Posted on 09/29/2015 6:53:14 AM PDT by Enlightened1
No need, I think.
My Texas friend spoke to their preacher and mentioned that, wondering if he ever spoke to that problem with them.
The preacher said that he would be out of a job in two minutes if he ever mentioned it, especially in negative, moral absolute terms.
Not only is the immorality appalling, the STUPIDITY of it is mind boggling.
Of course we HAD to elect obammy-—he’s black, doncha know?
Too bad it couldn’t have been someone like Walter Williams.
Well, they can live it up while they can. When they pass on from this blink-of-an-eye lifetime to ETERNITY, they will discover the true meaning of moral absolutes.
I have my own problems but I sure WOULDN'T want to be them at that death-day judgment. They KNOW that it's wrong; they KNOW it.
I understand, yet, the parents pay property tax for the schools, right?
He's already 79 years old, too old, I think to be POTUS. But I get your point; he would have been INFINITELY better.
LOL, good one.
Would they be "pawpitty" taxes?
Good observation! I think you’re right. That will get a lot of pedophiles off the hook.
That was at least five, maybe six years ago……..Many folks in their 70’s would be able to handle the job.
:: LOL, good one ::
You and me both, brother.
The article points out the irony that a teen in Seattle can’t get a sugary soft drink in high school but can have a device implanted into her uterus.
I’ve never understood this. You need parental permission for so many things, but your minor daughter can get an abortion or get birth control in school without parental consent.
Ok, now what are they going to do about the rampant spread of STD’s?
good question.
We’ve been hearing about “safe sex” for years now, in which people are encouraged to use condoms. But condoms don’t prevent all types of VD from spreading. And, you can imagine that with use of the implantable devices mentioned in this article, or the use of birth control pills, that such use will cause some to abandon use of condoms.
I’ve always wondered about this whole “sexual revolution”. We have seen rates of unwed motherhood skyrocket, in spite of the availability of birth control. We have seen rates of sexually transmitted diseases skyrocket, in spite of so many campaigns to encourage safe sex. There’s a disconnect somewhere.
So, following the (tax) laws makes one a lawbreaker?
I sincerely would wish to see the responsible people punished to the maximum extent of the law.
BUT, when it is illegal to withhold your child from school (as opposed to homeschooling), and it is illegal to withhold your tax money from the school, and the school doesn’t consult parents when implanting IUDs, I fail to see a single reason why the parents can be held culpable.
I cannot reverse the thought process involved in an over-simplification.
I have said before, liberals argue until they prove their premise and then will not go beyond it to the logical outcome. Once they come to their preconceived conclusion...the argument is proven; according to them.
"Last month a separate JW investigation found that Oregon offers minors taxpayer-funded sex change without parental consent. In a matter of months dozens of kids—some younger than 9—received sex-change therapy in Oregon, which earlier this year made it legal for minors to undergo radical treatment for “gender dysphoria” without permission from a parent or guardian."
I’m afraid I do not understand what you mean, and frankly find your statements insulting.
You asserted that the parents should be prosecuted, if indeed a crime has been committed. I pointed out that the school was doing this without parental notification or consent. You then fell back on the “parents fund it” talking point.
From that point of view, every property owner in the school district is liable.
Then you accuse me (apparently) of over simplifying it, and failing to follow through to a logical conclusion?
Please identify the over-simplification involved in pointing out that prosecuting parents for something they didn’t do is wrong.
And the legislatures and beaurocrats made and enforce such laws and regulations.
This is insane. It’s dangerous for the health of these children.
It is dangerous for the health of society.
My point is that parents who acquiesce to local “schools” as the ^surrogate parents^ to raise their children are equivalently accountable yet eschew their accountability.
I mean not to insult you directly but, I DO mean to insult parents who leave their children to be raised by the schools with ^minimal to no input^ by the same.
Schools that will provide any BC to minors (whose parents are accountable to the LAW for their actions) and, specifically without the input/consent of those parents are guilty of ABUSE.
My simple assessment is that, if the parents don’t care enough to actually RAISE their children, stop asking me to be accountable for the improper judgement of 10-year-olds that are [NOT UNDER MY LEGAL AUTHORITY] by way of taxes for the schools to provide BC.
If the local community can’t come together and give a “gathered ^FU^” to Fedzilla, State-zilla and the local School Board, I refuse to be responsible for the “birthing outcome” of 10-year-olds in my community.
Many home-owners pay their property taxes and subsequently home school. God bless them! But, time after time, I see some (nota bene) on FR not really being actively regarding what their taxes pay for! Many times I see: “We home school; so should you.I’m separated and have no culpability”. Yet they make no stand regarding how their property taxes support BC for ten-year-olds in the schools they eschew!
Those that say, “What else can we do?” ave succombed to the elimination of the Rule of Law.
I’ll close with this simple example from my home life: If your child [under age 18] is found to be accountable (by virtue of the local police investigation) for damages to your neighbor’s property (say, they destroyed the neighbors fence), who pays the damages?
Obviously, the adult who has homeowners insurance. Who then, is accountable for child’s (under 18 minor) actions?
:: Schools that will provide any BC to minors (whose parents are accountable to the LAW for their actions) and, specifically without the input/consent of those parents are guilty of ABUSE. ::
Let me be more succinct: Schools that will provide BC to minors (whose parents are accountable to the LAW for their actions) and, specifically without the input/consent of those parents are guilty of CHILD ABUSE and should be reported to CPS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.