Skip to comments.Elementary Teacher Charged with Sex With 12 Year Old Boy
Posted on 08/02/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by laotzu
click here to read article
Thank you. May God bless you as well. :)
"This better than just about any post on FR demonstrates how sick, dangerous and evil the libertarian agenda is".[wagglebee]
GladesGuru is in no way accurately reflecting libertarian principles. Even libertarians admit that one of the primary functions of government is to protect individual rights.
“In case you are otherwise unclear if one advocates overturning consent laws that protect children from pedophiles then you are supporting pedophilia. It is really that simple.”
Only to the simple is your argument “that simple”, and somehow I suspect you are anything but simple minded.
My argument with the age of consent laws is based upon the clear and unambiguous fact that a “one age suits all” law from a large and distant government is hardly likely to produce as valid a decision as a decision made by the young person and the parents.
Had the laws been written with a parental consent exception, I would agree with you regarding such laws. Indeed, I was curious as to whether anyone else would raise the issue of parental authority being recognized by such a clause.
If the parents are the supreme authority over their minor children, then age of consent laws must have a clause allowing the parents to give consent for their child to engage in a sexual relationship.
If, on the other hand, the state is the supreme authority in the family, then age of consent laws need no such clause recognizing parental final authority.
Which do you think best for American families and the republic?
My apologies, as I incorrectly assumed that my question was implicit in my posts.
I think that a great many libertarians actually hate the very idea of government and the rule of law.
Libertarians (especially on FR) love to quote Ronald Reagan's 1975 Reason Magazine interview; however, they conveniently excerpt his entire statement [added emphasis is mine]:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we dont each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
Are you nuts? By the time I was 25 I was out of college, owned a home and two cars and had been married for years but I was too young to have sex with my then 23 year old wife?
I would have to say your opinion on this issue is pretty lame.
No law is perfect, that is why we have a legal system, however I have yet to be presented with a clear and unambiguous age of consent law that is "one size fits all". In my state, the age of consent for heterosexual activity is 16. For homosexual activity, the age of consent is 18. One must be 18 years old to marry without parental consent. Girls aged 13 to 17 and boys aged 14 to 17 may be married only with their parents consent. Girls younger than 13 and boys younger than 14 are not allowed to be married. This covers your requirement of parental consent. However you will notice that in no possible example can sex between a 38 year old woman and a 12 year old boy be deemed legal and that was the topic at hand. Defending this particular act is what has put you in the indefensible position as being a female pedophile apologist. What the age of consent laws are in your state?
“You are actually suggesting that letting childred be BEATEN, RAPED AND KILLED is preferable to the government having laws to prevent it.”
I posted no such thing.
What I did post, and at some length, was that at least in Florida, government intervention in abusive situations resulted in more abuse.
There are some things which government can’t do. Preventing evil seems to be one such thing. Preventing child abuse by government taking custody of the abused child has been tried - and those programs produced more abuse.
Please do not attack me because I bring bad news. As a matter of fact, I spent many weeks, and thousands of dollars trying to help a woman keep her child after the state filed a felony level child abuse charge against her because one of the state wild beasts nearly killed the child.
A Harvard educated plastic surgeon friend of mine contributed over $15,000 of professional time trying to point out to the goobers that the mother was incapable of causing such wounds.
That boy suffered, in addition to the physical wounds, such things as being deprived of his mother when critically ill, then forced into a foster home where he had to call the black woman running the home “Mom”.
His birth mother was white. Talk about confusing a 3.5 year old!
The sad fact is that state custodial care is filled with violent, and/or sexually predatory “clients” who then beat or rape other “clients”.
Sorry, but government has proven that it can not prevent it.
I raised this disturbing failure of government because I hoped to start a discussion as to how something productive could be found.
I get it now.
Your liber(al)tarian position is that “goobermint” (how puerile!) has no right to enact any laws governing children at all, since they apparently “belong” to the parents sort of like possessions.
So if the parents think the child is ready to have sex at 12, the “goobermint” has no say in the matter. Or at an even earlier age, I guess.
Since liber(al)tarians also want prostitution legal, I wonder if your position holds that money can change hands when these 12 year olds have sex with 30 year olds.
Oops - 38 year olds.
I miss him very much.
I posted no such thing.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what you posted in post #122. Here, let me refresh your memory:
Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse
The libertarian solution ALWAYS seems to be to look for an excuse to remove laws and your rationalization is among the sickest.
There are some things which government cant do. Preventing evil seems to be one such thing. Preventing child abuse by government taking custody of the abused child has been tried - and those programs produced more abuse.
The sad fact is that state custodial care is filled with violent, and/or sexually predatory clients who then beat or rape other clients.
Sorry, but government has proven that it can not prevent it.
So, you want to take a single extreme incident and remove all laws protecting children. Typical libertarian anarchist.
“Defending this particular act is what has put you in the indefensible position as being a female pedophile apologist.”
Sorry, but again you confuse questioning the factual basis of the “damage” with my being a female pedophile apologist.
Given that I live near Miami, home territory of one Janet Reno, who was filmed in bed with a 15 year old female, and that said film was known to many in the law field and the rest of the community, and given my rejection of just about all Reno believed or did, to try to call me a female pedophile apologist crosses the line from the subtle to the ridiculous.
My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?
I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.
Liberalism effectively made the father responsible for the child but usurped his authority.
By the way, “deemed legal” sounds rather like “deemed passed”.
My question remains unanswered: Should the parents have the final deciding authority as to the age of first intercourse, and with whom said intercourse occurs - or should the state?
Since we agree that the present system leaves much to be desired, what should be? Note I asked what should be, not waht is presently legal.
That, to me, is important. ‘Specially in a post Obama period.
Since liber(al)tarians also want prostitution legal, I wonder if your position holds that money can change hands when these 12 year olds have sex with 30 year olds.”
Arf, Arf, ARF! I think I hear the sounds of straw dogs baying.
If we can stick to the subject, specifically, “Who should decide?”
Wait until next year when the libertarians are once again pushing Ron Paul for president.
You're joking right? You acknowledged that under your the policy you prefer "some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed," but you accuse someone of making a strawman by asking about child prostitution?
Are you saying that you OPPOSE laws against prostitution?
I am trying to maintain some humor, a tad difficult after some of the erroneous attacks, the argumentium ad homenium replies, ad nauseam.
Not owning a whore house, not even a “ho” house, I never really considered the issue. I would assume the legality of prostitution to be a matter for the local community, as clearly the Constitution says nothing about it.
Once again, very slowly (yes, I am trying to inject a bit of humor) - “Given that government has proven that it can not reduce child abuse by passing laws, what next?”
I just realized the faulty premise in your “In case you are otherwise unclear if one advocates overturning consent laws that protect children from pedophiles then you are supporting pedophilia. It is really that simple.”
There are lots of laws regarding pedophilia, but Chester the Molester still exists.
What does this tell us about the efficacy of those laws?
My question regarding what should comes after the present failure mode set of laws is hardly a red herring.
The present system is in failure mode. What next?
There's really nothing funny about opposing laws that protect children.
a tad difficult after some of the erroneous attacks, the argumentium ad homenium replies, ad nauseam.
What exactly do you expect on a conservative forum when you are advocating a policy where "some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed"?
Not owning a whore house, not even a ho house, I never really considered the issue. I would assume the legality of prostitution to be a matter for the local community, as clearly the Constitution says nothing about it.
So, communities should be allowed to outlaw prostitution, but "government intervention is worse" than laws which protect children from being molested and murdered?
Once again, very slowly (yes, I am trying to inject a bit of humor) - Given that government has proven that it can not reduce child abuse by passing laws, what next?
I can assure you that ANY SOLUTION that involves liberals and libertarians will be a disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.