Steely Dan Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 Youre right..its not about abortion per se. Its about liberal's attempt to steal parental rights. How on one hand they want children to get sex ed in grammar school and be able to have abortions and access to child birth without parental consent, yet on an issue they dont like...all of a suddent "rights of the parents!!!" get thrown out there. Your views are not the views of every kids parents in the school. Personally, I'd like my kid to get sex ed in fifth grade. I got it in fifth grade. My high school class (500) had only one pregnant girl in it. IMO, early sex ed helps lower teen pregnancy rates. If you have a problem with your kid being taught sex ed too soon then see if the teacher would be willing to send your kid to the library to do a different project instead. There are things you can do as a parent to keep your kid from getting that info in a time that you deem is too early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Your views are not the views of every kids parents in the school. Personally, I'd like my kid to get sex ed in fifth grade. I got it in fifth grade. My high school class (500) had only one pregnant girl in it. IMO, early sex ed helps lower teen pregnancy rates. If you have a problem with your kid being taught sex ed too soon then see if the teacher would be willing to send your kid to the library to do a different project instead. There are things you can do as a parent to keep your kid from getting that info in a time that you deem is too early. IMO, the best way to do it would be to make special nights where it is taught. That way parents have the option to bring their kids or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abo...rs20030912.html Thanks, Fingon. But you're cherry picking as well. As you are well aware, I'm sure, each state has it's own laws relative to the issue of parental notification. I'm off to a conference but when I get back I'll be sure to link you to other states where it's not an issue. Where PP actually ENCOURAGES parental consent. Colorodo and Maryland come to mind readily. In cases where there is legitimate language in the law (like South Dakota's) that potentially could put the health of the minor in question, PP felt compelled to question the law as it was written. That's a far cry from saying Planned Parenthood wishes to usurp parental responsibilities on a national level. They are simply NOT that extreme. But, and I'm not saying you are, to the zealots who see NO rationlization for abortion of anyone at anytime for any reason, they paint with the broad brush to further their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Thanks, Fingon. But you're cherry picking as well. As you are well aware, I'm sure, each state has it's own laws relative to the issue of parental notification. I'm off to a conference but when I get back I'll be sure to link you to other states where it's not an issue. Where PP actually ENCOURAGES parental consent. Colorodo and Maryland come to mind readily. In cases where there is legitimate language in the law (like South Dakota's) that potentially could put the health of the minor in question, PP felt compelled to question the law as it was written. That's a far cry from saying Planned Parenthood wishes to usurp parental responsibilities on a national level. They are simply NOT that extreme. But, and I'm not saying you are, to the zealots who see NO rationlization for abortion of anyone at anytime for any reason, they paint with the broad brush to further their agenda. Huh? Read planned parenthood's website. They explicitly state that abortion should not be made harder for teens, and that parental notification only serves to make teens seek out shady doctors. PP has a long history of challenging parental notification... they have done it here and have done it in other states like Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Huh? Read planned parenthood's website. They explicitly state that abortion should not be made harder for teens, and that parental notification only serves to make teens seek out shady doctors. PP has a long history of challenging parental notification... they have done it here and have done it in other states like Alaska. Only where the safety of the child can and should be questioned. Cases like pregancy via incest or in cases where there is a history of abuse. Again, that's a far cry from saying it's their standard policy. They encourage parental participation and often cite their success with that approach. In your state and Alaska, were there any mitigating circumstances like the ones I mentioned above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Only where the safety of the child can and should be questioned. Cases like pregancy via incest or in cases where there is a history of abuse. Again, that's a far cry from saying it's their standard policy. They encourage parental participation and often cite their success with that approach. In your state and Alaska, were there any mitigating circumstances like the ones I mentioned above? Yes, in the case of incest and rape the requirement for parental notification can be waved. It's right in the first link... PP opposed that law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist. Margret Sanger wanted to control the black population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Exactly: We need to encourage lawsuits, because it seems to be the only thing that school administrators understand. Wasn't that how all the pedophilia priests in catholic schools were exposed? Through lawsuits, not the courts nor the church who covered them up for years? Lots of hypocrisy on all sides on this one... in this case it just seems wrong. Not sure about the abortion thing, but I would tend to agree with the definition of a child argument, except that you knuckle draggers make an exception in the case of capital murder all the time... I happen to agree with the exception, but there is another one that falls outside of the ideological hard and fast line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 My God... if i had a daughter and they did this to her... i probably couldn't restrain myself from killing the administrator who was responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abo...rs20030912.html Interesting, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU tried to overturn a right wing written law with consequences so draconian that no exception for the health of the mother was made. It still may be part of planned parenthoods agenda, but that issue was not addressed in the press release. So once again, you RWers are taking something specific and stating it as broad fact. Both sides do it, just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 My God... if i had a daughter and they did this to her... i probably couldn't restrain myself from killing the administrator who was responsible. I would do it legal by finding out if they played in a sport, joined and layed him out at the appropriate time.... anyone for a game of hockey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist. Margret Sanger wanted to control the black population. This country was founded by the same type of people, then. Are we the same as we were when founded or have we evolved just