Ask Me Help Desk - Parental rights

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Now here you've totally changed the text that offends you.
In this post Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights
That's where you tell her she's wrong about you, but text that bothered you (where you made it clear she is wrong about you) there is different. Why are messing with the people's words that way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 relevent 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 .

The "choice" involved is choosing between her OWN life and someone ELSE'S life.

Given the choice between your own life and someone else's, someone you don't even KNOW---wouldn't you choose your own?

Abortion can ALSO be defined as ridding the body of a parasite. In the LEGAL window of abortion, the fetus (not child, FETUS) is not viable outside of the womb. Any creature that is dependent on its host for life and sustanence is a parasite.

Let's not get into a definition war over abortion--it's off-topic, for one. You have your beliefs, which you are welcome to teach YOUR children. I have my beliefs which I will teach MY children.

However--the point made earlier back to me (sorry, didn't read back to see WHO had the rebuttal) that investing in public schools is a public service even if I don't have kids is right. That was EXACTLY my point.

I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some people get out of their "public service" taxes for schools just because they don't want THEIR precious children to go to public schools. You are paying for EVERYONE to go to public school, not just YOUR kids, when you are a parent paying taxes.

If you want your kids to go to a private school, then you'd better come up with a way to pay for it that doesn't involve ANY tax dollars.

You know what the OTHER option is here? How about BEING a parent? When your kids are learning something in school that you don't agree with, how about TALKING to your kids about it? How about starting earlier than when your kids are in school to teach your kids your personal morals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Now here you've totally changed the text that offends you.
In this post Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights
that's where you tell her she's wrong about you, but text that bothered you (where you made it clear she is wrong about you) there is different. Why are messing with the people's words that way?

Does copy and paste work different in Canada? Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights

Now, can we get back to the subject?

Quote:

Do you also say that hetero couples that can't have their own bio children aren't a real family.

That's a specious argument, and you know it. The vast majority of hetero couples can have children. Those that can't have children via normals means can usually have them with some form of medical help like IVF. But NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have children on their own, ever. The biology simply doesn't allow it. You cannot argue that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples, even if the hetero family in question can't have children.

Quote:

"Kissing other boys" is not something a son would do or not do based on what they were taught.

Bull$h!t. Kids do things that they shouldn't be doing all the time, most often due to peer pressure. That's the most common reason kids smoke, do drugs, drink and have sex before marriage. They are TAUGHT that it is the right thing to doby their peers. Now you want to take away the counter-pressure that has traditionally been there from elders, by having those elders tell them that such decisions are all morally OK. THat's what we're talking about here.

Quote:

If a son is gay, he is likely to eventually kiss another boy. If he is not gay, he will not be kissing another boy.

What I'm about to say is going to be in the realm of "locker room talk". Be warned.

Have you never heard about a bunch of guys having a "circle jerk"... they may not be gay, but they are exploring their sexuality. Have you never heard of teens "experimenting" with their sexuality in a same sex encounter? It happens in high schools and colleges all across the USA. Most of the time the people "experimenting" aren't gay... but they are exploring their sexuality. Straight boys "get together" all the time in sexual encounters. The idea that only gay boys will kiss other boys is simply NOT TRUE.

Quote:

What sex you are attracted to is not taught. It is felt and nothing you do or don't do is going to sway their sexual preference.

You haven't read a word I wrote, have you. Because your statement is demonstrably WRONG in sexual therapy literature.

Quote:

A FULL education about sex can only be beneficial to everyone. Keeping STDs at bay, unwanted pregnancies at bay, and abortions down. Looks like you would be all over that.

The only way to truly keep STDs, unwanted pregnancy and abortions down are through abstinence. It is the only 100% effective method of preventing these problems. All other methods still leave a risk, whether it is with the use of condoms, "safe sex" etc. A recent study showed that 1 in 4 Americans have an STD... despite sex ed being part of the public school curriculum for decades. Sex ed isn't doing the job. MORE kids are having sex, not fewer. More kids are getting pregnant, not fewer. More kids are getting STDs, not fewer. And kids are being told by their teachers that having sex is fine, whether with the same sex or the opposite sex, as long as they use a condom, instead of being told NOT to have sex as was the traditional response by teachers. The system is FAILING, and your response is more of the same.

Quote:

I agree with you. They are NOT the same. BUT, they are just as valid. Love and commitment can be the same as any hetero couple. The ability to raise happy healthy children can be the same

Define "valid". Their ability to raise happy healthy children cannot be the same if they can't even have those children.

Quote:

Once again, no matter what they "learn". They will be what they are. Be it straight or gay. You have no control over that.

Again, you have not read what I wrote elsewhere. What is learned or experienced in childhood has a HUGE impact on sexuality and social connection in adulthood.

Quote:

I hope and pray that you don't have a child or other family member that is gay. I have a feeling that you would be singing a different tune. Kind of like Chaney.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! I happen to have a brother who is gay, and who I love deeply. But who's lifestyle I do not agree with, and he knows it quite well. My opinions are NOT based on who I know, but rather on what I see as right and wrong. You do not know me well, Cozyk, or you would not have made that comment. I base my positions on FACTS, statistical evidence, analysis, and logic, NOT based on what those around me think. That is what I do for a profession (I'm a financial analyst who looks at the data, not the personalities or personal feelings), and I bring that ability into the political arena as well. THAT is why I can hold a political position that is unpopular without blinking an eye. I can even hold a position that I know my brother STRONGLY disagrees with, and not flinch from it, because I come at it from a purely LOGICAL point of view and leave my emotions out of it.

Quote:

Or how about giving our children all the benefit of a well rounded education. I agree that to improve on reading writing and arithmatic is very important . Just as important is how to get along in this world with all kinds of people.

My dad is an immigrant, a child of Holocaust survivors. He went from being one of the poorest people in the USA to being one of the most successful practitioners of securities law and eventually securities brokerage in the entire USA. His education was just fine without any sex ed or environmental studies. His education was WELL ROUNDED because it focused on reading, writing and arithmatic. He went to school and learned the skills necessary for getting and keeping a job and became very successful at those jobs. THAT is a well-rounded education.

Take a look at the Japanese school system... probably the most successful education system in the entire world. They spend NO TIME whatsoever dealing with sex ed and environmentalism. They spend regular school hours learning basic reading and math, history and science. Then they spend most of their after-school hours in advanced education programs to study reading, math, science and history. Then they go home and do homework in reading, math science and history. IF they have time after that, they tutor others in reading, math, science and history for extra cash. They are the most educated people in the world and they have one of the most successful economies in the world, even after their "lost decade".

Ireland, which has the fastest growing economy in Europe has an education system that concentrates on reading, math, and history/poly sci. Environmental studies and the like are relegated to voluntary subjects, and are not included in their certificate requirements for graduation. They concentrate on the essentials of reading, writing, arithmatic and history.

Environmental studies and sex ed are not part of a "well rounded education". They are distractions and they waste money that would be better spent giving a REAL rounded education of reading, writing, math, and history.

Quote:

They will be living in a world occupied with lots of different people with different beliefs. Do you think they can somehow escape this reality?

That is the very reason that they need to be strongly educated in their own cultures and beliefs. How else will they be able to deal with influences that are not healthy for them, but that are a part of someone else's "beliefs".

The reason that Muslim religious leaders are so successful at recruiting young muslims to terrorism is because those young Muslims are uneducated. They don't know their own Qoran well enough to stand up to these evil influences, and they don't know enough math, reading and history to do anything else with their lives.

The very outside influences you speak of are the reasons that our students need a strong education and a strong background in what their culture sees as right and wrong, good and evil. Having people of other backgrounds influence those beliefe systems weaknes their ability to stand up against those bad influences, the same way that young Muslims are unable to stand up against their terrorist recruiters.

Quote:

There is getting a "friggin job," and then there is keeping a job. Pickens are going to be slim if you continue to shun people that are different from you and being so intollerant is only going to hurt your children.

What you call intolerance is nothing of the sort. However, what you are proposing is intolerant... intolerant of MY views, because you wish to use the school system to indoctrinate my children to a differing viewpoint against my consent. Which of us is the intolerant one, Cosyk? Which of us is trying to suborn someone else's cultural beliefs?

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

I'm really glad to hear all of this. Makes me feel better. Especially that you sponsor children of your own. Something weird happened at a home I was decorating one time. My client showed me framed pictures of a little girl she was sponsoring. She would get updates and more recent pictures as time went on. I noticed that something did not look right. Upon closer inspection I realized this was not the same girl in every picture. They were sending info on one person but sending pictures of someone else. What's THAT all about?:confused: My client didn't have a clue that her sponsored little girl was not the same little girl they were sending photos of. Just weird. Anything like that ever happen to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No.

So it's already dead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Does copy and paste work different in Canada? Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Parental rights

Now, can we get back to the subject?

No, copy/paste does not have regional differences, it's dependent on the application API and the functionality has become standardized throughout the software development industry.
Your link explains nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So it's already dead?

No. <hehe, it's almost like you think I'm too stupid to see where you are leading this:), an opposing lawyer would set you straight in a hurry if you did this in court>

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

That's a specious argument, and you know it. The vast majority of hetero couples can have children. Those that can't have children via normals means can usually have them with some form of medical help like IVF. But NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have children on their own, ever. The biology simply doesn't allow it. You cannot argue that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples, even if the hetero family in question can't have children.
Elliot

As one half of a heterosexual infertile couple, I'm incredibly offended by this argument OVER AND OVER.

If it's a valid way for ME to become a parent, why is it not a valid way for other couples to become a parent? If a sperm donor is necessary because my husband has no fertile sperm, or a surrogate mother is needed because I have no womb---how is that a less valid way to become a parent?

Yet more and more gay/lesbian couples are doing THE Same THING. They are using their own egg/sperm and a donor for the other half of the needed human biology--just like an infertile heterosexual couple.

Your argument that they cannot be good parents because they cannot biologically reproduce on their own is flawed. Either NO person who cannot biologically reproduce without medical intervention could be a good parent, which would offend thousands of infertile couples---or ANYONE could be a good parent, biological ability to reproduce not withstanding.

You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

I'm really glad to hear all of this. Makes me feel better. Especially that you sponsor children of your own. Something weird happened at a home I was decorating one time. My client showed me framed pictures of a little girl she was sponsoring. She would get updates and more recent pictures as time went on. I noticed that something did not look right. Upon closer inspection I realized this was not the same girl in every picture. They were sending info on one person but sending pictures of someone else. What's THAT all about?:confused: My client didn't have a clue that her sponsored little girl was not the same little girl they were sending photos of. Just weird. Anything like that ever happen to you?

What people in my world do to help others they do so out of love and without the need for recognition, that's why we're uncomfortable when pressed. We know it's not about us. I have no idea what may have happened with your client, we're clearly receiving updates on the right girls.

Baby at 7 weeks

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...fig20baby7.jpg

Baby at 8 weeks

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...fig16baby8.jpg

Baby at 5 months

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...17baby5mos.jpg

Baby at 6 months

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...07face6mos.jpg

I don't know, NK. These babies look pretty much alive to me.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I dunno, NK. These babies look pretty much alive to me.

Not at the blastula stage. That's what he asked about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/news-ce...01-12soc03.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

As one half of a heterosexual infertile couple, I'm incredibly offended by this argument OVER AND OVER.

Sorry that you are offended, but it doesn't change biological reality. NO homosexual couple can ever become pregnant on their own. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can become pregnant on their own. The majority of heterosexual couples that cannot can go for medical treatments like IVF.

Just out of curiosity, in a gay male coupleship, which of the two is going to carry the IVF baby to term?

Quote:

If it's a valid way for ME to become a parent, why is it not a valid way for other couples to become a parent? If a sperm donor is necessary because my husband has no fertile sperm, or a surrogate mother is needed because I have no womb---how is that a less valid way to become a parent?

I didn't say that they couldn't become a parent... though again, I point you to my question above in this post. What I said is that the biology of homosexual couples is different from the biology of heterosexual couples. That fact cannot be disputed. Therefore, anyone who says they are "the same" is simply wrong based on the facts. They are NOT the same.

Quote:

Yet more and more gay/lesbian couples are doing THE Same THING. They are using their own egg/sperm and a donor for the other half of the needed human biology--just like an infertile heterosexual couple.

Very nice. But it doesn't change my point... that there is a basic difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.

Quote:

Your argument that they cannot be good parents because they cannot biologically reproduce on their own is flawed. Either NO person who cannot biologically reproduce without medical intervention could be a good parent, which would offend thousands of infertile couples---or ANYONE could be a good parent, biological ability to reproduce not withstanding.

Please go back through this entire post and tell me where I said that a gay couple couldn't be good parents. That is YOUR stuff, not mine. Again, my point is simply that there is a biological difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. This point cannot be denied.

Quote:

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to. You are arguing against an argument or statement I never made. I never said that gay couples couldn't be good parents. I simply said that they are biologically different than heterosexual couples.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No, copy/paste does not have regional differences, it's dependant on the application API and the functionality has become standardized throughout the software development industry.
Your link explains nothing.

NK, why is it you insist on swerving from the subject? The only reason my link explains nothing to you is your claim is erroneous. My link takes you to the source, yours skips ahead.

Synn nice spouting of NEA talking points. Of course they feel threatened that tax payers would have a choice about education because it would expose the fraud that their monopoly control of the system actually benefits the students.

The benefit about this "choice " is that it puts the public schools up to true accountability... it subjects them to competition.

It is not rich and poor... actually it is ;the poor get screwed under the current system because the rich have the choice they are denied under the current system.

In Milwaukee 20,000 students (almost all minorities) are in a voucher program with the option of attending public ,charter or private schools. They have made academic gains and boast higher graduation rates than their peers in public schools at less dollars spent per student . Taxpayers currently hand over $13,468 per student to Milwaukee Public Schools, compared to just $6,607 per student in the school-choice program... and those numbers should be even more distorted in favor of the choice system because school structures are mostly bonded so are not included in the costs.
Updated Study Finds Higher Graduation Rates For Milwaukee Choice Students : SchoolChoiceWI

Milwaukee taxpayers get more for their education buck because of the voucher system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not at the blastula stage. That's what he asked about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/news-ce...01-12soc03.jpg

Really? I read Speechless' post:

Quote:

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

And you responded

Quote:

No

No mention of blastulae in his question, although the zygote might refer to the blastula as well. But you are ignoring any parts of the question that don't jive with what you believe... embryos, fetuses.

So I will ask Speechless's question again. Given the pictures I posted above, do you still believe that there is no life in the fetus, zygote or embryo?

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not at the blastula stage. That's what he asked about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/news-ce...01-12soc03.jpg

Regardless of where you think I'm going, they are cells that grow and replicate - whether you consider it human life or not it is life. That IS undeniable.

There is life once the fetus can live on it's own outside the womb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Regardless of where you think I'm going, they are cells that grow and replicate - whether or not you consider it human life or not it is life. That IS undeniable.

There are cells that grow in labs all over the world - they are killed in the billions and billions! Are you on a mission to redress this awful genocide as well?