Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson