Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,376
#3,376
InVOLuntary said:
They are making them watch these stupid skits that they have these fat girls come out and simulate them being ridiculed. The fat girls were actually crying. Made my son very uncomfortable. It was stuff like that all night. They were doing stuff that should be the parents responsibility. My son bleeds orange but he told me tonight he's wondering if he made the right decision. I just wish they would concentrate on educating the kids instead of trying to force a social agenda and political correctness. I'm friends with my state representative. I'm calling him tomorrow. They're out of control over there.
Click to expand...

Have your son video the skits to show what is happening to your political connection.
 
#3,377
#3,377
VolsDoc81TX said:
Just curious, you think abortion should be legal?
But getting a spanking in school should be illegal?

That’s your stance?

Not really judging, just extremely curious at this point...
Click to expand...

I do. Before 20 weeks I do not believe a fetus is at that point meet the criteria for "personhood".

I don't think spanking is child abuse or anything, but I think there's enough evidence that it is does have the potential for harm. It should be a parents choice to use at home, or a private school if the parent chooses to send a child there. As a public school is an extension of the government it should not be an option there
 
#3,378
#3,378
BJHSVol said:
I do. Before 20 weeks I do not believe a fetus is at that point meet the criteria for "personhood".

I don't think spanking is child abuse or anything, but I think there's enough evidence that it is does have the potential for harm. It should be a parents choice to use at home, or a private school if the parent chooses to send a child there. As a public school is an extension of the government it should not be an option there
Click to expand...

How about this then. Being disrespectful to teachers should mean your kid doesn’t get to attend the school anymore? Quickly gets the issue fixed if it hurts the parent’s bank account.
 
#3,380
#3,380
BJHSVol said:
Or murderers, theives, sentenced children to lives of abuse/neglect if they were born? It could go both ways. I respect your position, and like I said it’s what I would follow in my own life. But I haven’t been able to reach the conclusion that it’s based on anything but my own personal feelings, and not something that should be enforced onto the entire population.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what I lost...I lost the chance to sing my child to sleep..I lost the chance to see their eyes light up upon meeting Mickey Mouse... l lost their first step, their first word..I lost the chance to wipe away their tears and hear their laughter..I lost their corny little school plays..I lost prom..I lost seing the love in their eyes looking back at me..I lost cheering for them at their games or choruses or whatever they might have loved doing..I lost seeing the look on their face as they beheld The Grand Tetons or Old Faithful for the first time..I lost watching them play in the surf..I lost letting them bury me in sand..I lost building sand castles...I lost a million beautiful moments because of people like you making it possible to murder an innocent baby whose only mistake was being inconvienient to it's mother. It is wrong and evil and you know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,381
#3,381
Darth_Shiveman said:
Why not lower the drinking age to 17 years and 364 days?
Click to expand...

The drinking age is 21 years, but not sure where you live.

These are seperate ethical issues. My point earlier was to suggest that it doesn’t matter when you draw the line in regards to fetal age, intervention at 21 weeks is no different than 20 weeks and 6 days. We can all discuss the developmental milestones of a fetus and attempt to objectively describe when a person becomes a person, but in reality science will never be able to answer that question. Personally, I wouldn't care if the drinking age limit was disbanded. I believe that the excitement underage drinkers feel from doing something illegal leads to them consuming alcohol at higher levels.
 
#3,382
#3,382
InVOLuntary said:
They are making them watch these stupid skits that they have these fat girls come out and simulate them being ridiculed. The fat girls were actually crying. Made my son very uncomfortable. It was stuff like that all night. They were doing stuff that should be the parents responsibility. My son bleeds orange but he told me tonight he's wondering if he made the right decision. I just wish they would concentrate on educating the kids instead of trying to force a social agenda and political correctness. I'm friends with my state representative. I'm calling him tomorrow. They're out of control over there.
Click to expand...

DaRicky was just fine with the fat girls. They do try harder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,383
#3,383
avolation said:
The drinking age is 21 years, but not sure where you live.

These are seperate ethical issues. My point earlier was to suggest that it doesn’t matter when you draw the line in regards to fetal age, intervention at 21 weeks is no different than 20 weeks and 6 days. We can all discuss the developmental milestones of a fetus and attempt to objectively describe when a person becomes a person, but in reality science will never be able to answer that question. Personally, I wouldn't care if the drinking age limit was disbanded. I believe that the excitement underage drinkers feel from doing something illegal leads to them consuming alcohol at higher levels.
Click to expand...

Dumb moment on my part. I meant 20 years 364 days. My point was that by nature any kind of law limiting these types of things will be somewhat arbitrary in nature.


The current consensus among medical experts is that around 20 weeks is where a fetus becomes something that can be seen as somewhat human. So 20 weeks sounds like a sensible place to draw the line.
 
#3,385
#3,385
BJHSVol said:
I do. Before 20 weeks I do not believe a fetus is at that point meet the criteria for "personhood".

I don't think spanking is child abuse or anything, but I think there's enough evidence that it is does have the potential for harm. It should be a parents choice to use at home, or a private school if the parent chooses to send a child there. As a public school is an extension of the government it should not be an option there
Click to expand...

I will respond to the two separate issues here:

1. What is the criteria for "personhood" and who gets to make that determination?

2. I can agree that a parent should have the right to allow their child to receive a spanking from the public school. However, the public school should have the right to restrict a child from attending if they are disruptive and will not follow the basic behavioral rules.
 
#3,386
#3,386
Glitch said:
I will respond to the two separate issues here:

1. What is the criteria for "personhood" and who gets to make that determination?

BJHS described "personhood" as the ability to survive outside the womb. Unfortunately I know many people in their late 20s who still haven't achieved "personhood"

2. I can agree that a parent should have the right to allow their child to receive a spanking from the public school. However, the public school should have the right to restrict a child from attending if they are disruptive and will not follow the basic behavioral rules.

The schools do have the right to suspend students if they misbehave. But the question is do the have an IEP? 504? Behavior Plan? In many cases now a student is only allowed to be suspended a certain number of days, and I'd they school suspends them more than that limit then they can be sued or worse. Students know this and act the way they do because they know they can get away with it. Nothing will change in schools until the teachers and administration a freed from the many shackles activists have given them. Unfortunately I know a lot of teachers who have been brainwashed into believing those shackles bare a good thing, and yet they go about complaining and what those shackles do without realizing they are wearing them.
Click to expand...
.
 
#3,387
#3,387
VolsDoc81TX said:
I have 2 children through adoption. I am thankful every day that the birth Mothers both chose to give birth and then give up parental rights.

I Thank the Lord every single day for their courage and their decisions.

:hi:
Click to expand...

:good!:

An inconvenient truth for baby killers. There are hundreds of thousands of qualified parents in waiting for adopted children in this country alone. Which is why foreign born adoptions are so common. Ask any state level DHS employees assigned to that function. Instead, as a nation we allow them to be murdered and used sometimes for their body parts for scientific research purposes. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
 
#3,388
#3,388
Rishvol said:
.
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point. If the ability to survive outside the womb is litmus test for being considered a person then my kids aren't people. If people on life support are considered alive then why not a bay in the womb. Science has shown that brain activity begins at around the 5 to 6 week mark and the heart begins to beat at about the same time, I don't understand the arbitrary 20 week threshold to qualify as a living thing. The whole point of abortion is to stop the life functions of the child and remove it from the mother's womb. Well if you have to stop its life functions to do that, doesn't it have to be alive in the first place.
 
