Originally posted by df1
Every time some joker wants to take away individual rights he will parade out "the children". When ever this happens I immediately know that the
argument presented is pure hogwash that can not be supported by logic or reason.
I was in no way shape or form advocating taking away individual rights. I was asking where the line was to be drawn.
This worthless human being set the presidence for herself.
Originally posted by tsloan
This all they got..."The children" The real reason is the lack of parenting to educate their children about pot or beer or anything for that matter.
Rather than parent they want the courts to inject the rule of law so they can shift their parenting to yoga or Golds gym or other non parental life
skills
Again, asking where the line is drawn.
In many states nationwide, there's only so much that people like myself can do in the instance when they are divorced. I do my best to educate my
children on the pros and cons of drugs/alcohol. It's a choice to do, when you're old enough to make that choice. Therefore, being a child
(especially in their situation) you have one that utterly defies any notion of the wellbeing of the kid, and the other does everything under the sun
to protect them... where do they draw the line as far as this ruling is concerned?
I feel that to be a legitimate question. I'm not hiding from parental responsibilities. I'm not divulging hogwash to take away individual
rights.
I feel the elaboration on this ruling is a must.