Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Trust me Skell, these people have no intention of "teaching someone about life," they want to mold young minds to their satisfaction and don't give a rip about what the parents want. The evidence to that effect is clear, they know it is a controversial issue, it has nothing to do with providing a useful education and they have no intention of allowing parents to opt out.

---

Oh, so you have spoken to them personally and know what their intensions are. And none of those people having children of their own. So it is best to shelter your kids as much as possible. Then when they hit middle school all the sudden they are learning things from other kids that may not be factual. And if you are not giving your children the facts,and you don't let the school give your child the facts; they are just going to have what their peers tell them. I remember never hearing 'swear words' in my household. But I was still hearing them in third grade (By the way I lived in a VERY Conservitive/Religious State, in a nice neighborhood). In middle school kids were talking about '69' --I didn't know what that was but it ended up being an interesting conversation between me and my mom :o
In high school my friend was having sex with her boyfriend--not using condoms. She told me they didn't have money to buy them. We went to PP to get free ones-- Which I'm sure prevented an abortion. Oh-- her family REFUSED to put her on the pill because she was so young. (Sex Ed in my state=Abstinence(sp?) only. Didn't learn about condoms, or any kind of BC--we have one of the highest teen birth rates in the country). Kids are going to do things we don't want them to. That's just a fact of life. You can keep living under a rock and trying to shield your children, but in the end you are just doing them a disservice. You can still teach them YOUR values. But you should teach them your values with the facts of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It must be rocket science, it sure seems to be above your pay grade.

---

You are not condescening AT ALL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h_leann_b

^This. You are right.

---

What is this, insult the conservative day? It's not rocket science to tell someone they're so wrong (see definition no. 3) about me it's pathetic (see definition no. 4). Seriously (see definition no 2).

But that's OK if you don't get it, I understand why you guys turn to insults.

Quote:

---

For all of you who think government should get out of the marriage business, should they get out of the parenting business such as this example, too?

---

[/QUOTE]

Actually we want gov in the marriage business. We want them to legally validate the marriage of any two consenting adults. That is just something else you are against. There seems to be so much negativity, seething, and angst in your life. You want to fight against so much. If you would loosen up, live and let live, I bet you would be a more peaceful person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

but if your parents were not using the public school system that they were paying taxes for then why shouldn't they have been able to take some of that money to send you to a school of their choosing ?

Yes some parents can afford it ;but many can't . My sister in Jacksonville took her children out of their school district to home school because the system there sucks and it is dangerous for children. She can't afford private school but she is paying for the public school system regardless .

---

If I don't HAVE kids, should I not then be able to take my taxes and decide where to use them BESIDES education? I also don't have a drug addiction, so let's pull any money going towards THAT. I ALSO never needed Welfare--not even the medical side of it. I don't want my money going toward that, EITHER. And frankly, I shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids, when the tax dollars won't go towards IVF for me to get pregnant.

I ALSO do not go to baseball games, yet there's a tax here paying for the new stadium.

For a very long time, I didn't drive. I shouldn't have had to pay for ROADS, either, then.

Don't be too absurd about tax dollars going towards public education being refundable to parents who feel like their kids need a "special" education other than what the average kid gets. If you don't like public schools, then either pull your kids out and pay the expense for private schooling, or be more active in elections for your school board and local and state politicians.

[QUOTE=h_leann_b;1778734]

Quote:

---

Oh, so you have spoken to them personally and know what their intensions are.

---

Um, yes I do. It's hard to miss decades of evidence.

Quote:

---

You can keep living under a rock

---

Factually, the rocks are on all 4 sides of my home, the roof is wooden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h_leann_b

You are not condecening AT ALL

---

Was it that obvious? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Factually, the rocks are on all 4 sides of my home, the roof is wooden.

---

No matter how much I disagree with you, this made me laugh lol

Quote:

---

Trust me Skell, these people have no intention of "teaching someone about life," they want to mold young minds to their satisfaction and don't give a rip about what the parents want. The evidence to that effect is clear, they know it is a controversial issue, it has nothing to do with providing a useful education and they have no intention of allowing parents to opt out.

---

[/QUOTE]

Why are you so suspicious and paranoid? Why do you believe the worst of people. Like no one but you can have a good intention. Why can't "these people" just want to provide a useful education? It is beneficial to society as a whole. Tell me what the benefit to "these people" is to pull this sneaky scheme on you.

Synn there are other reasons for funding education even if you don't have kids . For one thing these are the future workers who will change your Depends in your old age.

What I was proposing was choice . Why is that a bad thing ? The example I gave related largely to poor and disadvantaged people who's children are often warehoused in these institutions we call schools. I gave the example of Justice Sotomayor . I suggest that without her private education she may not have achieved what she is about to achieve. I say the Obama children and Michelle herself also benefitted from the private education choice they deny others .
I also gave an example of a community that does get politically active ;packs the school board ;votes down the budget simply because their children do not go to the schools. This creates tremendous funding problems for the district that negatively affects the rest of the population that send their children through the public system. Dollar for dollar it would make more sense for the district to give vouchers to that group and still have their budget passed and districts properly funded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Dollar for dollar it would make more sense for the district to give vouchers to that group and still have their budget passed and districts properly funded.

---

Hello tom:

Nahhh. From a dollars and cents point of view, it would make more sense to fix the problems with the public schools.

If you're wealthy enough to opt out, that's one of the reasons you'd want to become wealthy. But, to have the taxpayers pay for TWO school systems is pretty stupid.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

maybe genocide is a bit inaccurate . infanticide is a more accurate term.

---

This is what puzzles me. There are gazillions of people (babies, children, adults) in this world that need to be saved or rescued. What effort do you put forth to help people already walking on this planet? Pro-lifers put so much energy into protecting people that haven't even fully formed or been born. With a name like "pro-life" looks like you would put equal energy into the life of people that are already here. So, why aren't you having a hissey fit over these people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Why are you so suspicious and paranoid? Why do you believe the worst of people. Like no one but you can have a good intention. Why can't "these people" just want to provide a useful education? It is beneficial to society as a whole. Tell me what the benefit to "these people" is to pull this sneaky scheme on you.

---

Why do insist on labeling me and making the most asinine of assumptions? You should spend more time reading what I say and less time reading between the lines and psychoanalyzing me. Geez, girl, I told you that I give you the benefit of the doubt which directly contradicts the idea that I "believe the worst of people."

So let me be clear again, I have no doubt this school board has good intentions. I believe liberals, progressives, Democrats, most average every day pro-choice people - are extremely sincere in what they believe. But years of observation and interaction with them reveal to me a strong pattern of behavior that contradicts their beliefs. Tolerance is the perfect example, they preach it but they darn sure aren't tolerant of my beliefs. That, coupled with the fact that I believe many of their beliefs are wrong and dangerous means I don't want our students subjected to their agenda, especially without equal time or the right of parents to opt out. Telling one side of the story in taxpayer funded institutions is WRONG, does NOT benefit society and violates parental rights.

Quote:

---

It wouldn't surprise me if I could add gun control, evolution, and non- christians to that list. Am I correct?

---

THIS is the part of my post you refuse to acknowledge. And no, you certainly don't have to justify anything to me. I just thought there was a major chance you were also against these things. And when you failed to answer, but just kept throwing up the "I don't judge you for things not in evidence" reply, I knew I was on to something. I did not ask you to justify anything, why do you think I did? I just ask if you were against it. It made it sound like you were ashamed to admit it or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

This is what puzzles me. There are gazillions of people (babies, children, adults) in this world that need to be saved or rescued. What effort do you put forth to help people already walking on this planet? Pro-lifers put so much energy into protecting people that haven't even fully formed or been born. With a name like "pro-life" looks like you would put equal energy into the life of people that are already here. So, why aren't you having a hissey fit over these people?

---

Come on cozyk, again with this line? How much time and money do Christians, through the church and otherwise put into this problem? Do you have even an inkling of a clue? One Christian relief organization alone, World Vision, spent $979 million ($629 million more than Bush's AIDS initiative in Africa I believe) on kids and families in the US and around the world last year. Thousands of volunteers around the country represent their mission in churches, at concerts, in places of business and other avenues every year. We sponsor 2 children of our own and no telling how many other people have changed lives through the rest of our charitable activities so we DO contribute to the solution.

Christian adoption agencies, feeding centers and shelters around the world do their part and that's only possible through the generosity of others. Perhaps we're not having hissy fits about it because we're actually out doing something without the need or desire for recognition instead of just whining about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h_leann_b

Oh, so you have spoken to them personally and know what their intensions are. And none of those people having children of their own. So it is best to shelter your kids as much as possible. Then when they hit middle school all the sudden they are learning things from other kids that may not be factual. And if you are not giving your children the facts,and you don't let the school give your child the facts; they are just going to have what their peers tell them. I remember never hearing 'swear words' in my household. But I was still hearing them in third grade (By the way I lived in a VERY Conservitive/Religious State, in a nice neighborhood). In middle school kids were talking about '69' --I didn't know what that was but it ended up being an interesting conversation between me and my mom :o
In high school my friend was having sex with her boyfriend--not using condoms. She told me they didn't have money to buy them. We went to PP to get free ones-- Which i'm sure prevented an abortion. Oh-- her family REFUSED to put her on the pill because she was so young. (Sex Ed in my state=Abstinence(sp?) only. Didn't learn about condoms, or any kind of BC--we have one of the highest teen birth rates in the country). Kids are going to do things we don't want them to. That's just a fact of life. You can keep living under a rock and trying to sheild your children, but in the end you are just doing them a disservice. You can still teach them YOUR values. But you should teach them your values with the facts of life.

---

AMEN sister!!

Quote:

---

This is what puzzles me. There are gazillions of people (babies, children, adults) in this world that need to be saved or rescued. What effort do you put forth to help people already walking on this planet? Pro-lifers put so much energy into protecting people that haven't even fully formed or been born. With a name like "pro-life" looks like you would put equal energy into the life of people that are already here. So, why aren't you having a hissey fit over these people?

---

I am not hissy fitting at all. I am just redefining what your term "choice "means and putting it in context. What I do for others is not relevant to this discussion,and you by asking it are making assumptions about me that are not true. I will not engage in a personal defense like Steve has been drawn into because it distracts from the clear undeniable point that what happens in abortion is KILLING .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

... the clear undeniable point that what happens in abortion is KILLING .

---

It certainly is not a "clear undeniable point". Your talking points and opinion are not our facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

THIS is the part of my post you refuse to acknowledge. And no, you certainly don't have to justify anything to me. I just thought there was a major chance you were also against these things. And when you failed to answer, but just kept throwing up the "I don't judge you for things not in evidence" reply, I knew I was on to something. I did not ask you to justify anything, why do you think I did?

---

I try to think of you as intelligent enough to figure it out, could I be wrong? I addressed the first part of that particular post before considering the last two lines. So let me try one last time to make it very clear, it's the last line that's especially offensive, "It seems you will only tolerate what you think is right. Anything else should be prohibited."

I've made it very clear you're wrong about me. You seem to think there's enough evidence in my posts to support your opinion, there's more than enough to say otherwise. Perhaps you should with an open mind discover that for yourself and leave the psychoanalysis to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

It certainly is not a "clear undeniable point". Your talking points and opinion are not our facts.

---

So there's no life in the fetus, zygote, embryo?