To: jwalsh07; TheAngryClam
That's rather sensible. Now tell me what the hell is bothering Angry Clam. I can't seem to understand what he is getting at. It seems be be something to do with it being improper for the state to treat adults and children differently (and one has to draw the line somewhere as to where that is), but surely that is wrong.
51 posted on
12/17/2003 9:40:41 PM PST by
Torie
To: Torie
Now tell me what the hell is bothering Angry Clam.Dunno, but I suspect the mollusk has been out of the bay for too long.
55 posted on
12/17/2003 9:43:47 PM PST by
jwalsh07
To: Torie
No, simply that any attempts to use the "but kids can do X without being able to do Y without parents' permission" argument is specious, due to the way that the law defines the impaired capacity of children, and thus, the ward powers of their parents.
58 posted on
12/17/2003 9:44:50 PM PST by
TheAngryClam
(Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson