Let’s see, I pay taxes so other single parent’s children can be brainwashed by the state whether I approve of it or not, and regardless of whether my own children are subjected to it. What are you willing to do.Would you be willing to pay more in taxes so that the government can pay a single parent’s essential bills (you know like food, medical expenses and education supplies) while he/she home-schools a child?
Well, to adequately homeschool, I am assuming that there has to be a sah parent. Many times this is not possible as the parent(s) is working to provide shelter, food, clothing, and medical expenses. What are you missing here?No, you are equating homeschooling (or the decision to school your children in any way other than public education) with going hungry and naked.
Sorry this was needlessly confrontational. There is a somewhat common misconception among those who do not that homeschooling is very inexpensive, but that is certainly not the situation that any of the homeschoolers I know or have talked with online reflect. The parents I know whose children are in public school usually don’t find that it is indeed “free” public education when one factors in school uniforms, transportation costs, supplies, fees, fundraisers, extracurricular activities, etc. Cheaper than the $10,000 a year or more private school down the road that also include a lot of those above expenses, certainly.How many children are you homeschooling and how long have you been doing it?
I am trying to figure out what the point you are making is. Earlier in one of these threads you gave an example which would equate to something similar to this:Sorry this was needlessly confrontational.
No it is not a misconception.There is a somewhat common misconception among those who do not that homeschooling is very inexpensive
The ones I know or have talked with online are very budget concious people and are very creative when it comes to such things.but that is certainly not the situation that any of the homeschoolers I know or have talked with online reflect.
Not to discount the fact the in some places public schools make up more than 75% of ones property taxes, whether their children are in public school or not. Certainly doesn’t sound free. How about if the parents who choose to keep their kids out of public school were to keep that money. Sure would beat welfare.The parents I know whose children are in public school usually don’t find that it is indeed “free” public education when one factors in school uniforms, transportation costs, supplies, fees, fundraisers, extracurricular activities, etc.
That is an awful expensive school you have down the road. Maybe you should consider homeschooling.Cheaper than the $10,000 a year or more private school down the road that also include a lot of those above expenses, certainly.
I would highly doubt it is anywhere near 10,000 dollars. Well what if both husband and wife work in order to get two incomes. Still it is a matter of wants vs needs. Don’t get me wrong, I am not making any of this up. I have first hand experience with more children than you would want to believe. How many children do you homeschool? How much money do you make? Are you single? Nosey questions, I know, but offer nothing to advance the point.Personally, I am extremely frugal, have some background in education and a great willingness to pull together materials on my own, and familiarity with the offerings available in our urban community, but we still spend several hundred dollars a year overall in supplies and curricula (and I buy everything I can second hand),
Truthfully, I don’t know how the tangent started, but I don’t care to go back through the thread to find out.Now, to return to the topic at hand, which is not homeschooling or the education of children in public school, but rather the attempts of strangers at educating preschool children on abortion via the use of tractor trailer sized photos of mutilated and dismembered babies driving around town and whether such is either appropriate or supportable.
Yes, it does vary on a hundred factors. One of those factors is whether one feels that one is adequately versed in a subject to be willing to pull together one’s own curriculum materials from the available pool of library books, etc or whether one feels that one needs to buy a pre-made curriculum. Those older children still need access to materials in order to teach themselves.This is entirely untrue. One does not need to be very well versed in every subject to be taught at every grade level. In fact, the older children for the most part, are quite capable of teaching themselves.
Cost is largely dependent on whether you are using your own materials, using a purchased pre-made curriculum, borrowing materials, and a hundred other factors. Can’t is a defeatist word.
Actually, in the US, each state has every say in whether you can do so legally or are in violation of the compulsory education laws for your state. The specific requirements vary state to state. Anyone interested in the basic laws pertaining to each state can find them here. hslda.org/laws/default.asp You will have to dig a bit further in each individual state to discover details like whether you have access to public school materials, activities, etc.Nope, the state has no say so in whether I choose to home school or not.
Then it sounds incorrectly. I said that such things impact the costs of homeschooling. If you have access to such, your costs for an equivalent education will likely be less than if you do not.It sounds like you are saying that if your public library does not have up to date instructional books, and your state forbids (which state btw) access to special things like music and sports, you are at their mercy to subject them to public school.
I said:How do you as an active homeschooler speak for everyone in what it costs to homeschool?So it is more than a money issue. Some people just shouldn’t home school, right? Actually, anybody that wants to homeschool, can do so.
Based on your own standards, why in the world should you expect me to trust you to instruct my child just because you choose to stand on a street corner with a large photo of a mutilated baby?Kudos to you for being so trusting of strangers! I on the underhand, need to know such things and many other things besides, and probably even then would not trust them.
And lead to government involvement in the way and means I use to educate my child.Not to discount the fact the in some places public schools make up more than 75% of ones property taxes, whether their children are in public school or not. Certainly doesn’t sound free. How about if the parents who choose to keep their kids out of public school were to keep that money. Sure would beat welfare.
Yes, many of them are. I am in my 3rd year of active homeschooling, as I have stated previously and as you have commented upon.That is an awful expensive school you have down the road. Maybe you should consider homeschooling.
The topic has been the very fact that you knowingly and willfully include preschool children in the “general public” every time one of these trucks hits the highway or someone chooses to stand on a busy road holding up large photos.Back to Topic - no the topic is not about educating preschool children on abortion via tractor trailers, but rather the general public.
True. Personal choice.Yes, it does vary on a hundred factors. One of those factors is whether one feels that one is adequately versed in a subject to be willing to pull together one’s own curriculum materials from the available pool of library books, etc or whether one feels that one needs to buy a pre-made curriculum. Those older children still need access to materials in order to teach themselves.
Do you know of anyone who would do anything to homeschool, but can’t due to financial reasons? I know of quite a many prominent curriculum providers (if one chooses to use such route) that offer financial aid to the needy, not to mention accept donations from any others who dismiss it all together saying people can’t afford to homeschool, therefore; to them their sorry lot.I did not say “can’t,” but it is not realistic in my experience to say “homeschooling costs very little in terms of money” or that “Anyone can afford to homeschool” either.
Specifically, which statements? That it can be done affordably? That the government cannot prevent me from homeschooling?Out of curiosity, upon what do you base your statements about homeschooling?
Nope. I would advise looking into legal representation such as that of the HSLDA or others if your local government is harassing you.Actually, in the US, each state has every say in whether you can do so legally or are in violation of the compulsory education laws for your state.
And homeschooling is legal in all fifty states. I very much remember when it wasn’t legal in my state (actually several of them, having moved a few times) and am happy to have helped in the effort to legalize it in those states. I was told on many occasions I can’t this or that. Well obstinate people do cower to social workers very easily. Actually in most cases, it wasn’t that homeschooling was in fact illegal, but that laws regarding education standards were largely misinterpreted, and were therefore able to be dismissed in court.The specific requirements vary state to state.
Cool! I wrote the above before I saw you also referenced HSLDA.Anyone interested in the basic laws pertaining to each state can find them here. hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Many of which if denied access, again, can be challenged. Gratitude given to those with the courage to help pave the way for others. (minor problems when considering other legal issues such as abortion).You will have to dig a bit further in each individual state to discover details like whether you have access to public school materials, activities, etc.
If they want to badly enough, they will. Financial burdens will not stop them. Social workers may be a nuisance, but will not stop them. Dealing with county dynasty on the public school board (if one really feels compelled to have their child in public school football) may be a little fun sometimes.Yes, there are ways in which pretty much anyone could homeschool if they wanted to badly enough, but not all of those ways will be inexpensive or available immediately.
Yes, life is full of challenges. Makes it all the more fun. If it is important enough to the parents to homeschool their children, yes getting a GED (in those states requiring it) becomes a bit of an inconvenience. Kind of like if you want to drive a car, your going to have to take a drivers test. Inconvenience.For instance, in NC, you have to have a high school diploma or GED. If a parent without one should want to homeschool their child, they will have to obtain such.
If money truly can be said to be the deciding factor in whether parents homeschool, again it is only by choice. There are ways of dealing with money issues when it comes to education.If you want your child instructed in something that you do not feel qualified to teach, you will need to seek out other avenues for that and those usually cost money.
It is not my standards that cause mistrust. If you mistrust me, that is your parental right which I would certainly hope you would exercise. I would be mearly standing on the street corner. The instruction to your child is within your realm.Based on your own standards, why in the world should you expect me to trust you to instruct my child just because you choose to stand on a street corner with a large photo of a mutilated baby?
No, it means if you want your kids in public school, be expected to pay taxes to cover it. If you don’t want them in public school, don’t be expected to pay such taxes.And lead to government involvement in the way and means I use to educate my child.
Just making sure. You also questioned my credentials, although not to brag, but am quite a bit more seasoned than that. It was a time when homeschooling was very ‘uncommon’. Actually almost unheard of.Yes, many of them are. I am in my 3rd year of active homeschooling, as I have stated previously and as you have commented upon.
No, that preschool children would react in horrifying ways has only been included by those in opposition to the signs as a sneaky way of trying to disarm those on the opposite side of the debate and make them dumbfounded. Didn’t work. It has not been proven as of yet that children react in such ways nor are morbidly damaged in any way by them. Parents however, instill all kinds of values in the children by their reactions. Children follow example.The topic has been the very fact that you knowingly and willfully include preschool children in the “general public” every time one of these trucks hits the highway or someone chooses to stand on a busy road holding up large photos.
I was responding to your statement “How about if the parents who choose to keep their kids out of public school were to keep that money.”No, it means if you want your kids in public school, be expected to pay taxes to cover it. If you don’t want them in public school, don’t be expected to pay such taxes.
That would only be valid if the only people whose taxes support public education were the ones who were currently using the service and that everyone who did use the service paid taxes equivalent to the cost of educating their own children.No, it means if you want your kids in public school, be expected to pay taxes to cover it. If you don’t want them in public school, don’t be expected to pay such taxes.
How do you know “nothing else would do?”Graphic photos prove abortion kills babies, many women don’t have abortions after seeing these photos because nothing else would do.
Point me toward the people who are driving tractor-trailer sized photographs of bloody dismembered and mutilated corpses of Holocaust victims around towns or holding them up on busy street corners to passersby and I will be glad to have exactly the same conversation with them about inappropriateness that I have been having with you.Change this subject to the Nazi holocaust and see how rediculous people are who don’t want the graphic imagery of the Jews to be shown because it might upset some born children… playing right into the neo-Nazi’s fingers!
sneaky? trying to disarm?No, that preschool children would react in horrifying ways has only been included by those in opposition to the signs as a sneaky way of trying to disarm those on the opposite side of the debate and make them dumbfounded. Didn’t work. It has not been proven as of yet that children react in such ways nor are morbidly damaged in any way by them. Parents however, instill all kinds of values in the children by their reactions. Children follow example.
On what do you base your claim that people who oppose the “indiscrimate” use of violent graphic images in a random, haphazard way exposing young children in any way “care more about feelings then babies being butchered”?Well Thank God that Karen and people like her don’t control the first amendment, unfortunately they control most of the established pro-feelings groups out there that care more about feelings then babies being butchered.
Do you consider it impossible to care both about children’s feelings AND about babies being killed? Honestly, the only reason I’m still following this thread is in attempt to help those who advocate indiscriminate showing of those photos - help them to realize that, as you rightly imply, the majority of people do not see things as they do.Well Thank God that Karen and people like her don’t control the first amendment, unfortunately they control most of the established pro-feelings groups out there that care more about feelings then babies being butchered.
No, the big issue is not about the pictures, it’s about what are YOU doing to put an end to abortion. There are many things YOU can do. Showing pictures is a very tiny small portion of what can be done to stop abortion. I would like to stop hearing people harp on the pictures but rather tell us what positive things they are doing.I think the big issue is here is why you feel the need to tell those who don’t like the indiscriminate use of the pictures what they can do to help stop abortion?
What makes you think they are not doing so already?
Because they don’t like the photos? (Please answer, I’m curious)
The issue for this thread is “anti-abortion protest signs–how far is too far.” To discuss the topic of the thread is not “harping,” it is called “staying on topic.”No, the big issue is not about the pictures, it’s about what are YOU doing to put an end to abortion.
KarenNC,The issue for this thread is “anti-abortion protest signs–how far is too far.” To discuss the topic of the thread is not “harping,” it is called “staying on topic.”
If you want a roll call of what everyone is doing to fight abortion, you might want to start a thread on that topic.
Because the motivation of being non-offensive to sensibilities (opinion) trumps the (FACT) that displaying photos prevents and has prevented death.On what do you base your claim that people who oppose the “indiscrimate” use of violent graphic images in a random, haphazard way exposing young children in any way “care more about feelings then babies being butchered”?