• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

...Abortion is not a religious issue, that seems to be the crux of your problem in this stretch to claim that Establishment is violated (not that you've presented any argument as to how it was violated).

...

Actually , the Religious Coalation of Reproductive Choice ( which is comprised of over 40 religious denominations and groups)
feel that reproductive choice including legal abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade is a part of our religious liberty.
 
The problem is not mine, it's yours. If you have no wish to have a constructive dialog, using standard informal debate techniques, then please state so. I will not, nor should anyone, be forced to bend to the will of one persons definition of terms, as in your case. If you just don't understand something, ASK, don't assume.

I have asked, several times in fact, that you explain how this case violates Establishment. You have not produced anything outside of ad homs and Wikipedia links that do not address the question.

The failure is yours, you've been asked several times and have produced no argument, all that seems to happen is that you lob insults and deflect. Do you have any argument to support your position?
 
Actually , the Religious Coalation of Reproductive Choice ( which is comprised of over 40 religious denominations and groups)
feel that reproductive choice including legal abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade is a part of our religious liberty.

I'm sure they do. But that doesn't make the aggregate topic fundamentally religious. Many nonreligious people can be pro-life andany religious folk can be pro-choice. It's not fundamentally a religious question.
 
I'm sure they do. But that doesn't make the aggregate topic fundamentally religious. Many nonreligious people can be pro-life andany religious folk can be pro-choice. It's not fundamentally a religious question.

I disagree.

Religious liberty includes the right not to be religious which of course includes those persons who choose not to be religious.
 
I disagree.

Religious liberty includes the right not to be religious which of course includes those persons who choose not to be religious.

OK, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
 
You have the choice to home shool your child and teach them all your knowledge of the Universe.

We don't have kids in school any longer, but we still support the public schools through the tax dollars we pay to both the state and local taxing authorities. I don't think it's the job of schools to indoctrinate kids under the guise of "educating" them, whether it be by liberals or anyone else. In any case, why should anyone have to home school a kid just because the people whose salaries he pays subscribe to the Cocteau Plan?
 
Nor are you the only person who doesn't understand why asserting hypocrisy is foolish, for the very reason you mentioned (which is that the high school principal in this story is highly unlikely to be the one pushing gay tolerance in kindergartens).

So does that excuse your actions then? Because other people didn't bother with reading comprehension, it's okay you didn't?

And for the second time, I did no such thing. I have absolutely no idea what their literature is. What I'm saying is that a school should provide facts, not emotion or political spin, and should provide those facts in a controlled and moderated environment, not a lunch room when people are eating. And that belief goes for both sides of a politically charged argument like abortion.

So are you done having a mini-meltdown now? Do you realize why your first post to me was ridiculous?

So,

1. How is a life sized model of a baby not a fact based representation?

2. You just said that you "have no idea what their literature is" so, how can you jump to the conclusion that it is not fact based?

3. There is nothing in the article that says that the display was "in the lunchroom" to the best of my knowledge. It said it was during lunch. That could mean in the hall leading to the lunch room.

4. There is nothing in the article that states that the kids in the group were making a political statement with their display, that is your assumption....


Seems, you're the one who is having problems with facts.
 
This is not discussing political speech. I was discussing the potential for both pro-life groups and pro-choice groups to be a source of student harassment, ridicule, and divisive peer pressure.

All three are unacceptable in schools and are met with consequences.

Then it should be easy for you to show us in the article where they were, harassing, ridiculing others, or being divisive....These seem to be assumptions on your part.
 
Then it should be easy for you to show us in the article where they were, harassing, ridiculing others, or being divisive....These seem to be assumptions on your part.

Okay . . . no one seems to get I was just trying to talk about the concept in general of 'school groups' and 'when it becomes unacceptable to have them' - I was not trying to claim that 'this is what they did' and 'this is what happened'

Thus - I'm drawing no assumptions for ****s sake.

This thread just got people all twisted up for some stupid reason - and again, I'm out.
 
Well, at least in the title of the thread you posted and in your link it describes the pro life group as wanting to use a model of a life sized fetus.

At least the proper terminology was used in the thread title and the link.

The terms embryo and fetus are proper terms for different stages of development of an unborn during pregnancy .

It is not propaganda.

Minnie, as you know the thread title is the exact title of the article used, and must be entered without edit in this forum, so you shouldn't pretend that I somehow made up the title, it's dishonest. Also, of course the terminology that pro choice individuals would like to have used is entirely, and purposely used to dehumanize the child growing inside a mothers womb. That is just a fact.
 
Okay . . . no one seems to get I was just trying to talk about the concept in general of 'school groups' and 'when it becomes unacceptable to have them' - I was not trying to claim that 'this is what they did' and 'this is what happened'

Thus - I'm drawing no assumptions for ****s sake.

This thread just got people all twisted up for some stupid reason - and again, I'm out.

Ok....I was just sayin'.... I am trying to look at this objectively even though there are those in here (not you necessarily) that are just in here to stir things up and call others names....I just truly don't see the problem with a student group showing a life sized model of a baby at certain points of gestation....The article seemed to have left some things out specifically to gin up this kind of speculation that causes the division....
 
Minnie, as you know the thread title is the exact title of the article used, and must be entered without edit in this forum, so you shouldn't pretend that I somehow made up the title, it's dishonest....

Actually I have not posted any articles in this forum before so I did not know you were not allowed to edit.
 
?...Also, of course the terminology that pro choice individuals would like to have used is entirely, and purposely used to dehumanize the child growing inside a mothers womb. That is just a fact.

As I have explained before the words embryo , and fetus are used to describe the different developmental stages that an unborn goes through. They are the proper medical terms .

That is just a fact.
 
As I have explained before the words embryo , and fetus are used to describe the different developmental stages that an unborn goes through. They are the proper medical terms .

That is just a fact.

It is also a fact that it is a human baby growing inside the womb.
 
We don't have kids in school any longer, but we still support the public schools through the tax dollars we pay to both the state and local taxing authorities. I don't think it's the job of schools to indoctrinate kids under the guise of "educating" them, whether it be by liberals or anyone else. In any case, why should anyone have to home school a kid just because the people whose salaries he pays subscribe to the Cocteau Plan?

If your no longer have children in school, then you are old enough to understand the grievance process. What is the arguement?

Fight whatever you wish...what is the problem. Join with ike minded citizens and change the process. If you can not gather enough like minded people...what do you want?
 
Minnie, as you know the thread title is the exact title of the article used, and must be entered without edit in this forum, so you shouldn't pretend that I somehow made up the title, it's dishonest. Also, of course the terminology that pro choice individuals would like to have used is entirely, and purposely used to dehumanize the child growing inside a mothers womb. That is just a fact.

Would you advocate that High school biology be taught using terms like "Mommy", "belly", "baby", and "child", when discussing the Human gestation? Sorry..."Baby making".
 
So, 1. How is a life sized model of a baby not a fact based representation?
*sigh* Was it in a controlled environment, moderated by a teacher? If not, then who cares, in relation to my post?
2. You just said that you "have no idea what their literature is" so, how can you jump to the conclusion that it is not fact based?
I never said it wasn't. Is reading comprehension really so hard? I've had to say the same thing 34672049760923740689723489706274354260 different times now.
3. There is nothing in the article that says that the display was "in the lunchroom" to the best of my knowledge. It said it was during lunch. That could mean in the hall leading to the lunch room.
Irrelevant to where I said it SHOULD be. Again, try reading...
4. There is nothing in the article that states that the kids in the group were making a political statement with their display, that is your assumption....
Pro life is a political position. It's not an assumption.
Seems, you're the one who is having problems with facts.
I cannot begin to tell you how sad it makes me when someone who clearly has trouble with understanding what he read says something ridiculous like this.
 
I have asked, several times in fact, that you explain how this case violates Establishment. You have not produced anything outside of ad homs and Wikipedia links that do not address the question.
The failure is yours, you've been asked several times and have produced no argument, all that seems to happen is that you lob insults and deflect. Do you have any argument to support your position?


The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

It is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

In the case of the pro-life student group, no lawsuits have yet to be filed. I mentioned this already. However, "A Christian law group, Alliance Defending Freedom, sent a letter to the school district last week that calls for an end to the alleged discrimination" - source.

The question of "Does or could the Establishment Clause be pertinent in this case, I say YES.

In this bulletin put out by the ACLU, The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin, the EC has been a direct factor in litigation as far what rights are permissible on public grounds, among other things.. As each case is different and adjudicated on its own merits I cannot predict what the courts will say but as the EC is the legal basis for most of these types of lawsuits, it is rational to assume it will again be used in this circumstance.

There are those whom want to argue that abortion is not a religious doctrine, ergo not related to the Establishment Clause. That is blatantly false. Only the courts alone only can make that determination (see Abortion and Religion).

In this example, Pro-life students bring First Amendment suit against school district, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against the Pro-life students based on the Establishment clause.

Have I made myself clear?
 
As I have explained before the words embryo , and fetus are used to describe the different developmental stages that an unborn goes through. They are the proper medical terms .

That is just a fact.

Unborn what?
 
Unborn what?

A potential person.

Until born there is only a potential person or child.

When I miscarried a horribly malformed fetus at about 20 weeks gestation it was not a person, it was not a child, it was not a baby.

As a woman who has had 2 miscarriages and given birth to 4 children, I know the difference between an unborn ( also known as an embryo or fetus depending on the stage of development ) and a child.
 
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

It is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

In the case of the pro-life student group, no lawsuits have yet to be filed. I mentioned this already. However, "A Christian law group, Alliance Defending Freedom, sent a letter to the school district last week that calls for an end to the alleged discrimination" - source.

The question of "Does or could the Establishment Clause be pertinent in this case, I say YES.

In this bulletin put out by the ACLU, The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin, the EC has been a direct factor in litigation as far what rights are permissible on public grounds, among other things.. As each case is different and adjudicated on its own merits I cannot predict what the courts will say but as the EC is the legal basis for most of these types of lawsuits, it is rational to assume it will again be used in this circumstance.

There are those whom want to argue that abortion is not a religious doctrine, ergo not related to the Establishment Clause. That is blatantly false. Only the courts alone only can make that determination (see Abortion and Religion).

In this example, Pro-life students bring First Amendment suit against school district, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against the Pro-life students based on the Establishment clause.

Have I made myself clear?

So by misrepresenenting abortion as religion, the government has expanded powers to discourage political activism in our youth. Yes, you've made yourself quite clear.
 
If your no longer have children in school, then you are old enough to understand the grievance process. What is the arguement?

Fight whatever you wish...what is the problem. Join with ike minded citizens and change the process. If you can not gather enough like minded people...what do you want?

We don't want anything except to get what we're paying for: educated, not brainwashed, kids. We support public schools not as a form of social welfare, but as an institution of civil society meant to provide citizens the tools--like the ability to read--to think for themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom