at the center of the earth where dinosaurs roam; a monster in your closet. (YMMV - compose your own list) You don't have any doubts about any of those things, do you? You'd be happy to admit to their existence if you ever had any evidence of it, correct? But you are certain that they don't. Well, just add "god" to that list for me. No more complicated than that. The thing just isn't there. Is that just my opinion? Sure. Do you differ in your thoughts? I imagine so. But how is it so hard to understand not believing in a thing when you yourself have so many things that you don't believe in?
On “Skimming for the Dirty Parts – Book Censorship In Public Schools, The Enders Game Controversy, and The False Allure of Public Decency”
My mother handed me "Catcher in the Rye" when I was eleven. And "Cyrano." The closest thing I can remember to difficulty or trauma in reading stuff that might have been too mature for me was at the age of 9 when "Huckleberry Finn" confused the hell out of me with a simple syllogism:
1. Slavery is evil.
2. Abolitionists hate slavery.
3. Huckleberry hates abolitionists.
WTF?
Long conversations with the parental unit to iron that one out.
On “Trust Me, Kids — Peace Is Actually Pretty Awesome”
Kimmi --
yeah, busted. I certainly overstated with that 99% business. Your point forces me to back off to far more safe 75%. O.k.
How about your proof that good only triumphs when evil is scared shitless?
"
Kimmi --
good only triumphs when evil is scared shitless. sorry, but it’s true.
99% of the people alive on the planet today are going to have an o.k. day. Isn't that good?
My life (and yours, I'd be willing to bet, given that the only thing that I know about you is that you are using a computer) is spectacularly better than most lives lived by most people through history, which at least strongly implies an awful lot of progress through the years.
Other than the basic human need to over-emphasize our own suffering so as to compete with those who are truly having a bad time, what have you got to support your statement above?
"
Kimmi --
googled -- ahhhh, it's a gag. ok.
Evil triumphs, over and over again, until the good men rise up from their slumber.
Doughboys seems more and more an accurate name for the United States. Fat and complacent, even as the world rots around them.
"
Darn, I keep get "inter-posted" with Kimmi. Sorry.
And Kimmi -- obviously you have never seen any chaos, or taken time to appreciate your status quo.
"
And just to change the subject a bit (and perhaps start some good flaming), from my first reading back in the 60's on, I always thought that Tolkien totally messed up a pretty fine tale with "The Scouring of the Shire." Sharkey??? Are you kidding me?
Favorite literary quote: "Christ, John, not another fishing elf."
"
Well, crap. You're just tying it in closer and closer to what I'm seeing around me. ;)
"
I guess I'm just having no trouble accepting that there is great evil in the world, and then trying to talk myself out of the notion that, to some extent, I'm part of it -- and that by taking up arms when I did, I promulgated it.
Is my only defense that fact that others have done worse?
"
I hear you, MrP. And it doesn't take much effort to replace the word "Neocons" in your post with names like McNamara and Rusk to take it back a few decades.
"
It's probably putting a lot of strain on an analogy that it can't bear, but I have to admit, watching the LOtR films, that I kept seeing a small, agrarian, isolationist culture being threatened by a great, industrialized, militaristic power.
So, who is Sauron?
On “Please Check Out Our Junk (Mail)”
You guys are a major distraction, significantly reducing my value as an employee. Please sign me up. And thanks.
On “A Quick Observation”
Moral Rational Person #1 -- Human life begins at conception. Therefore, at all stages of gestation (no matter where that gestation is occurring - womb or petri dish) that is a human being in there. Therefore, to purposefully end its life is murder. Emotional add-on -- it's an innocent baby.
Moral Rational Person #2 -- When human life actually begins is up in the air. Not as early as conception; not as late as birth. Also, the entity in question slowly approaches its humanity in the confines of a woman's body. Therefore, the woman has, at the beginning of the process, a great deal of leeway in dealing with the situation. That leeway diminishes as we approach birth, but for many weeks there the woman's decision is paramount, overriding the concerns of what it is her womb. Emotional add-on -- it's my body, keep your (religious, patriarchal, objectifying) opinions to yourself. If I want the baby, I will not smoke or drink for a while; if I don't want the baby, I have the right to go to the clinic.
Moral Rational Person #3 -- Human life begins at conception, however, human life is not sacred; we all rate it on a gray scale. Under some circumstances (largely determined by each individual) it is acceptable, perhaps even desirable, to kill other human beings. Under other circumstances (largely determined by each individual) some human beings are declared much more valuable and thus killing them is much more abhorrent.
Personally, I have absolutely no problem seeing moral and rational people adopting any one of those notions. Demonizing one's opponents is a sad, but effective, tactic.
On “Stolen Valor, Birth Control, Gay Marriage, and Abortion”
Again, off-topic. Sorry. But now this stuff is running through my head. Weren't MOS's different depending on service branch? My 0311 (Marine Corps) was something else in the Army. (?) Is that true?
Also, service number. I have to struggle for my phone number and SSN, but my service number is evidently tattooed on my frontal lobe.
I've always had a bit of pity for the guys who were smart enough/lucky enough to avoid service in the Viet Nam days, and today feel that it's somewhat demeaning to their manhood to have done so. I understand the urge to embellish a bit. Except for the chicken-hawks, of course. They can go... well, let's keep this civil.
"
DEROS = Army. RTD (Rotation Tour Date) = Marine Corps.
No DD-214 in my wallet, but when I got out, I swore that I would never blather on about my time in. And then I got on the 707 (paid extra for a ticket so I could wear my civvies) and walked down the aisle of the airplane, grinning like a shaved-head idiot, shoving my DD-214 in everybody's face. "I just got out! This is my DD-214! Hey, look..."
Gives me the giggles. I calmed down as the plane flew over MCRD San Diego and I saw the obstacle course. Put my middle finger on the window and THEN I was out.
Sorry. Off topic. Back to lurking. Thanks for the giggle.
On “The Virginia Ultrasound Bill and the Moniker of Rape”
Do I believe that the state should mandate vaccinations? Yes. Blood typing and cross-matching before surgeries? Yes. Emergency room treatment for any child with a broken leg? Yes.
(Your second question used the word "unnecessary," so I have no cute answer.)
Do I think that the state should be "meddling" in medical procedures? Absolutely. I want the physician licensed and regularly tested. And I do not trust the physician, or the AMA, as much as I trust to state to make those things happen properly.
Who do you trust?
"
That creates an odd little circle -- if the mother consents to the daughter's procedure, no matter how much the daughter objects, then can a medical procedure be called "assault?" Where is the line?
"
This is truly a question, and not a sneaky comment...does the mother have the "power of consent" (or equivalent legal term) for the daughter? In other words, in some legal sense, despite the daughter's objections, does the mother have the legal power to essentially "say yes" to the procedure? And since that "yes" was legally obtained, and valid, does that eliminate "rape" from consideration, no matter how bitterly contested by the daughter?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.