Posted on 05/24/2011 3:26:20 PM PDT by Former Fetus
When many couples have a baby, they send out an email to family and friends that fills them in on the key details: name, gender, birth weight, that sort of thing. (You know the drill: "Both Mom and little Ethan are doing great!")
But the email sent recently by Kathy Witterick and David Stocker of Toronto, Canada to announce the birth of their baby, Storm, was missing one important piece of information. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now--a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)," it said.
That's right. They're not saying whether Storm is a boy or a girl.
There's nothing ambiguous about the baby's genitals. But as Stocker puts it: "If you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs." So only the parents, their two other children (both boys), a close friend, and the two midwives who helped deliver the now 4-month-old baby know its gender. Even the grandparents have been left in the dark.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I oppose the behavior of most human beings, which is why I homeschool and pretty much keep to my homestead and church. The world is a Godless, immoral place and I choose to not be a part of it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to change the behavior of people who in my opinion are misbehaving.
People are going to do what they want no matter how many laws you make in an attempt to regulate morality.
He is just mad because I made him look silly, so now all of a sudden he is a very important man who has much more important things to do than meddle with those who are so intellectually inferior, dontchaknow.
this is my impression of him looking down his nose at me in disgust
HUMOR IS NOT ALLOWED THIS INTERWEBS DISCUSSION IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!
Thank you for your contributions to this thread.
We find additional things to study throughout the day, whether it is a history or life lesson from something on Little House on the Prairie, a science lesson from something we are doing outside, or current events, history, politics, etc. when we are watching the news.
I think it has to do with the parent's personality, really. At first I tried to recreate the classroom at home because that is what I thought I should do. We ALL hated hated hated it.
As they get older I'm sure it will change again. I'm also sure, however, that as long as they are NOT in public school learning how to behave and dress like hookers while studying keynesian economics and how to fight for social justice they will turn out quite well.
Learn a lesson from this.
Don’t take on homeschoolers.
We all know someone who has CPS called on them over nothing and I know of one family who actually DID have their kids put in foster care because they homeschooled and she was even a former elementary school teacher.
Like I said before.....
If these children were enrolled in a public school, they’d be heroes. The school would bend over backwards to accommodate them from providing their won bathrooms, letting them choose the locker room they wanted to use, to making sure everyone, other children included, used the proper pronoun to use, that is the one the child him/her self wanted.
There have been plenty of articles lately where people who have children who are *gender confused* are receiving professional help and medical intervention before the child goes through puberty to initiate a sex change before anything is too permanent.
And now they’re after these parents for doing what they’re helping other people do?
It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple, and they’re going after them because they are homeschoolers. I’ve seen enough articles to know that if these people had their kids in public schools, this whole thing would be a non-issue.
>>Don’t take on homeschoolers.<<
Truth be told.
I adore your tagline.
Actually, “unschooling” is a not-uncommon unstructured approach to homeschooling— basically it emphasizes education through the child’s experience and interests, rather than through specific textbooks or other curricula. But as metmom pointed out earlier in the thread, the only reason that this story is garnering anything resembling negative media attention is because it fits the “homeschoolers are bad parents” narrative.
As I said before I am sympathetic to the issues you have with the way CPS is run and setup.
That does not mean though that I have to abandon my concerns for child protection in society or agree with you on what warrants an investigation.
In this case I do think that there should be an investigative interview with the children done by professionals away from the parents. I have already told you what I base my opinion on.
If I am stating my opinion then of course I use the word "I" but if speaking of a representative government I always then regard it as government by the People.
In the statement I was responding to of yours you state:
If being conservative means everyone has to live their life according to the personal whims of what does or does not offend Big Brother, or the government can take my kids, well then I guess I'm not a conservative.
You refer to government as not being of the People and it's representatives but as being Big Brother and being subjected to its whims as if the People have no representation. You then suggest it is bad to make laws being that someone else may make laws that you do not like.
That to me is gibberish and is not a conservative view but a liberaltarian one.
You know, this couple didn’t think this up in a vacuum. They are a product of our current liberal culture. This is the fruit of gender neutrality.
If they had done this without the motivating factor of society, yeah, it just would be worth checking out. But at this point, they’re kind of weirdos who took off the latest progressive, PC fad and ran with it.
Parents have been accused of child abuse for not going to the doctor and using natural methods instead, home birth, home schooling, for that matter anything that does not fit with current cultural norms.
That said, these parents are cracked, and if I met someone who refused to ID the gender of their child, I would accommodate them and call the child *it*. However, I think there needs to be more substantial evidence of actual danger to the child than dislike of the parents parenting method.
And as far as keeping secrets, well, what parent hasn’t told their child at some time or another not to tell people something? That isn’t tantamount to child abuse.
If our criteria is simply dislike of things that are not a danger to the child, then anything goes for social services. And from what people have told me who have been foster parents, if a child has been in the system at least two years, they HAVE been abused or molested at some point, guaranteed.
So, what’s to be gained by yanking the kids from their home? Pulling them to prevent *abuse* by the parents only to have them abused by someone in foster care? Is that really better?
We’ll be hearing more of this kind of story. I’d count on it.
Why because I decided I had to leave the discussion and go do something? Please I have been in plenty of heated internet debates including ones here at FR. Don't flatter yourself to think that I left because you flamed me or something with a post.
I was enjoying the debate with you for the most part. Didn’t take it as if you were simply trying to mock your way through the discussion.
Ping to post 111.
You are creating a strawman to argue against considering that I didn't say that learning through curiousity was a dirty thing.
I listed multiple reasons to warrant an investigation and never claimed that a parent believing in children learning through curiousity was singularly a reason to investigate.
Most of what these parents are doing is being done on purpose and due to circumstances. From coaching their children to cross-dress to the sleeping arrangements to the distrust of outsiders, etc....
Most of what these parents are doing is being done on purpose and not due to circumstances. From coaching their children to cross-dress to the sleeping arrangements to the distrust of outsiders, etc....
Sean Hannity claims to be a conservative as well but more often then not he proves himself to be libertarian on many issues.
Im not saying that you are not conservative though, I am sure you are, but on this issue you do have a very libertarian type slant to your position.
You must go find a prostitute, you must turn to a porn channel, you must specifically seek out Stern's show. That is a choice.
Someone doing it in the park is illegal and should be, because people who go to the park did not choose to go see a sex show.
Allow me to point out the fallacy of your argument, Nanny.
If I CHOOSE to go to a nudist colony, well then I'm a weirdo and I should be able to see all the naked fat people I want and all the fat people in the world can choose to waller around in the sand to their heart's desire.
What nekkid people cannot do is waller around nekkid in the parking lot of the grocery store.
There are rules of living within society. Respecting others is a pretty common one. That applies to everything I just discussed, as well as the story at hand.
Well it is good to see that you do believe in limiting a person's freedom in the name of public decency after all. Naked people aren't hurting you at all, you just dont like seeing it. Seems you are hypocritical though as to only wanting laws for things you see that you think are bad. Personally what I see with this family is very bad but you say I have no right to representation on that issue.
Howard Stern spoke on PUBLIC airwaves. Kids would listen on common radios to him promote pornography. No different then a PUBLIC park. We expect that there are areas of public that we can make laws to promote public decency.
In the case of the 'nudity / sex acts' in public you are fully willing to make law depriving people of their right to live free and dress as much or little as possible. To engage in what they view as all natural acts. So maybe then you will decide that they should have to cover even more?
You didn't seek out or pay to see their naked ankles, or their naked arms? So by your standards you can make laws making them cover them. Seems to me that by your standards we could impose burkas on all. They aren't hurting anyone by being naked or having sex outdoors, you just dont like seeing it, well look away then just like you tell me not to listen to the radio or watch tv if I dont like it.
(since you like to mock others making laws, I will mock your desire to make laws)
HA! You flatter yourself if you think that I was upset or looked down on you in digust or whatever assumptions you seem to need to make up in order to feel better about yourself.
I just simply had some things to do and with the way the conversation was turning figured that was enough for now.
It is really laughable to read such gibberish though of how you felt about me leaving the thread.
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.