In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.
Sigh.
Again, we're talking about someone's RIGHTS here. INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your First Amendment rights are absolute so long as they do not interfere with my rights. You have the right to swing your fist to your heart's desire. When your fist connects with my nose, you no longer have the right to freely swing your fist.
This child has a First Amendment right to his religion. If he has made a decision to follow this religion, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it, he should be given unfettered ability to follow his religion.
Until you can demonstrate to me that by his practicing his religion of choice somehow causes direct harm to someone else, you're an advocate of denying him his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion.
Look. I don't like Islam. Islam disgusts me. I don't trust Muslims. They can tell me until they are blue in the face that their religion is a religion of peace. I know differently based upon who founded the religion, what the religion stands for, and what the religion says about my religion.
I will also fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Islam so long as you are not engaging in jihad, etc. Come after me screaming Allah Aliyahah and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
I will fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Santeria, another religion I despise. You can go to the market, buy chickens, and slaughter them to your heart's desire. Try to sacrifice my dog and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
My point is, let the boy practice his religion. It is not for you or I to judge. The only possible person he can harm in the process is himself. We should not, as a society that allegedly guarantees certain INALIENABLE rights, try to protect people from themselves.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.
Sigh.
Again, we're talking about someone's RIGHTS here. INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your First Amendment rights are absolute so long as they do not interfere with my rights. You have the right to swing your fist to your heart's desire. When your fist connects with my nose, you no longer have the right to freely swing your fist.
This child has a First Amendment right to his religion. If he has made a decision to follow this religion, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it, he should be given unfettered ability to follow his religion.
Until you can demonstrate to me that by his practicing his religion of choice somehow causes direct harm to someone else, you're an advocate of denying him his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion.
Look. I don't like Islam. Islam disgusts me. I don't trust Muslims. They can tell me until they are blue in the face that their religion is a religion of peace. I know differently based upon who founded the religion, what the religion stands for, and what the religion says about my religion.
I will also fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Islam so long as you are not engaging in jihad, etc. Come after me screaming Allah Aliyahah and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
I will fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Santeria, another religion I despise. You can go to the market, buy chickens, and slaughter them to your heart's desire. Try to sacrifice my dog and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
My point is, let the boy practice his religion. It is not for you or I to judge. The only possible person he can harm in the process is himself. We should not, as a society that allegedly guarantees certain INALIENABLE rights, try to protect people from themselves.
With all due respect, Spanielsells, your response has nothing to do with your post.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.
Sigh.
Again, we're talking about someone's RIGHTS here. INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your First Amendment rights are absolute so long as they do not interfere with my rights. You have the right to swing your fist to your heart's desire. When your fist connects with my nose, you no longer have the right to freely swing your fist.
This child has a First Amendment right to his religion. If he has made a decision to follow this religion, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it, he should be given unfettered ability to follow his religion.
Until you can demonstrate to me that by his practicing his religion of choice somehow causes direct harm to someone else, you're an advocate of denying him his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion.
Look. I don't like Islam. Islam disgusts me. I don't trust Muslims. They can tell me until they are blue in the face that their religion is a religion of peace. I know differently based upon who founded the religion, what the religion stands for, and what the religion says about my religion.
I will also fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Islam so long as you are not engaging in jihad, etc. Come after me screaming Allah Aliyahah and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
I will fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Santeria, another religion I despise. You can go to the market, buy chickens, and slaughter them to your heart's desire. Try to sacrifice my dog and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
My point is, let the boy practice his religion. It is not for you or I to judge. The only possible person he can harm in the process is himself. We should not, as a society that allegedly guarantees certain INALIENABLE rights, try to protect people from themselves.
With all due respect, Spanielsells, your response has nothing to do with your post.
I'm responding to your post, which suggests that the kid may not know what "dead" means.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
Awesome! So when my 12 year old sez, "I don't want to go to school today, Mom", and I don't make him go, I'm not responsible for that?
Tell me, what else am I, as a parent, not responsible for? Apart from food and shelter? Obviously not access to medical care...but he does have the right to practice his religion as he chooses...!
I'm not arguing that some of the smartest people I've know weren't "skool smart." But you are arguing for rights without responsibilities.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
Awesome! So when my 12 year old sez, "I don't want to go to school today, Mom", and I don't make him go, I'm not responsible for that?
Tell me, what else am I, as a parent, not responsible for? Apart from food and shelter? Obviously not access to medical care...but he does have the right to practice his religion as he chooses...!
We're now comparing apples to oranges.
You keep twisting the rules to suit your failing argument. In this situation, the child and the mother's religious views are the same. In your fantasy situation, they're different.
You have the right to dictate terms to your child. In fact, that's your job.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
Awesome! So when my 12 year old sez, "I don't want to go to school today, Mom", and I don't make him go, I'm not responsible for that?
Tell me, what else am I, as a parent, not responsible for? Apart from food and shelter? Obviously not access to medical care...but he does have the right to practice his religion as he chooses...!
We're now comparing apples to oranges.
You keep twisting the rules to suit your failing argument. In this situation, the child and the mother's religious views are the same. In your fantasy situation, they're different.
You have the right to dictate terms to your child. In fact, that's your job.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
As far as I have seen in the press, with all the problems that arise from them as a source, I note:
1. The child is either 12 or 13 years old. Hardly an adult.
2. The father has stated that it is OK with him to procede with chemo, although he does think chemo is over-used at times.
3. It has been additionally noted that the child has pretty significant learning disabilities. Not proof of anything, but perhaps a clue as to his ability to use abstract reasoning skills
4. The leader of the Native American Group associated with the alternative health practices has advised the mother to not defy the court.
5. What kind of belief system leaves a trail of dead children in it's wake ? How is that protected by the constitution ???
6. The state court has ruled. It is open for appeal.
7. The child is dying.
8. I would hope that anyone lobbying for political gain in this matter enjoys millstones.
He is only in the formative years of his critical thinking abilities, depending on his intellectual and emotional maturity. Compared to same-aged peers, some kids of his same age group might be considered mature enough to look after younger siblings (this is generally the age when babysitting courses are first made available), however some might not, let alone mature enough to make a "life or death" choice regarding his own life.
Mom is allegedly getting support and advice by some woman who is trying to pull herself off as a lawyer/holistic healer.
I can see how compelling arguments can be made for both sides of this issue. I would hate to be involved in the case, as the patient, the parent, or the judge.
What if a child has a disease that can be cured by the superior medical services that we have in this country, and the parents refuse those services because they think that if they pray enough that God will heal their child, yet the child dies anyway? That to me is a clear case of child abuse!
Oh yea! Parents who send their children to government controled public schools are child abusers!
quote:Originally posted by kidthatsirish
leave them alone....the govt has no job in doing this...they are not protecting anyones rights by doing this...just infringing on them.
The issue in a nutshell. Game, set match.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.
Sigh.
Again, we're talking about someone's RIGHTS here. INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your First Amendment rights are absolute so long as they do not interfere with my rights. You have the right to swing your fist to your heart's desire. When your fist connects with my nose, you no longer have the right to freely swing your fist.
This child has a First Amendment right to his religion. If he has made a decision to follow this religion, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it, he should be given unfettered ability to follow his religion.
Until you can demonstrate to me that by his practicing his religion of choice somehow causes direct harm to someone else, you're an advocate of denying him his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion.
Look. I don't like Islam. Islam disgusts me. I don't trust Muslims. They can tell me until they are blue in the face that their religion is a religion of peace. I know differently based upon who founded the religion, what the religion stands for, and what the religion says about my religion.
I will also fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Islam so long as you are not engaging in jihad, etc. Come after me screaming Allah Aliyahah and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
I will fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Santeria, another religion I despise. You can go to the market, buy chickens, and slaughter them to your heart's desire. Try to sacrifice my dog and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
My point is, let the boy practice his religion. It is not for you or I to judge. The only possible person he can harm in the process is himself. We should not, as a society that allegedly guarantees certain INALIENABLE rights, try to protect people from themselves.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.
Sigh.
Again, we're talking about someone's RIGHTS here. INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your First Amendment rights are absolute so long as they do not interfere with my rights. You have the right to swing your fist to your heart's desire. When your fist connects with my nose, you no longer have the right to freely swing your fist.
This child has a First Amendment right to his religion. If he has made a decision to follow this religion, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it, he should be given unfettered ability to follow his religion.
Until you can demonstrate to me that by his practicing his religion of choice somehow causes direct harm to someone else, you're an advocate of denying him his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion.
Look. I don't like Islam. Islam disgusts me. I don't trust Muslims. They can tell me until they are blue in the face that their religion is a religion of peace. I know differently based upon who founded the religion, what the religion stands for, and what the religion says about my religion.
I will also fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Islam so long as you are not engaging in jihad, etc. Come after me screaming Allah Aliyahah and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
I will fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Santeria, another religion I despise. You can go to the market, buy chickens, and slaughter them to your heart's desire. Try to sacrifice my dog and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
My point is, let the boy practice his religion. It is not for you or I to judge. The only possible person he can harm in the process is himself. We should not, as a society that allegedly guarantees certain INALIENABLE rights, try to protect people from themselves.
With all due respect, Spanielsells, your response has nothing to do with your post.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.
Sigh.
Again, we're talking about someone's RIGHTS here. INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your First Amendment rights are absolute so long as they do not interfere with my rights. You have the right to swing your fist to your heart's desire. When your fist connects with my nose, you no longer have the right to freely swing your fist.
This child has a First Amendment right to his religion. If he has made a decision to follow this religion, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it, he should be given unfettered ability to follow his religion.
Until you can demonstrate to me that by his practicing his religion of choice somehow causes direct harm to someone else, you're an advocate of denying him his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion.
Look. I don't like Islam. Islam disgusts me. I don't trust Muslims. They can tell me until they are blue in the face that their religion is a religion of peace. I know differently based upon who founded the religion, what the religion stands for, and what the religion says about my religion.
I will also fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Islam so long as you are not engaging in jihad, etc. Come after me screaming Allah Aliyahah and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
I will fight for the right for you or anyone else to freely practice Santeria, another religion I despise. You can go to the market, buy chickens, and slaughter them to your heart's desire. Try to sacrifice my dog and I'll exercise my Second Amendment right.
My point is, let the boy practice his religion. It is not for you or I to judge. The only possible person he can harm in the process is himself. We should not, as a society that allegedly guarantees certain INALIENABLE rights, try to protect people from themselves.
With all due respect, Spanielsells, your response has nothing to do with your post.
I'm responding to your post, which suggests that the kid may not know what "dead" means.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
Awesome! So when my 12 year old sez, "I don't want to go to school today, Mom", and I don't make him go, I'm not responsible for that?
Tell me, what else am I, as a parent, not responsible for? Apart from food and shelter? Obviously not access to medical care...but he does have the right to practice his religion as he chooses...!
I'm not arguing that some of the smartest people I've know weren't "skool smart." But you are arguing for rights without responsibilities.
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
Awesome! So when my 12 year old sez, "I don't want to go to school today, Mom", and I don't make him go, I'm not responsible for that?
Tell me, what else am I, as a parent, not responsible for? Apart from food and shelter? Obviously not access to medical care...but he does have the right to practice his religion as he chooses...!
We're now comparing apples to oranges.
You keep twisting the rules to suit your failing argument. In this situation, the child and the mother's religious views are the same. In your fantasy situation, they're different.
You have the right to dictate terms to your child. In fact, that's your job.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
You're equating not educating someone with child abuse? I guess you can make that jump.
Look. We offer parents several options to educate their children:
1. publik skul
2. private school
3. home school
FWIW, home-schooled children typically come out way ahead of publik-skuled children in the smarts department. That isn't to say they ALL do, just a majority do.
On the flip side, home-schooled children typically have a harder time fitting in because they've been less exposed to interpersonal relationships with peers. Again, not all, but many.
Now, to directly refute your point - and since we're wondering about how many home-schooled children AREN'T home-schooled (in every state I'm aware of, there are requirements and a system of checks and balances to help prevent this exact situation), what do we do with the publik-skuled children that graduate and can't read or write? Should we arrest teachers for child abuse? Should we arrest administrators for fraud? Should we go after school board members with pitchforks and torches?
Yeeowch. It seems I've touched on a nerve. Public education is flawed at best, but it is ALL the education many kids get, because apparently you want to defend a parent's right to not make their child's education (such that it is, in whatever form it may come), as a priority. So let's leave it at that. We don't want our kids getting too "uppity for their upbingings," so we'll have another generation or two or three on the public dole, because they can't, even if they wanted to, fill out a simple job application.
I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected and the only nerve that is touched is something that smells like trampling on someone's personal freedoms.
FWIW, if kids want to screw up their lives and not get an education, that is their right. The world needs people to run businesses and the world needs people to provide manual labor.
And, for the record, I know a few people who have been self-educated that turn out just fine.
Awesome! So when my 12 year old sez, "I don't want to go to school today, Mom", and I don't make him go, I'm not responsible for that?
Tell me, what else am I, as a parent, not responsible for? Apart from food and shelter? Obviously not access to medical care...but he does have the right to practice his religion as he chooses...!
We're now comparing apples to oranges.
You keep twisting the rules to suit your failing argument. In this situation, the child and the mother's religious views are the same. In your fantasy situation, they're different.
You have the right to dictate terms to your child. In fact, that's your job.
Talk about your contradictions...
As far as I have seen in the press, with all the problems that arise from them as a source, I note:
1. The child is either 12 or 13 years old. Hardly an adult.
2. The father has stated that it is OK with him to procede with chemo, although he does think chemo is over-used at times.
3. It has been additionally noted that the child has pretty significant learning disabilities. Not proof of anything, but perhaps a clue as to his ability to use abstract reasoning skills
4. The leader of the Native American Group associated with the alternative health practices has advised the mother to not defy the court.
5. What kind of belief system leaves a trail of dead children in it's wake ? How is that protected by the constitution ???
6. The state court has ruled. It is open for appeal.
7. The child is dying.
8. I would hope that anyone lobbying for political gain in this matter enjoys millstones.
He is only in the formative years of his critical thinking abilities, depending on his intellectual and emotional maturity. Compared to same-aged peers, some kids of his same age group might be considered mature enough to look after younger siblings (this is generally the age when babysitting courses are first made available), however some might not, let alone mature enough to make a "life or death" choice regarding his own life.
Mom is allegedly getting support and advice by some woman who is trying to pull herself off as a lawyer/holistic healer.
Somebody flag this thread !
Dang! We agree!
How scary is that?...[:D]
Oh yea! Parents who send their children to government controled public schools are child abusers!
leave them alone....the govt has no job in doing this...they are not protecting anyones rights by doing this...just infringing on them.
The issue in a nutshell. Game, set match.
It is what it is.
Well said kid.