| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2007 02:34:20 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
::snip::
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child.
I'm glad to know that you are God / Christ AND a perfect Dr., to know of every viable instance where a mother's health should and should not be ignored. Strange, as I've known quite a few followers of Christ who are in fact doctors...
And as my example showed, renting a room to a non-married couple would have me profiting from the wrongdoings of others -- so because the law states I have to, then I should not be in that line of work. |
I'll refrain from agreeing with your not needing to be in that line of work. ;) What would your answer be if two young persons of opposing gender gave in to such 'none of your business what we're doing in a room' and told you that they were, in fact, brother and sister? I actually had to put up with such nonsense as a (legally married) 18 year old, from some busy-body who thought it her business....... oh, forget it. I'm sick and tired of arguing with people who deem THEIR religious beliefs to have a single damn thing to do with MY rights in this country!
::rant off:: |
Actually, if you've paid attention, I said that my religious beliefs would be affecting MY rights, not yours. I respect the law requires service to all, so because of that I just stay away from such a profession. Where have YOU been hurt in any of this? Nowhere. I just refuse to engage in a business where my values would be compromised. What is wrong with that? Are you so desperate for ME to run an inn? :)
As for the doctor comment, there are very rare instances -- VERY RARE, where the mother's life is at risk. That again is an exception being brought up as a rule. If you account for ludicrous rape and incest too, that would be about 3% of all abortions. 97% are for convenience and birth control.
I'd make that trade. Outlaw the 97% and you can keep the exceptions.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:36:39 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
The school should draw the line at teaching the kids NOT to have sex. They should not EVER prescribe medications or medical procedures. |
That, too, is the parents' responsibility, and the medications in question may actually be safer (and certainly more effective) than the cold medicines you were just complaining about. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:37:45 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
The school should draw the line at teaching the kids NOT to have sex. They should not EVER prescribe medications or medical procedures. |
That, too, is the parents' responsibility, and the medications in question may actually be safer (and certainly more effective) than the cold medicines you were just complaining about. :-/ |
Irrelevant. It is a moral decision and the school is not a moral authority.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:56:50 PM · #29 |
It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children about sex and WHY they should not have it until they are married. But would you rather:
A.) Have your child end up pregnant or with a communicable disease because you (or your school) did not arm them properly with the correct information and protection.
B.) Have your child know all the dangers and go prepared into the world "just in case" and not fall into the trap that has ensnared so many.
C.) Have your child go out and get what you could have given them from others and then fail to use that information and protection properly because they got bad information.
Even marriage doesn't prevent disease. So, that argument is moot.
Yes, I would rather be the one to tell my children about sex and teach them how to handle themselves if they ever find themselves in that situation. But there are kids out there whose parents just don't care. Would you rather them learn from another KID who has NO idea what they are talking about or a teacher who is skilled and trained in the art of educating young minds and giving good, solid, correct information?
Would you like for your son or daughter to marry one of those kids that was not educated properly?
School systems are doing what they can. If you don't want your child to participate, go and talk to the school. I am sure they will make special arrangements to exclude your child from the discussions. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:59:37 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
::snip::
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child.
I'm glad to know that you are God / Christ AND a perfect Dr., to know of every viable instance where a mother's health should and should not be ignored. Strange, as I've known quite a few followers of Christ who are in fact doctors...
And as my example showed, renting a room to a non-married couple would have me profiting from the wrongdoings of others -- so because the law states I have to, then I should not be in that line of work. |
I'll refrain from agreeing with your not needing to be in that line of work. ;) What would your answer be if two young persons of opposing gender gave in to such 'none of your business what we're doing in a room' and told you that they were, in fact, brother and sister? I actually had to put up with such nonsense as a (legally married) 18 year old, from some busy-body who thought it her business....... oh, forget it. I'm sick and tired of arguing with people who deem THEIR religious beliefs to have a single damn thing to do with MY rights in this country!
::rant off:: |
Actually, if you've paid attention, I said that my religious beliefs would be affecting MY rights, not yours. I respect the law requires service to all, so because of that I just stay away from such a profession. Where have YOU been hurt in any of this? Nowhere. I just refuse to engage in a business where my values would be compromised. What is wrong with that? Are you so desperate for ME to run an inn? :)
As for the doctor comment, there are very rare instances -- VERY RARE, where the mother's life is at risk. That again is an exception being brought up as a rule. If you account for ludicrous rape and incest too, that would be about 3% of all abortions. 97% are for convenience and birth control.
I'd make that trade. Outlaw the 97% and you can keep the exceptions. |
Typical of you to sidestep the questions... please stop telling people they are incapable of understanding the words written (in other threads too!), and take a minute to understand what is being said to you.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:02:37 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
::snip::
Irrelevant. It is a moral decision and the school is not a moral authority. |
neither are you. besides, you might benefit from distinguishing between religious doctrine and the definition of morals
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:08:41 PM · #32 |
golly. i was prescient to move this into Rant after just 3 posts.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:09:15 PM · #33 |
Hahahaha.
Wow, DPC is just a cornucopia of things to argue about today. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:09:26 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Two words...
HOME SCHOOL
or
PRIVATE SCHOOL -- that way you can vote with your dollar. |
how does this make sense? homeschoolers and private schoolers still pay the taxes that pay for public school.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:10:58 PM · #35 |
schools teaching kids NOT to have sex is pointless as well. How are the schools going to convince kids that they shouldn't. What are teh reasons for no sex? If you say its because of religion, count me out of that rationale, im not religous so the argument has no merit.
These kids need to learn common sense, they need to learn the dangers of poor decisions, they need to learn balance and responsibility in their lives. Just saying that God says its bad doesn't quite cut it. These kids want solid answers that they can relate to. Schools can't just say "don't have sex because us adults say its bad".
I give this school a lot of credit for just stepping in where no one else apparently has been. They stepped on a lot of toes, pissed off the religous crowd, but at the end of the day they WILL prevent unwanted pregnancies. Where were all these outraged parents before, why does this make them suddenly voice a concern. I would think the amount of unwanted middle school pregnancies would be cause for outcry.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:12:28 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hahahaha.
Wow, DPC is just a cornucopia of things to argue about today. |
You noticed that huh?? LOL |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:12:47 PM · #37 |
I also like that people equate having birth control to needing birthcontrol.
I've dated girls on birthcontrol that weren't sexually active. I've had condoms that I haven't ever used. We got the sex talk in 4th grade at school, boys go to this room, girls go to that room. Afterwards we didn't go out and try to have sex just cause we now knew what it was. Just like kids aren't going to go out and have sex just cause they have a condom or birth control available to them. Now if a young couple do have sex, its not going to be because they have a condom. Its going to be because they are kids, and kids are idiots. I was an idiot (still am) and you guys were all idiots when you were kids (still are.) But at least now when they go to make that choice, despite what their mom says, despite what their church says, they will at least have the tools and the knowledge to do it right, to minimize risk to themselves, and to be safe. Yeah yeah yeah, the only thing they should preach is abstinence until marriage. Well Mrs. Cleaver, thats swell and all, but its not 1950 anymore. Girls are developing a lot younger now too. Hell, when I work security, I see highschool freshmen girls with the bodies of college seniors walking around.
What do you think is the better of the 2 evils then...(if abstinence as an option is ignored, because it often is ignored):
1. Find out your daughter had sex by finding a condom wrapper in her trashcan
or
2. Fining out your daughter had sex by having a grandchild coming your way in 9 months. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:13:08 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hahahaha.
Wow, DPC is just a cornucopia of things to argue about today. |
You noticed that huh?? LOL |
Yeah I know, the idiocy of that statement hit me as soon as I hit the Post button heheh. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:27:43 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hahahaha.
Wow, DPC is just a cornucopia of things to argue about today. |
No it's not! |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 04:09:13 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by karmat:
When I was teaching in public schools, the counselor could take a young girl to the health department to be put on the pill or to get the depo shot for birth control. Or, in an extreme, the counselor or school nurse could transport a young girl to an abortion, but not tell the parents. BUT, that same counselor could not give a tylenol because that would be practicing medicine without a license.
Say what you will about condoms, but the pill, the shot, and abortion have side effects, long term effects, etc that I think a parent should know about if their 14 or 15 year old (under the age of consent, here in NC, btw) is taking them. Yet, this counselor or the health department could not tell. The counselor could only "recommend" that the girl talk to her mother -- after it was done. That is my issue about such things. |
In Laura Ingraham's new book, she references another author who took her daughter to the doctor for a routine sports physical. Everything was fine until the the doctor asked the mom to leave the room because she had to have a private chat with the girl. The mom refused to leave because she was her mother and had every right to be in there. The doctor finally relented and had the "chat" with the girl anyway, discussing sex, abortion, etc. with her -- when the mom stated that they believe sex was for marriage, the doctor dismissed her verbally and told the daughter "some people believe that"...
Truly out of line.
This world is upside down. |
"They" may believe it, but the real question is what is the girl going to actually do? Lots of people want to believe their kids would never do things like have sex, drink, take drugs, etc. so they isolate their kids from information about it. Yet, when reality comes knocking at the door and she's pregnant or has VD or gets busted smoking dope, these same parents wonder, "What happened?"
I knew a girl whose parents believed that "sex was for marriage" and "Drugs are bad" and similarly isolated her from facts about both. In 9th grade she got pregnant and had VD and then, when they did a blood test on her, they found pot and cocaine in her system. So much for the idea of the pure and chaste preacher's daughter. |
Exceptions don't define the rule. Or shouldn't. |
Such cases are common enough to not be considered exceptions. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 06:15:06 PM · #41 |
Starting today, schools should issues casts, slings, and splints -- as well as helmets and knee and elbow pads. Kids will be kids and are going to skateboard and ride bikes recklessly. As such it's the SCHOOL'S responsibility to prevent them from having consequences for any reckless action.
Parents aren't going to do it, so someone has to.
Schools should pay for every teen's auto insurance too.
Womb to tomb, the gummint should run our lives -- that's the prevailing sentiment here... and it's scary. VERY scary.
Teach the kid what is right and what is wrong... but no, we cannot define "right" so we must encourage them to do every wrong thing we can.
You give a kid a skateboard and pads, he's gonna use them. You give them birth control, then a person in authority is giving them permission to engage in reckless behavior.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 06:42:02 PM · #42 |
Hmmm - do nothing different*, and young teens STILL keep turning up pregnant or with STD's...
*Since current endeavors seem to do SO well @ preventing these problems, why not CONSIDER (even briefly!) the chance that the youth of today MIGHT be able to make a somewhat informed decision, if simply given a choice.
For example:
"Kids, we will pretend that you won't do all the stuff we are against, and that's that!" << teens still end up pregnant and / or STD's
"Kids, we are going to provide you with measures we HOPE you are smart enough to not use but, IF you do, at least you MIGHT not die or have a horribly difficult childhood..."
Again, the point is to consider alternative which MAY result in less of societies "problems", rather than using the wonderfully tried & true methods (which are so obviously flawed....)
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 06:44:43 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Two words...
HOME SCHOOL
or
PRIVATE SCHOOL -- that way you can vote with your dollar. |
how does this make sense? homeschoolers and private schoolers still pay the taxes that pay for public school. |
Not to mention the fact that an awful lot of private schools are seen more as day care than public schools.
Having been shipped from boarding school to boarding school during my deformative years, I can assure you that without parental supervision/intervention, I, and my schoolmates, were pretty much free to run amok outside the classroom.
Parenting is parents' responsibility.....education is a school's responsibility.....what the student does, or does not do with the education, is their responsibility in the long run, but good parental guidance goes a long way toward helping young minds develop important morals and values.
You can bet if a school went out on a limb like that, they *were* desperate........the school board, and the teachers don't need the inevitable grief.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 06:51:48 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You give them birth control, then a person in authority is giving them permission to engage in reckless behavior. |
No. You cannot just say that. You know there's more to it than that.
If you buy a car with airbags, are you going to drive it as fast as you can and slam into things?
Same leap of logic.
If someone gives my 12 year old a condom in school, she knows what it's for, and chooses not to be active yet.
That would be because both the school's health class and her parents are aware of the fact that she's no longer a little kid and it's a big bad world out there.
I'm not quite sure why this is such an issue.....at the point where the school is desperately handing out pills/condoms, your kids better darn well know what they're for.....and choose not to use them.
That's our job as parents.
ETA: My daughter is better cared for and informed at 12 than I was at the same age. I didn't have health class, and I found out about sex the old-fashioned way.....by experimentation.
Thank God for caring teachers and loving parents!
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 18:54:23.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 07:19:17 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Hmmm - do nothing different*, and young teens STILL keep turning up pregnant or with STD's... |
That is why I vote for mandatory reversible sterilization at birth for all children born. They will never know. When you are of LEGAL age to make decisions for yourself, then you can have it reversed.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 08:26:07 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You give them birth control, then a person in authority is giving them permission to engage in reckless behavior. |
You don't give kids much credit for having any brains, do you? Do you seriously believe that kids will say, "whoohoo, I can get the pill, I'm gonna go out and screw now, just because I can!"?
My daughter was put on birth control for health reasons. Her boyfriend lives with us. Yet she chose to remain a virgin, and NOT out of fear that something on high would strike her dead with a lightning bolt if she didn't.
She knows that abstenance is the only sure method of avoiding pregnancy and that she's not ready to take on parenthood, and believes that if she's not willing to take the consequences of her actions she doesn't deserve the pleasure she might get from those actions.
Having access does NOT mean they'll automatically take advantage of it!
But it could prevent cases like my daughter's friend who was pregnant at 12 by a boy her mother "babysat" after school...
Teach your children properly, then trust in yourself and IN THEM to do what's right. That's the best we can really ever do, isn't it? |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:14:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You give them birth control, then a person in authority is giving them permission to engage in reckless behavior. |
You don't give kids much credit for having any brains, do you? Do you seriously believe that kids will say, "whoohoo, I can get the pill, I'm gonna go out and screw now, just because I can!"? |
Umm, yes??? The thing is, many parents don't actually commit to being parents rather they outscource it or just ignore the task completely, providing only the bare essentials such as food, water and shelter. The children to those parents are not as well equipped to think for themselves let alone make decisions based on good values when none were instilled in the first place. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:16:42 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child. |
Everybody else, on the other hand, is fair game. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:25:33 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child. |
Everybody else, on the other hand, is fair game. |
Could we please stay on topic and not open the religion and/or death penalty cans of worms in this school thread?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:27:04 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child. |
Everybody else, on the other hand, is fair game. |
Could we please stay on topic and not open the religion and/or death penalty cans of worms in this school thread? |
Hey, OP brought it up bub. He stuck on the stamp and I mailed it. :P |
|
