I have examined my arguments, quite methodically, and I do not see any flaws at this time. If you really see any, I honestly would like to know--though I'm even more dubious of the carefulness of your own thinking after your ironic embrace of traits you seemed to think were negative when you recently suggested I had them.
I'm rewording to make sure I haven't misunderstood you. Your argument seems to be that, (1) since embryonic stem cell research is wrong, the bus driver was justified in discussing it with small children, (2) complaints about said discussion are based on immorality, and (3), since the bus driver was not warned about having political discussions with the children, she should not be fired.
Have I summarized/reworded correctly?