#3,389
#3,389
Glitch said:
That was kind of my point. If the ability to survive outside the womb is litmus test for being considered a person then my kids aren't people. If people on life support are considered alive then why not a bay in the womb. Science has shown that brain activity begins at around the 5 to 6 week mark and the heart begins to beat at about the same time, I don't understand the arbitrary 20 week threshold to qualify as a living thing. The whole point of abortion is to stop the life functions of the child and remove it from the mother's womb. Well if you have to stop its life functions to do that, doesn't it have to be alive in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think it just gives people an out. It's not really possible to give a threshold of when life starts, but you can easily give someone an out to ease their guilt when aborting a baby. That's all I see it as and that's not a good enough excuse to allow it.
 
#3,390
#3,390
More on the orientation last evening.... My son's group was warned that if they took their phones out that they would be counted as absent and required to pay $200 and go through orientation again. The same punishment applied if they slept or didn't pay attention.

What's ironic is they went on and on in a parents meeting that parents need to let their children go. Let them form their own opinions, let them become adults. At the same time they were force feeding them their social agenda.

In one of the meetings they had a video interview where Matt Lauer (more irony), where they were saying parents needed to back away and let their kids become adults. They hammered into us more or less the narrative of, "You've had 18 years, now it's our turn". They went on and on to not be texting, calling, or visiting your kids.

What's funny, in one of the most informative sessions of the day, the last session, it was a question answer session. One of the questions pertained to what could a parent do that would be more beneficial. 2-3 of them contradict what the earlier presenter said. Said don't just drop your kids off and kicknthem to the curb. Call, visit, and text to make sure they are ok. They want to know that they are missed and loved.
 
#3,391
#3,391
Glitch said:
That was kind of my point. If the ability to survive outside the womb is litmus test for being considered a person then my kids aren't people. If people on life support are considered alive then why not a bay in the womb. Science has shown that brain activity begins at around the 5 to 6 week mark and the heart begins to beat at about the same time, I don't understand the arbitrary 20 week threshold to qualify as a living thing. The whole point of abortion is to stop the life functions of the child and remove it from the mother's womb. Well if you have to stop its life functions to do that, doesn't it have to be alive in the first place.
Click to expand...

Agreed, let me ask another question. I know a ton of people got up in arms back when Hobby Lobby wanted to eliminate coverage for a few types of birth control deemed by their owner to be "abortion" medicines.

I supported Hobby Lobby in this, not because I agreed that Plan B was the same thing as abortion, but mostly because I felt the government was overreaching into a private business which STILL offered over 2 dozen other forms of birth control as covered options.

Do you think that form of birth control is an abortion medicine, or are you fine with birth control of that nature?
 
#3,392
#3,392
MoCo_Vol said:
Agreed, let me ask another question. I know a ton of people got up in arms back when Hobby Lobby wanted to eliminate coverage for a few types of birth control deemed by their owner to be "abortion" medicines.

I supported Hobby Lobby in this, not because I agreed that Plan B was the same thing as abortion, but mostly because I felt the government was overreaching into a private business which STILL offered over 2 dozen other forms of birth control as covered options.

Do you think that form of birth control is an abortion medicine, or are you fine with birth control of that nature?
Click to expand...

IMO, once sperm and egg combine, life exists. The cells begin to expand rapidly. DNA exists, which is what makes each person an individual. If there is a medicine that will stop conception then I don't have a problem with that. Condoms and birth control are things that I and my wife have used to keep from having additional kids once we decided we didn't want additional children. Also, vasectomies and getting a women's tubes "tied" (don't know the medical term off the top of my head) are also options. My wife has had her tubes "tied". However, once the process of cellular reproduction has begun, life exists and any method of stopping that life from continuing is not acceptable in my book.

Let me also caveat here....

If someone has had an abortion or used Plan B to end a pregnancy, I don't think less of them or judge them in any way. I do not agree with their choice and wish that they had not done that, but that is not my place. However, I think that there is such a fuss made about protecting a woman's right to choose, that we completely neglect that the child inside the woman is offered no such choice. I know this comes back to the "when does life begin" argument. Are viruses and one celled amoeba considered life? We speak of killing a virus, so I can only surmise that we view them as alive, so why is a baby in its mothers womb not afford the same distinction?
 
#3,393
#3,393
InVOLuntary said:
More on the orientation last evening.... My son's group was warned that if they took their phones out that they would be counted as absent and required to pay $200 and go through orientation again. The same punishment applied if they slept or didn't pay attention.

What's ironic is they went on and on in a parents meeting that parents need to let their children go. Let them form their own opinions, let them become adults. At the same time they were force feeding them their social agenda.

In one of the meetings they had a video interview where Matt Lauer (more irony), where they were saying parents needed to back away and let their kids become adults. They hammered into us more or less the narrative of, "You've had 18 years, now it's our turn". They went on and on to not be texting, calling, or visiting your kids.

What's funny, in one of the most informative sessions of the day, the last session, it was a question answer session. One of the questions pertained to what could a parent do that would be more beneficial. 2-3 of them contradict what the earlier presenter said. Said don't just drop your kids off and kicknthem to the curb. Call, visit, and text to make sure they are ok. They want to know that they are missed and loved.
Click to expand...

I don’t mind them having their fruity little orientation sessions, but fining students who skip out or don’t pay attention is basically extortion.
 
#3,394
#3,394
Glitch said:
IMO, once sperm and egg combine, life exists. The cells begin to expand rapidly. DNA exists, which is what makes each person an individual. If there is a medicine that will stop conception then I don't have a problem with that. Condoms and birth control are things that I and my wife have used to keep from having additional kids once we decided we didn't want additional children. Also, vasectomies and getting a women's tubes "tied" (don't know the medical term off the top of my head) are also options. My wife has had her tubes "tied". However, once the process of cellular reproduction has begun, life exists and any method of stopping that life from continuing is not acceptable in my book.

Let me also caveat here....

If someone has had an abortion or used Plan B to end a pregnancy, I don't think less of them or judge them in any way. I do not agree with their choice and wish that they had not done that, but that is not my place. However, I think that there is such a fuss made about protecting a woman's right to choose, that we completely neglect that the child inside the woman is offered no such choice. I know this comes back to the "when does life begin" argument. Are viruses and one celled amoeba considered life? We speak of killing a virus, so I can only surmise that we view them as alive, so why is a baby in its mothers womb not afford the same distinction?
Click to expand...

I understand that thought process completely. Don't really disagree, although I will say that I can also see where some of the grey area can complicate things.

For example if a mother drinks while pregnant if the baby is considered a person from conception then wouldn't that mother be liable for contributing to the delinquency of a minor via underage drinking?


Granted an unborn child is not given a choice over the abortion, but there's a lot of "hard living" that can be inflicted to that child during the pregnancy as well, which to be fair the child would still have no choice over. It's a topic with a lot of areas of discussion points to visit I think. I don't feel that the father has the same level of rights while the child is unborn either, mainly because it is solely the mother who physically is impacted by the pregnancy...that may not be a popular opinion, but I've told my wife the same thing when we discuss having another child. It's "our" decision, but more hers than mine since she'll be the one going through a very stressful year of physical changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,396
#3,396
While on the subject, something should also be done about the adoption process in the US. I have a couple of friends and acquaintances who have adopted in the past few years and it was absurdly expensive. Much of the money went to "attorneys" who helped navigate the process.

In one case, the parents-to-be were wealthy so it wasn't a big issue. But in the other case, the folks spent most of their savings, this after they had spend a few years and quite a few $ in their attempt to get pregnant.

I can see the adoption process being expensive to assure the children are being placed in good homes, but in both of these cases, it truly smacked of a money grab or racket more than anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3,397
#3,397
InVOLuntary said:
They are making them watch these stupid skits that they have these fat girls come out and simulate them being ridiculed. The fat girls were actually crying. Made my son very uncomfortable. It was stuff like that all night. They were doing stuff that should be the parents responsibility. My son bleeds orange but he told me tonight he's wondering if he made the right decision. I just wish they would concentrate on educating the kids instead of trying to force a social agenda and political correctness. I'm friends with my state representative. I'm calling him tomorrow. They're out of control over there.
Click to expand...

Sickening. Liberalism is a disease. You buy them books and send them to school and instead they think they can force your kids into accepting their backwards, left winged ideologies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,398
#3,398
MoCo_Vol said:
I understand that thought process completely. Don't really disagree, although I will say that I can also see where some of the grey area can complicate things.

For example if a mother drinks while pregnant if the baby is considered a person from conception then wouldn't that mother be liable for contributing to the delinquency of a minor via underage drinking?


Granted an unborn child is not given a choice over the abortion, but there's a lot of "hard living" that can be inflicted to that child during the pregnancy as well, which to be fair the child would still have no choice over. It's a topic with a lot of areas of discussion points to visit I think. I don't feel that the father has the same level of rights while the child is unborn either, mainly because it is solely the mother who physically is impacted by the pregnancy...that may not be a popular opinion, but I've told my wife the same thing when we discuss having another child. It's "our" decision, but more hers than mine since she'll be the one going through a very stressful year of physical changes.
Click to expand...

A person can be charged with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman. Why can't a pregnant woman be charged with child neglect or endangerment for smoking, drinking, or using illicit drugs during a pregnancy? If the child can be murdered, it stands to reason that it can be neglected (which is also illegal).

As far as the parental rights of the father goes, I think that while the mother is most physically affected by pregnancy, the father is equally emotionally affected. The idea that the father has no say so in the decision to abort a child is ludicrous. It takes a man and a women to create a child, the choice to kill the child should not be left to a unilateral decision of only one party or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,399
#3,399
WinginFlorida said:
While on the subject, something should also be done about the adoption process in the US. I have a couple of friends and acquaintances who have adopted in the past few years and it was absurdly expensive. Much of the money went to "attorneys" who helped navigate the process.

In one case, the parents-to-be were wealthy so it wasn't a big issue. But in the other case, the folks spent most of their savings, this after they had spend a few years and quite a few $ in their attempt to get pregnant.

I can see the adoption process being expensive to assure the children are being placed in good homes, but in both of these cases, it truly smacked of a money grab or racket more than anything else.
Click to expand...


Yes sir, had a boss who was in his 40s when him and his 2nd wife got together. They adopted two children, dropped 20k minimum just for legal process, per adoption.

Our son was born around the same time, 15k in hospital bills. My insurance handled almost all of them. We discussed this, and he said the difference was that the 15k I spent was going to the hospital and staff to ensure that both baby and mother got through the birth in the best of health. His investment went into the pockets of lawyers and the adoption agency, who didn't offer any sort of assistance with the logistic side of the adoptions once complete. They adopted newborns out of Texas, so quite a bit of travel was required since the court appearances were all in the state of the biological mother/father. Fortunately the babies he adopted were coming from very good, teenage parents who simply were not ready to raise children. But I wonder if he had been adoption children with medical problems, spending tens of thousand in legal fees and still being responsible for any outstanding medical costs...
 
#3,400
#3,400
Glitch said:
A person can be charged with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman. Why can't a pregnant woman be charged with child neglect or endangerment for smoking, drinking, or using illicit drugs during a pregnancy? If the child can be murdered, it stands to reason that it can be neglected (which is also illegal).

As far as the parental rights of the father goes, I think that while the mother is most physically affected by pregnancy, the father is equally emotionally affected. The idea that the father has no say so in the decision to abort a child is ludicrous. It takes a man and a women to create a child, the choice to kill the child should not be left to a unilateral decision of only one party or the other.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I also feel a mother who wants an abortion should be treated the same way a father who wants an abortion is treated. I am baffled at how badly our country handles GOOD father's fighting for custody though, it's heavily favored to the mother to a grossly over manipulated fault. Put the child's best interest first, regardless of which parent custody would ultimately be with in doing so.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top