Alan & Brenda Leonard

10/26/02 04:46:

> In a much bigger sense, it means supporting other parents' rights to make any
> of a wide variety of choices that are NOT hurtful or abusive to their
> children.

But Myranda!

Parents already have all the rights. They're bigger and smarter and more
powerful. Parents don't NEED rights to be kind and loving to a child.
Anyone would support that.

Parents only "need" the "right" to be hurtful to their children. I have no
desire to support that.

Children are smaller, less experienced, and lack power. THEY need rights!

brenda

joanna514

>
> But Myranda!
>
> Parents already have all the rights. They're bigger and smarter
and more
> powerful. Parents don't NEED rights to be kind and loving to a
child.
> Anyone would support that.
>
> Parents only "need" the "right" to be hurtful to their children. I
have no
> desire to support that.
>
> Children are smaller, less experienced, and lack power. THEY need
rights!
>
> brenda

Well said!

Joanna

Fetteroll

on 10/26/02 5:08 PM, Alan & Brenda Leonard at abtleo@... wrote:

> Parents already have all the rights. They're bigger and smarter and more
> powerful. Parents don't NEED rights to be kind and loving to a child.
> Anyone would support that.
>
> Parents only "need" the "right" to be hurtful to their children. I have no
> desire to support that.
>
> Children are smaller, less experienced, and lack power. THEY need rights!

Brenda, this was perfect. It cut right to the heart of things!

Joyce

Myranda

Hmmmm maybe that's where we're getting tangled up in this talk about rights.

I think parents DO need the right to do "good" things, too. Such as the right to choose any method of homeschooling freely and without fear. The right to choose not to vaccinate without having to put up with lectures and threats, or worse. The right to choose that your newborn baby not get gunk put in his eyes that make his all-important first day with you blurry. The right to let your young child stip and play naked under the sprinklers without worrying that CPS may take him away from you for neglect. I see a great need for parents to have these kinds of "good" rights.

Yes, children need rights too, that's why I said I think parents and children's rights should be equal - neither one above the other. If a child wants to play in the sprinklers naked, the parent should allow this. If a parent needs the child to get in the car so they can go to the store, the parent has the right to have the child do so. Rights working both ways, and ideally mutual respect keeping these rights equal.

Gosh, I hope that made some kind of sense!
Myranda
But Myranda!

Parents already have all the rights. They're bigger and smarter and more
powerful. Parents don't NEED rights to be kind and loving to a child.
Anyone would support that.

Parents only "need" the "right" to be hurtful to their children. I have no
desire to support that.

Children are smaller, less experienced, and lack power. THEY need rights!

brenda


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

kayb85

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> on 10/26/02 5:08 PM, Alan & Brenda Leonard at abtleo@e... wrote:
>
> > Parents already have all the rights. They're bigger and smarter
and more
> > powerful. Parents don't NEED rights to be kind and loving to a
child.
> > Anyone would support that.
> >
> > Parents only "need" the "right" to be hurtful to their children.
I have no
> > desire to support that.
> >
> > Children are smaller, less experienced, and lack power. THEY
need rights!
>
> Brenda, this was perfect. It cut right to the heart of things!
>
> Joyce

Who decides if a parent can give birth at home and what type of
midwife she may use?

Who is going to decide if the child is going to get a hepatitis B
vaccination at birth?

Who is going to decide if the child is treated by a homeopath or a
medical doctor?

Who is going to decide if a 10 year old can stay home alone for 10
minutes?

A lot of the issues that I'm thinking about when I argue for parental
rights are issues where the parent wants what she thinks is best for
the child, on the child's behalf but the state thinks otherwise.
Like if a child doesn't want to go to school but the state says that
he is of "compulsory age". The parents shouldn't have to jump
through all kinds of hoops to allow their kids to stay home. Or if a
CYS worker decides that a child's room is too messy and orders him to
clean it or be removed from his home (I've seen it happen). Or if a
child wants to wear his favorite shirt for 5 days in a row and
someone reports him for that (I've seen that happen too).

And if a child is refusing to stop hitting his sibling and the parent
decides to discipline him by spanking him or taking away a privelage,
and that's the best thing that the parent knows how to do, should the
child and family really be seperated because of that?

Should a Christian family be forced to allow their child to wear a
satanic t-shirt or hold a seance in his bedroom? Should parents be
forced to allow their children to have sex in their bedrooms? Dress
like a prostitute? Get 666 tattooed on their foreheads? Use drugs?
Extreme examples, I know, but do you really think that parents
shouldn't have any right ever to step in and say "I'm sorry, but I
just can't allow you to do this." I know that in an ideal world the
parents would have seen that something was off balance way before the
tattoo and the sex and dealt with it within the context of a loving
relationship, but we're talking about a world that isn't ideal. And
in this world, do we really want to send those kids off to foster
care because the parents grounded them to keep them from destructive
behavior?

Sheila

kayb85

I will add that I think that children should legally be considered
adults at a younger age than 18. I'm not sure exactly what age I'd
make it. Maybe 14 or 15?

Sheila

Shyrley

On 27 Oct 02, at 3:58, kayb85 wrote:

> I will add that I think that children should legally be considered
> adults at a younger age than 18. I'm not sure exactly what age I'd
> make it. Maybe 14 or 15?
>
> Sheila
>
There shouldn't really be a difference between the rights of any
age. Children need loving guidance but that doesn't mean a parent
should have total control over the child. It could be more like a
mentorship (Is that the right word?)
It's very easy to make a child do things and in my lazier moments I
might ask my daughter to fetch me something. A few years ago I
would have insisted (much to my shame), now I request and if she
doesn't want to then fair enough I get off my butt and get it myself.

It is hard work sometimes especially when I am tired or sick but
hopefully I'm changing every day in the way I interact with my kids.

Shyrley the rambler.

PS> I saw a bear!!!!!!!! My first ever wild bear.


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

Shyrley

On 27 Oct 02, at 3:55, kayb85 wrote:


> Who decides if a parent can give birth at home and what type of
> midwife she may use?
>
> Who is going to decide if the child is going to get a hepatitis B
> vaccination at birth?
>
> Who is going to decide if the child is treated by a homeopath or a
> medical doctor?
>
> Who is going to decide if a 10 year old can stay home alone for 10
> minutes?
>
> A lot of the issues that I'm thinking about when I argue for parental
> rights are issues where the parent wants what she thinks is best for
> the child, on the child's behalf but the state thinks otherwise. Like
> if a child doesn't want to go to school but the state says that he is
> of "compulsory age". The parents shouldn't have to jump through all
> kinds of hoops to allow their kids to stay home. Or if a CYS worker
> decides that a child's room is too messy and orders him to clean it or
> be removed from his home (I've seen it happen). Or if a child wants
> to wear his favorite shirt for 5 days in a row and someone reports him
> for that (I've seen that happen too).

This is more about family rights vs state rights. Do things like that
really happen?
With all the child abuse that goes on you'd think the state would be
too busy to worry about T-shirts!!
>
> Should a Christian family be forced to allow their child to wear a
> satanic t-shirt or hold a seance in his bedroom? Should parents be
> forced to allow their children to have sex in their bedrooms? Dress
> like a prostitute? Get 666 tattooed on their foreheads? Use drugs?
> Extreme examples, I know, but do you really think that parents
> shouldn't have any right ever to step in and say "I'm sorry, but I
> just can't allow you to do this."

It's not about being 'forced' but allowing the child to have their own
opinions and path. If a human being chooses to do the above why
would other humans feel they should stop them just because they
are related?
In a loving family the above situations would be discussed I'm sure
but the final decision should rest with the person wishing to wear
the Satanic T-shirt, have tattoos etc. Obviously the child has
chosen not to follow the parents religion if he or she wishes to hold
a seance. Why should the parents force their religious choices on
their children? I would give my children unconditional love whatever
path they chose. I'm a pagan but if they wished to go to church,
become a republican (things that are distateful to me) I would
support them fully. It is their choice to make, not mine.
Teenagers are nearly adults and are embarking on their own
journey into the world and they should have the right to their own
decisions and opinions, whatever the parents choices.
None of the above situations would bother me in the slightest to be
honest although I may point out to my child that wearing a satanic
t-shirt might lead to encounters with narrow minded bigots.


I know that in an ideal world the
> parents would have seen that something was off balance way before the
> tattoo and the sex and dealt with it within the context of a loving
> relationship, but we're talking about a world that isn't ideal. And
> in this world, do we really want to send those kids off to foster care
> because the parents grounded them to keep them from destructive
> behavior?
>
> Sheila
>

Again, I don't see the above behaviours as destructive and also
doubt that in a loving family a child would feel the need to be
destructive and rebellious against parents.
I was speaking to a friend in the UK yestreday who is having
terrible problems with her 15 yo daughter. This child was forced
into school and has been tightly controlled and harshly punished to
'keep her in the line' My friend is in depsair about how she cannot
trust her daughter, how her daughter sweas at her, drinks etc etc.
There is no real love or trust between them yet she has done the
parental rights thing to the extreme. Then I think about Sandra's
accounts of her kids and other HS kids I know raised in trust and
non-coercively and how they act.
Makes ya think.

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

Kelli Traaseth

Hey Shyrley!
We have lots of bears up here!<g>
Yeah, Minnesota, again!
Kelli
Shyrley <shyrley.williams@...> wrote:On 27 Oct 02, at 3:58, kayb85 wrote:

> I will add that I think that children should legally be considered
> adults at a younger age than 18. I'm not sure exactly what age I'd
> make it. Maybe 14 or 15?
>
> Sheila
>
There shouldn't really be a difference between the rights of any
age. Children need loving guidance but that doesn't mean a parent
should have total control over the child. It could be more like a
mentorship (Is that the right word?)
It's very easy to make a child do things and in my lazier moments I
might ask my daughter to fetch me something. A few years ago I
would have insisted (much to my shame), now I request and if she
doesn't want to then fair enough I get off my butt and get it myself.

It is hard work sometimes especially when I am tired or sick but
hopefully I'm changing every day in the way I interact with my kids.

Shyrley the rambler.

PS> I saw a bear!!!!!!!! My first ever wild bear.


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

marji

On 27 Oct 02, at 3:55, kayb85 wrote:
> > Should a Christian family be forced to allow their child to wear a
> > satanic t-shirt or hold a seance in his bedroom? Should parents be
> > forced to allow their children to have sex in their bedrooms? Dress
> > like a prostitute? Get 666 tattooed on their foreheads? Use drugs?
> > Extreme examples, I know, but do you really think that parents
> > shouldn't have any right ever to step in and say "I'm sorry, but I
> > just can't allow you to do this."

Shyrley raised excellent points to this, and got me thinking. I think it's
very easy to forget when we have kids that our children are individuals
with individual paths of their own. If we do our job well, we can empower
a kid to find his or her path and get on it. What's tricky about that is
that a kid's path may look nothing like our own path. That doesn't make
their path wrong or not worthy. I'm a peace lover and peace pursuer. I
sing about peace. I agitate for peace. I pray for peace. Liam is invited
to participate with me in what I do. Sometimes he wants to; sometimes he
doesn't. If I force him to come with me to a peace rally (in fact there
are two this weekend I had planned to attend), I can guarantee that he will
not want to go to any of them. His path may not be that of a peace
agitator. Maybe he'll recognize his path through my work for peace (maybe
that's why he picked me to be his mom). Maybe his path is being a riot
control officer! ;-)

The thing is that however distasteful our children's choices may be, as
long as they are not harmful choices, I think we owe it to them and to
ourselves to find the learning it whatever they do rather than turning our
backs on it. And, when I say learning, I mean the learning for us as
parents and human beings.

marji


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

kayb85

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Shyrley" <shyrley.williams@v...>
wrote:
> On 27 Oct 02, at 3:58, kayb85 wrote:
>
> > I will add that I think that children should legally be considered
> > adults at a younger age than 18. I'm not sure exactly what age
I'd
> > make it. Maybe 14 or 15?
> >
> > Sheila
> >
> There shouldn't really be a difference between the rights of any
> age. Children need loving guidance but that doesn't mean a parent
> should have total control over the child. It could be more like a
> mentorship (Is that the right word?)
> It's very easy to make a child do things and in my lazier moments I
> might ask my daughter to fetch me something. A few years ago I
> would have insisted (much to my shame), now I request and if she
> doesn't want to then fair enough I get off my butt and get it
myself.
>
> It is hard work sometimes especially when I am tired or sick but
> hopefully I'm changing every day in the way I interact with my kids.
>
> Shyrley the rambler.

At some point, though, people need to have the right to vote. You
can't let an infant who can't read or write vote. There has to be
some point where society says "Now you can vote".

There has to be some age where society says, "Now you may own a
credit card." "Now you may have your own checking account".

There should never be such a thing as daytime curfew laws, where
people under a certain age are asked to prove why they're not in
school. But there has to be a certain age where people are allowed
to answer for themselves as to why they're here or there instead of
being made to have their parents answer for them.

There should be clear cut ages when people are allowed to babysit,
instead of parents wondering if they'll get charged with neglect if
they let their mature 12 year old babysit their 2 year old.

Parents need to have more rights to say things like, "My 12 year old
and I agree that he is mature enough to babysit our two year old" and
not live in fear that the state will question that decision and
charge with neglect.

Parents need to have the right to say, "You keep your room as messy
as you want and I'm just going to shut the door" without living in
fear that CYS will check the bedrooms and remove the child.

Parents need to have the right to research vaccinations and make the
best decision for their child regarding them. The state shouldn't
have the right to over ride a parents' vaccination decision, because
you know the state would always choose to shoot the child up with all
of the harmful substances that are in vaccinations.

Sheila

Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry

> > Should a Christian family be forced to allow their child to wear a
> > satanic t-shirt or hold a seance in his bedroom? Should parents be
> > forced to allow their children to have sex in their bedrooms? Dress
> > like a prostitute? Get 666 tattooed on their foreheads? Use drugs?
> > Extreme examples, I know, but do you really think that parents
> > shouldn't have any right ever to step in and say "I'm sorry, but I
> > just can't allow you to do this."

I guess if this was my child, I hope that I wouldn't be focusing any energy on "how can I control him/her and get him/her to do what I want"
but rather "why is my child choosing these things that i believe may be harmful to him/her (and are they *really* harmful?) and why has s/he rejected all the values which I hold most dear?"

I think there may be some deep and uncomfortable answers there. No child wants to hurt themselves simply for the sake of hurting. children do want to learn life-affirming things from their parents. When a child chooses something that may be hurting them on one level (and again, i would question which choices are actually hurting them--though I include having to waste your energy on rebellion as hurting), they are, IMO, always doing so to protect a vital human need.

In the case of a family who is trying to impose their strong ideals on a child through control rather than inspiration, my guess is that the child's needs for autonomy, freedom, respect, acceptance for who they are, belonging, love, and self-expression might be especially pronounced. In this case, I truly believe the solution lies in meeting those child's basic needs at their core, and not in even more control.

I'd be happy to explain more if this is not clear.

warmly,
ingrid


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

-=-PS> I saw a bear!!!!!!!! My first ever wild bear.-=-

You saw a wild beat in Virginia??

COOOL! Once I saw a cub. I was with my family. I was little. It was down
in the corner of a forest service fence, and another family had already
stopped, and walked up a little closer, which is what made my dad notice and
pull over too. He was big already. The dads said "The mom will be here soon
and we better NOT be here." It was in the Jemez mountains east of (above)
Los Alamos, NM.

In a message dated 10/27/02 7:07:16 AM, shyrley.williams@... writes:

<< It's very easy to make a child do things and in my lazier moments I
might ask my daughter to fetch me something. A few years ago I
would have insisted (much to my shame), now I request and if she
doesn't want to then fair enough I get off my butt and get it myself.
>>

When I'm well I say "would you please" or "would you mind" about a kid
getting me something, but now that I'm stuck and broken I say "I need..." and
I thank them nicely and tell them I'm sorry I need so much help.

Sandra

Shyrley

On 27 Oct 02, at 6:35, Kelli Traaseth wrote:

>
> Hey Shyrley!
> We have lots of bears up here!<g>
> Yeah, Minnesota, again!
> Kelli
I'm trying to get DH to move to Minnesota. We need either ghis
current copany to let him tele-work or for their to be a defence
research company in N. Min.
Then I get the snow I crave and can escape from Sterpford :-)

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/27/02 9:38:03 AM, sheran@... writes:

<< At some point, though, people need to have the right to vote. You
can't let an infant who can't read or write vote. There has to be
some point where society says "Now you can vote". >>

You know what I think? I dont' think the right to vote should be based on
age, but I think each election, to get into the polls the voter should take a
test of some sort to prove he has the slightest clue what's going on and
who's who.

The whole voting system in the U.S. is a farce because i think the large
majority of people get into that booth and they vote for a whole party, or
they pick and choose based one whether people are female or not, Hispanic or
Black or not, whether they like their looks or not.

There are MANY kids who know more about events and politics than many adults
do.

Voting is probably one of those calming things... An expensive exercise to
make us all feel like we have a voice in government. But anyone who really
studies the issues and goes and votes his informed conscience is swept away
by the others around him who are voting out of prejudice or party affiliation.

Sandra

Shyrley

On 27 Oct 02, at 15:11, SandraDodd@... wrote:

> FIRST THINGS FIRST:
>
> -=-PS> I saw a bear!!!!!!!! My first ever wild bear.-=-
>
> You saw a wild beat in Virginia??
>
The Shenandoah (Blue Ridge mountains of Virginia la la la la) is
full of black bears. We've just never managed to catch a glimpse of
one before.
I can't wait to see another one (preferably from the car....)

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/27/02 10:57:01 AM, instinct@... writes:

<< In the case of a family who is trying to impose their strong ideals on a
child through control rather than inspiration, my guess is that the child's
needs for autonomy, freedom, respect, acceptance for who they are, belonging,
love, and self-expression might be especially pronounced. In this case, I
truly believe the solution lies in meeting those child's basic needs at their
core, and not in even more control. >>

Ingrid, you have nailed it. I loved your post.

If children can't obtain their basic human needs at home, they will get them
met in other groups outside the home. If they can't get their parents to
listen to words, maybe they will get them to read t-shirts.

Of my grown friends who were forced to go to church every Sunday with their
families without any option to stay home, I can only think of two or three
who still go to church.

Perhaps it's easier in the Bible Belt to just tell children that they WILL do
what you say or else. In less homogenous parts of the country, kids don't
have to go far to find people with other beliefs.

So. There's an argument to keeping your children isolated. That's the main
suspicion of many homeschooling critics, that the parents are trying to keep
their kids isolated.

GUESS, just guess in which group this is true?
Christian homeschoolers.

Long ago (ten years ago) when I was on Prodigy, the discussion was more like
a web newsgroup. All the topics were posted where people had to go there and
read them. And the topics weren't separated into threads very efficiently.
And there was no separation between Christian and secular homeschooling.
Occasionally a Christian would say "If you're not Christian what are you
doing on a homeschooling discussion board?" And other things. But there was
a discussion once in which one mom said she felt strongly that she only
wanted her children to socialize with Christian families' children. And
another mom came on not long after and said being Christian wasn't enough for
her. She wanted to know what KIND of Christians they were.

When a child who feels THAT confined wants out, ANY "out" is considered to be
following Satan, breaking commandments, and so why just go hang around with a
Catholic family if they can join a gang? Because they DO have a need for
acceptance, and according to child psychologists, to Piaget and other
researchers in developmental stages, they come to need the approval of others
their age.

It is natural for a teenager to start to leave the nest. Too many Christian
parents feel they have a guarantee that if they "do right" that their
children will be obedient until they're 18 or 21 or something. As though no
observations of human development apply to their Christian sons and
daughters, but they WILL be obedient and they WILL do what their parents say.

Or what?

Sandra

Mary Bianco

>From: SandraDodd@...


<<You know what I think? I dont' think the right to vote should be based on
age, but I think each election, to get into the polls the voter should take
a test of some sort to prove he has the slightest clue what's going on and
who's who.
There are MANY kids who know more about events and politics than many adults
do.>>


I agree with you about some kids knowing a lot more than adults when it
comes to politics. But, I can't help but wonder if there was a test to take,
how many people would actually want to even bother?

Mary B


_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/27/02 2:13:26 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> You saw a wild beat in Virginia??

I have never seen a wild beat. I don't like beats though, so I've never
looked for one. <beg> Are wild beats rare in Virginia? ;o)

~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/27/02 2:50:01 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> You know what I think? I dont' think the right to vote should be based on
> age, but I think each election, to get into the polls the voter should take
> a
> test of some sort to prove he has the slightest clue what's going on and
> who's who.

Didn't they used to have something like this years ago to keep
AfricanAmericans from voting?

~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Deborah Lewis

***> You saw a wild beat in Virginia??***

***I have never seen a wild beat. I don't like beats though, so I've
never
looked for one. <beg> Are wild beats rare in Virginia? ;o)***

The real question is Are they dangerous?
I had feral beats in my garden once, but they posed no threat to human
safety.

Deb L, who just loves that smart ass Nancy!

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/27/02 2:43:04 PM, mummyone24@... writes:

<< But, I can't help but wonder if there was a test to take,
how many people would actually want to even bother? >>

AND? Would the polling results be more or less valid if those who didn't
want to bother stayed home?

Shyrley

On 27 Oct 02, at 16:21, Dnowens@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/27/02 2:13:26 PM Central Standard Time,
> SandraDodd@... writes:
>
> > You saw a wild beat in Virginia??
>
> I have never seen a wild beat. I don't like beats though, so I've
> never looked for one. <beg> Are wild beats rare in Virginia? ;o)
>
> ~Nancy
>
>
I nearly said that too....then I thought poor Sandra-wiv-a-broken-leg-
and-making-typos.
Am I a saint or what!

Shyrley :-)


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

Mary Bianco

>From: "Shyrley" <shyrley.williams@...>

<<I nearly said that too....then I thought poor Sandra-wiv-a-broken-leg-
and-making-typos.
Am I a saint or what!>>

Hey, I even kept my mouth shut!!!

Mary B


_________________________________________________________________
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.� Join now!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

Betsy

**
In a message dated 10/27/02 2:50:01 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> You know what I think? I dont' think the right to vote should be based on
> age, but I think each election, to get into the polls the voter should take
> a
> test of some sort to prove he has the slightest clue what's going on and
> who's who.**


To extend this concept to it's natural breaking point, would you favor
having tests for potential parents? Who would decide what was on the
test and what the right answers were?

Betsy

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/27/02 2:55:36 PM, ecsamhill@... writes:

<< To extend this concept to it's natural breaking point, would you favor
having tests for potential parents? Who would decide what was on the
test and what the right answers were? >>

Maybe where babies come from, when they're old enough to understand English,
when they're old enough to walk, how long might it take for them to be out of
diapers? How much do disposable diapers cost? What costs are involved in
taking care of cloth diapers?

Just stuff like that, maybe. <g>

And ONLY if they pass will the government birth control devices be removed.


BWAAAhahahaha.... ::lightning and thunder::



Sandra

Deborah Lewis

***And ONLY if they pass will the government birth control devices be
removed.***

Ooooh. I just read about Pharm crops, where pharmaceutical companies are
using genetically modified plants to "grow" drugs. Sounds like the
makings of a fine Sci-fi movie to me. Birth control in every loaf of
bread, without our knowledge of course, and then when someone is deemed
worthy of reproducing, based on the political party one belongs to,
government agents, disguised as friendly wheat farmers, would sneak in at
night and switch loaves.

Deb L

Shyrley

On 27 Oct 02, at 17:40, SandraDodd@... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 10/27/02 3:17:25 PM, shyrley.williams@...
> writes:
>
> << Am I a saint or what!
>
> Shyrley :-) >>
>
> You are a saint.
>

I know. Pity it doesn't pay.

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

kayb85

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/27/02 9:38:03 AM, sheran@p... writes:
>
> << At some point, though, people need to have the right to vote.
You
> can't let an infant who can't read or write vote. There has to be
> some point where society says "Now you can vote". >>
>
> You know what I think? I dont' think the right to vote should be
based on
> age, but I think each election, to get into the polls the voter
should take a
> test of some sort to prove he has the slightest clue what's going
on and
> who's who.
>
> The whole voting system in the U.S. is a farce because i think the
large
> majority of people get into that booth and they vote for a whole
party, or
> they pick and choose based one whether people are female or not,
Hispanic or
> Black or not, whether they like their looks or not.
>
> There are MANY kids who know more about events and politics than
many adults
> do.
>
> Voting is probably one of those calming things... An expensive
exercise to
> make us all feel like we have a voice in government. But anyone
who really
> studies the issues and goes and votes his informed conscience is
swept away
> by the others around him who are voting out of prejudice or party
affiliation.
>
> Sandra

You're probably right. What kind of test would you give potential
voters?

My daughter was crying last night in bed. She is so upset that our
town wants to ban scooters and skateboards, and she is very worried
that all the hours we're putting into walking around town getting
signatures on a petition isn't going to make any difference. I hope
she doesn't get the message at 9 years old that her efforts don't
make a difference. :(

Sheila