“If your view of things were correct,”
That’s not likely. You need to get to know me more, before you make such questionable speculation.
: )
” they would have only taken girls at or near puberty, not all the children.”
(wasn’t that warren Jeff’s specialty?)
You lost me. Or, I lost me. Either way, I’m lost.
What specifically would limit it to just girls?
Did I say something stupid? ( as if that never happened)
“they would have only taken girls at or near puberty, not all the children.”
(wasn’t that warren Jeff’s specialty?)
You lost me. Or, I lost me. Either way, I’m lost.
What specifically would limit it to just girls?”
* * * *
Okay, here’s the analysis. Texas can take children who are being abused or are in “imminent danger” of abuse. “Imminent danger” means it is likely to happen soon.
Everyone thinks the “abuse” relied upon by the CPS is the underage sex — an action, not a belief. As you noted, the practice is to “marry” girls as soon as they are capable of childbearing.*
Therefore, if the underage sex were the “abuse,” the only minors being abused or in “imminent danger” of abuse would be girls who are at or near puberty.
But they took them all, including boys, who were not subject to underage marriage, and little children, who, even if they were girls, would not be in “imminent danger” of underage marriage.
So, to justify taking all the children, they broadened the definition of “abuse” to include merely living and teaching the children the FLDS religion. Of course, they couched it in psychobabble terms, saying that the FLDS were “grooming” the girls to be abused, and “grooming” the boys to be predators.
This is punishing the FLDS for their beliefs, not their actions. Not all FLDS enter into polygamous “marriages.” And not all FLDS girls marry while they are underage. But CPS is saying that, because of these people’s beliefs, and the beliefs that are being taught to their children, the girls might, someday, enter into a “marriage” before they reach the age of consent, and the boys may, someday, “marry” an underage girl. The mere possibility is enough to constitute “abuse” sufficient to justify removing all the children.
Is that any clearer?
____________________
*I’ve never heard of any widespread sexual abuse of boys, and I suspect it doesn’t happen any more among the FLDS than it does in any other group.
Same with the “broken bones” argument. CPS said 41 of the 462 kids showed evidence of past fractures. That’s less than 10 percent. It seems to me that it is not unusual for 1 in 10 kids to break bones in the normal course of growing up. Both my sister and I did. That’s 100 percent in my completely non-abusive parents’ home. Of my six kids, one broke an arm playing. That’s 16 2/3 percent. Likewise, I never abused my kids.