- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I wrote: "The rights of the children trump all others in such cases - it always has and always will."
Your response is this:
Then you say:
Apparently you think YOU can - as long as it's the rights of the children that are dissolved . . . That's exactly what you're supporting . . . you want to dissolve the rights of these children. :shrug: No. I'm wrong. I'll restate: you don't even want to dissolve the rights of the children - you want to pretend they don't have any.
They do matter. They matter a lot. They have rights and they matter - more than anything else. Nothing more to say, really.
Your response is this:
Which isn't right and simply stating that fact doesn't support it.
Then you say:
You can't dissolve rights by non-action. Your statement makes no sense.
Apparently you think YOU can - as long as it's the rights of the children that are dissolved . . . That's exactly what you're supporting . . . you want to dissolve the rights of these children. :shrug: No. I'm wrong. I'll restate: you don't even want to dissolve the rights of the children - you want to pretend they don't have any.
They do matter. They matter a lot. They have rights and they matter - more than anything else. Nothing more to say, really.