a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yes, in the case of incest and rape the requirement for parental notification can be waved. It's right in the first link... PP opposed that law. Rape, no. Planned Parenthood doesn't advocate waiving parental notification in the case of rape. Especially in the case of rape. The only instances I can see where Planned Parenthood wanted to waive notification were in cases where pregancy was a result of incest OR there was a history of physical abuse of the child by the parent and the child had legitimate fear for her safety. Surely you can understand why PP wouldn't want parents notified in the case of incest, can't you? Bottom line, PP has gone to court to fight language in laws that DON'T waive parental notification in cases of incest and history of physical abuse. At least I can't find any. Some of the language in these laws (S. Dakota, for instance) seems a bit draconian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This country was founded by the same type of people, then. Are we the same as we were when founded or have we evolved just a little? Read Margret Sanger's writings. I got these from Wikipedia: "It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." " In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for: A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Sounds like a racist to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I would do it legal by finding out if they played in a sport, joined and layed him out at the appropriate time.... anyone for a game of hockey? Hockey's "goon" mentality is the primary reason why the sport is about three feet above Wrestling. Check that...wrestling gets BETTER ratings and attendance. "We're losing three to one....send someone out there to "take out" the other team's best player." !@#$ing DUMB sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Read Margret Sanger's writings. I got these from Wikipedia: "It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." " In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for: A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Sounds like a racist to me. Not saying she wasn't a racist. Just that there is NO semblance between PP then and now and it's not relevant. Not sure why you think it is. PP was founded by a racist. Our country was founded by men who treated Africans like chattle. Do we have to list ALL of the historical ignorance that took place long ago? How about when the shape of one's skull determined his propensity towards criminal behaviour? Have we or have we not evolved as a country of a more enlightened people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Rape, no. Planned Parenthood doesn't advocate waiving parental notification in the case of rape. Especially in the case of rape. The only instances I can see where Planned Parenthood wanted to waive notification were in cases where pregancy was a result of incest OR there was a history of physical abuse of the child by the parent and the child had legitimate fear for her safety. Surely you can understand why PP wouldn't want parents notified in the case of incest, can't you? Bottom line, PP has gone to court to fight language in laws that DON'T waive parental notification in cases of incest and history of physical abuse. At least I can't find any. Some of the language in these laws (S. Dakota, for instance) seems a bit draconian. That's where the main problem lies. How do you determine if a kid is lying or if they are telling the truth? Would a kid who was impregnated due to incest want to talk about it at all? Wouldn't a lot of girls just lie to get it? There are a lot of problems with this. Read Margret Sanger's writings. I got these from Wikipedia: "It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." " In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for: A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Sounds like a racist to me. And so the whole organization is racist now!? Not saying she wasn't a racist. Just that there is NO semblance between PP then and now and it's not relevant. Not sure why you think it is. PP was founded by a racist. Our country was founded by men who treated Africans like chattle. Do we have to list ALL of the historical ignorance that took place long ago? How about when the shape of one's skull determined his propensity towards criminal behaviour? Have we or have we not evolved as a country of a more enlightened people? Wacka's thinking seems to point out the non-enlightened answer. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hockey's "goon" mentality is the primary reason why the sport is about three feet above Wrestling. Check that...wrestling gets BETTER ratings and attendance. "We're losing three to one....send someone out there to "take out" the other team's best player." !@#$ing DUMB sport. Ahhh, sigh... you obviously haven't played the game... Yes that happens sometimes and it is fun to lay someone out, and I have been knocked down myself... Not sure why, but I have never been seriously hurt as a result. I know how to fall??? And yet, in its pure form it is both hard hitting and graceful while incredibly exhilarating and exhausting at the same time. But, you sound like someone who needs a timeout between plays or someone making an announcment on a microphone to explain the play to you after the fact. You a baseball fan??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ahhh, sigh... you obviously haven't played the game... Yes that happens sometimes and it is fun to lay someone out, and I have been knocked down myself... Not sure why, but I have never been seriously hurt as a result. I know how to fall??? And yet, in its pure form it is both hard hitting and graceful while incredibly exhilarating and exhausting at the same time. But, you sound like someone who needs a timeout between plays or someone making an announcment on a microphone to explain the play to you after the fact. You a baseball fan??? I am, and I know where youre gonna go....headhunting. I understand the physicality of Hockey, I do. But the "cheap shots" just killed it for me. The CONSTANT fighting is a bit much but tolerable. But the "cheap shots" kill me. When you got players looking to take down and take OUT the stars on the other team, thats just bad. Ill never forget Dale Hunter taking out Pierre Turgeon. That turned me off to the sport right there. Yeah, you see that in other sports, but nowhere NEAR as much as you do in Hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I am, and I know where youre gonna go....headhunting. I understand the physicality of Hockey, I do. But the "cheap shots" just killed it for me. The CONSTANT fighting is a bit much but tolerable. But the "cheap shots" kill me. When you got players looking to take down and take OUT the stars on the other team, thats just bad. Ill never forget Dale Hunter taking out Pierre Turgeon. That turned me off to the sport right there. Yeah, you see that in other sports, but nowhere NEAR as much as you do in Hockey. Hmmm, can't argue with you about the cheap shots, don't like them, they do cheapen the game. But I see enough of them in football and bush league A-Rod stuff in baseball and gangster crap in BBall to make most of this argument irrelevant to why continue my support for the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts