# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/del...-to-discipline

It seems the bill makes a criminal out of anyone who causes a child pain. I guess doctors and nurses who give shots to all these kid should be nervous.,

----------


## acptulsa

I see.  So, letting the toddler to young to understand play with electrical outlets is better for the toddler than surprising the toddler with a light swat to the diaper.  I'd have never guessed that, myself.

Are there no parents at all in the Delaware state legislature?

----------


## dannno

Stephan Molyneux approves.....errr...wait...

----------


## James Madison

No football I guess.

Why don't we just dress the kids up in bras and tin-foil hats. They can toss a balloon back and forth, while complementing each other and hugging. Sounds great.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Only a matter of time before you see this legislation proposed on a federal level.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> No football I guess.
> 
> Why don't we just dress the kids up in bras and tin-foil hats. They can toss a balloon back and forth, while complementing each other and hugging. Sounds great.


Which state banned hugging on school grounds?  Or was that just a school district?

DE age of consent is 18, that's fairly rare and high as states go.  It used to be 21.  Imagine being a college student in DE...  This is not too surprising, as DE has a long history of making laws "to protect the children".  

-t

----------


## Anti Federalist

IR cameras linked in to the local Fusion Center, are to be mounted in every home with minor children, to monitor for compliance.

It's coming.

And nobody $#@!ing cares.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

USA's future is screwed. More and more kids feel self-entitled and are empowered by the liberals... Taking power out of "grown-ups".

Spanking exists for thousands of years and humans turned out fine.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> IR cameras linked in to the local Fusion Center, are to be mounted in every home with minor children, to monitor for compliance.
> 
> It's coming.
> 
> And nobody $#@!ing cares.


Please define "minor children"....

-t

----------


## AlexAmore

> and humans turned out fine.


I beg to differ.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Please define "minor children"....
> 
> -t


12yo to 21 yo - varies by state...



-t

----------


## Carehn

Why doesn't the state just take all new born children and raise them how they please? Damn, now I'm giving them ideas.

----------


## Don Lapre

As long as us adults are free to spank away on each other - I have no problem with this.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> As long as us adults are free to spank away on each other - I have no problem with this.


Screw the roses - send me the thorns!  - It's a book..

-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

OH YEAH! - $#@! THE STATE!

-t

----------


## mad cow

> As long as us adults are free to spank away on each other - I have no problem with this.


Well,it does take a Village.

----------


## AlexAmore

How does spanking fit into the Non-Aggression Principal? Spanking is not self-defence, it's the initiation of force.

Are we teaching our kids the Non-Aggression Principal or the all-mighty "do as I say, not as I do" principal?

----------


## tod evans

> How does spanking fit into the Non-Aggression Principal? Spanking is not self-defence, it's the initiation of force.
> 
> Are we teaching our kids the Non-Aggression Principal or the all-mighty "do as I say, not as I do" principal?


I'm not a subscriber to this "Non-Aggression" philosophy, so don't include *me* in the *we* you speak of.

Just wondering, how many kids do you have?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Stopping spanking = good

Passing law to do so = bad

----------


## AlexAmore

> I'm not a subscriber to this "Non-Aggression" philosophy, so don't include *me* in the *we* you speak of.
> 
> Just wondering, how many kids do you have?


Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal *IS* Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. 

Here's the wiki on it, so you can catch up. 

How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
-----------------

To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal *IS* Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. 
> 
> Here's the wiki on it, so you can catch up. 
> 
> How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
> -----------------
> 
> To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.


Our differences are semantic. Under our current monopoly law system, there's no way I'd support legislation restricting spanking. Under a free market law system, I'd probably be okay with it.

----------


## tod evans

Geeze, defensive much?

I'm *not* a libertarian either so any attempt to pigeon-hole me isn't going to work..

I don't need to "catch-up" as you put it, I've actually lived life for over 50 years, often in ways you can't imagine. 

I'm guessing, (because you didn't actually answer) that you don't have kids?

It's really a shame that you would advocate for any more laws. You've been a member here for quite a while, hasn't it registered that politicians passing new legislation is a really large part of the mess our country is in?

Have a nice day.




> Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal *IS* Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. 
> 
> Here's the wiki on it, so you can catch up. 
> 
> How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
> -----------------
> 
> To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.

----------


## Smart3

Last month, Gov. Jack Markell signed Senate Bill 234 into law, making Delaware the first state in the nation to effectively make it illegal for parents to use corporal discipline on their children.

The bill was opposed by several organizations, including the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which worked with the Delaware Home Education Association and the Delaware Family Policy Council in a failed bid to defeat the legislation earlier this year.

The legislation - sponsored by state Senate Majority Leader Patricia M. Blevins, a Senator representing Delawares 7th District -- alters the states current child abuse and neglect laws by changing the definition of physical injury on Delawares existing statutes.

Under the legislation, a physical injury is described as the intentional infliction of pain or impairment of physical condition on a child. Under the new law, child abuse is categorized as a separate crime in Delaware, whereas child abuse cases before the law was enacted were prosecuted using the same statutes that pertain to adult victims.

The new legislation creates three new categories of child abuse. Parents that intentionally inflict a physical injury on a young person under the age of 18 are now guilty of class A misdemeanors, which may subject offenders to a one-year prison sentence. Those that are found guilty of intentionally or recklessly injuring a child who is under the age of 4 or has significant developmental disabilities -- considered class G felonies within the state -- may find themselves imprisoned for two years.

The statute also expands the state of mind necessary for certain offenses against children allowing for more effective prosecution of parents who subject their children to abuse by others and fail to protect their children, the law reads. 

These new statutes combine current statues and redefine physical injury and serious physical injury to reflect the medical realities of pain and impairment suffered by children, the law reads.

----------


## low preference guy

fun thread ahead

----------


## zach

Spanking actually does curb behaviors that are inappropriate.

----------


## tod evans

Many here might want to move just for this law.

I'm not one of 'em.

----------


## angelatc

> Spanking actually does curb behaviors that are inappropriate.


And it does it pdq.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

Ridiculous.

----------


## angelatc

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers.  Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force.  2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

----------


## low preference guy

> While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers.  Those little demons will eat you alive.
> 
> There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force.  2 year olds don't comprehend logic.


dang. too bad ron paul didn't know that.

----------


## king_nothing_

> So sayeth the person with how many children?





> The fact that you don't have any experience raising kids is blaringly obvious.  Why do you continue to insist you have insight into raising kids when you have none other than something you read in a book?


Ad hominem.

----------


## Origanalist

> Ad hominem.


No, not ad hominum. Reality.

----------


## king_nothing_

If you don't think that's ad hominem, then you don't understand what ad hominem is.

----------


## Origanalist

> If you don't think that's ad hominem, then you don't understand what ad hominem is.


So when I say a government bureaucrat who knows nothing about making cars other than reading a book algore wrote shouldn't be telling Ford how to build one, that's ad hominum?

----------


## MelissaWV

The "you don't have any kids" argument has been used by both sides ad nauseum.  It's stupid.

People who don't have any full-time children of their own...

...can be educators who actually deal with children for more of the day than their parents do.
...can have to deal with children in their work in other scenarios (retail, etc., get to know a LOT about kids).
...often have relatives whose children they have to deal with a lot.
...were always, unfailingly, children themselves and had to deal with other children growing up.
...might be better able to distance themselves from the situation and see it through clear eyes, rather than the "my little angel would never do that" attitude a lot of parents seem to adopt.

So, yeah, cut the stereotype.

----------


## Origanalist

> The "you don't have any kids" argument has been used by both sides ad nauseum.  It's stupid.
> 
> People who don't have any full-time children of their own...
> 
> ...can be educators who actually deal with children for more of the day than their parents do.
> ...can have to deal with children in their work in other scenarios (retail, etc., get to know a LOT about kids).
> ...often have relatives whose children they have to deal with a lot.
> ...were always, unfailingly, children themselves and had to deal with other children growing up.
> ...might be better able to distance themselves from the situation and see it through clear eyes, rather than the "my little angel would never do that" attitude a lot of parents seem to adopt.
> ...


Ok, fine. It may be a stereotype, but it's not my fault he fits it so well.

----------


## tod evans

Theories about raising kids are as abundant as kids.

There are so many varied family dynamics that it's impossible to set some sort of blueprint.

Just like grown ups, kids each have their own personalities and each personality responds differently to different stimuli.

Personally I sincerely hope that many of the posters in his thread are "blessed" with children who behave as I did when I was a kid. 

For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....

----------


## Origanalist

> Theories about raising kids are as abundant as kids.
> 
> There are so many varied family dynamics that it's impossible to set some sort of blueprint.
> 
> Just like grown ups, kids each have their own personalities and each personality responds differently to different stimuli.
> 
> Personally I sincerely hope that many of the posters in his thread are "blessed" with children who behave as I did when I was a kid. 
> 
> For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....


More devious too.

----------


## cjm

> I'm not addressing it because it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. You're moving the goalposts after your argument was shown to be incorrect. First you argued there was an "exception" existing in property theory. I explained why it isn't an exception. You didn't rebut.
> 
> Yes, you lose ownership once, biologically, a new individual human being has come into being. Obviously. When that precisely occurs I don't care to delve into here, because, once again, this isn't an abortion discussion, and it's *totally irrelevant to this discussion*. And what do you mean by "it's not explained via standard libertarian rights doctrines"? The "when does it occur" isn't explained? Well, no, because that's a scientific question, not a libertarian question. If you mean it's not explained at all, I would disagree, or assert that it's very clearly implied; the stance that all individuals have self-ownership clearly implies that such a "transfer" takes place. There is no explicit "explanation" necessary.


Is it irrelevant?  If there isn't a clear point of transfer that libertarians can agree on, then it's subjective.  Some libertarians will say that the fertilized egg is not a human and not entitled to the rights that come with self-ownership.  Many people have different views on when a fetus becomes a human and is entitled to the right to life.  But right to life is only one right.  Should doctors not induce labor since that would be considered an aggression against the fetus?  If one is allowed to aggress against a fetus, why wouldn't one be allowed to aggress against a small child?  Birth is certainly a milestone in human development, but is that really the point that all natural rights are assumed?  Infants cannot enter contracts.  Maybe the point at which all rights of life, liberty, and property come later in life?  Maybe at puberty?

I know several of you are rolling your eyes when reading this thinking that this is "obviously" wrong.  If Rothbard asked these questions instead of an anonymous screen name, would you roll your eyes and think he was wrong?  Well, I did.  When he said that parents have no rights to spank their kids and should be legally allowed to let them starve (the child cannot demand food from the parent due to the NAP), I rolled my eyes and said, "Murray got this one wrong."  

When we deal with children and parents, issues of aggression and property rights get a little murky.  I sometimes use the analogy of Newtonian physics that seemed to hold true universally until people started looking that the extreme micro and extreme macro.  The Newtonian world view didn't really apply.  It's my contention that property rights and non-aggression don't really apply to parenting.  I don't have the answers as to what the libertarian doctrine should be, I just know that neither complete ownership nor complete NAP work, so they don't apply.

----------


## king_nothing_

> For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....


I wonder what ridiculous misconception about the NAP elicited this comment. I'm sure it's a hilarious one.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Leaving spanking aside, would you agree that standard parenting would include daily violations of the NAP?  I'm thinking of trivial things like forcing the small child to hold your hand while crossing the street.


I think you're completely ignoring the other side of NAP. We know what violates NAP. Standard parenting probably violates NAP all the time. Being conscious about NAP, knowing when you are violating it and willing to accept the consequences is all part of a NAP society. It's more about being aware, taking responsibility for your aggression/actions, and accepting the consequences. I think if society took a step in that direction we would be a lot better off. NAP just outlines the violations.

----------


## AlexAmore

> For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....


You're allowed to defend yourself. NAP followers usually love guns and are huge 2nd amendment supporters.

----------


## tod evans

> You're allowed to defend yourself. NAP followers usually love guns and are huge 2nd amendment supporters.





> I wonder what ridiculous misconception about the NAP elicited this comment. I'm sure it's a hilarious one.


Just this mental picture of some college kid walking into my favorite bar and spouting off about how some prospect didn't deserve to get his ass kicked for $#@!ing up.

Now I can further augment this mental picture with the college kid pulling a gun on these guys stating over and over "you can't do this it's against the NAP."

That'll end well...

Reality boys.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Just this mental picture of some coll*a*ge kid walking into my favorite bar and spouting off about how some prospect didn't deserve to get his ass kicked for $#@!ing up.
> 
> Now I can further augment this mental picture with the coll*a*ge kid pulling a gun on these guys stating over and over "you can't do this it's against the NAP."
> 
> That'll end well...
> 
> Reality boys.


Hypotheticals are fun. Coll*e*ge is also fun!

----------


## tod evans

> Hypotheticals are fun. Coll*e*ge is also fun!


And so are bars with friends.

----------


## king_nothing_

> Just this mental picture of some collage kid walking into my favorite bar and spouting off about how some prospect didn't deserve to get his ass kicked for $#@!ing up.
> 
> Now I can further augment this mental picture with the collage kid pulling a gun on these guys stating over and over "you can't do this it's against the NAP."
> 
> That'll end well...
> 
> Reality boys.


What does the kid being a collage artist have to do with anything? D:

----------


## tod evans

> What does the kid being a collage _artist_ have to do with anything? D:


??

----------


## Origanalist

> Hypotheticals are fun. Coll*e*ge is also fun!


I thought college was supposed to be hard, you know, having to work to pay your tuition and keep your grades up and all.

----------


## Origanalist

> ??


Spelling police.

----------


## tod evans

> I thought college was supposed to be hard, you know, having to work to pay your tuition and keep your grades up and all.


Free money now-a-days...

----------


## Origanalist

> ??


Spelling police.

----------


## tod evans

> Spelling police.


Just wondering where an artist got into the mix...

----------


## king_nothing_

Hint: "collage" is an actual word, but it's not a place people go to learn stuff after high school.
Tip: Dictionaries give you the definitions of words.

----------


## cjm

> The "you don't have any kids" argument has been used by both sides ad nauseum.  It's stupid.
> 
> People who don't have any full-time children of their own...
> 
> ...can be educators who actually deal with children for more of the day than their parents do.
> ...can have to deal with children in their work in other scenarios (retail, etc., get to know a LOT about kids).
> ...often have relatives whose children they have to deal with a lot.
> ...were always, unfailingly, children themselves and had to deal with other children growing up.
> ...might be better able to distance themselves from the situation and see it through clear eyes, rather than the "my little angel would never do that" attitude a lot of parents seem to adopt.
> ...


I will concede that high exposure to many different children will give someone a perspective that parents without the same experience wouldn't necessarily have.  But none of those people you mention have an eighteen year obligation to rear the child.  With a short term situation, it's easier to just quit and let someone else take care of any problems.

I bet combat veterans, cancer survivors, etc will say that "you won't understand until you've experienced it" too.  I can't imagine any list of activities that would allow me to truly understand what it's like to be black in today's America.  So yeah, to be under that eighteen year obligation for a real flesh and blood child -- the one you actually got, not the one you imagined you might get -- also gives unique perspectives.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I will concede that high exposure to many different children will give someone a perspective that parents without the same experience wouldn't necessarily have.  But none of those people you mention have an eighteen year obligation to rear the child.  With a short term situation, it's easier to just quit and let someone else take care of any problems.
> 
> I bet combat veterans, cancer survivors, etc will say that "you won't understand until you've experienced it" too.  I can't imagine any list of activities that would allow me to truly understand what it's like to be black in today's America.  So yeah, to be under that eighteen year obligation for a real flesh and blood child -- the one you actually got, not the one you imagined you might get -- also gives unique perspectives.


Sure it does.  I'm sure that having to raise one's non-biological child (which would put you squarely in "you don't know what it's like because you didn't birth a child" territory) is also a bit of a struggle, no?  It is, once again, a total cop-out to say someone can't discuss the subject because they are not included in the group most directly impacted by it.  To use your analogy, yes, I've heard a lot of people say "you don't know what it's like to be black!"  Of course I don't.  Many of the things involved in those discussions, though, also applied to people who don't speak English well (go back to where you came from!), are brown-skinned-but-not-black, are female, have an obvious disability, etc..  There is common ground that allows people to talk about things.  Likewise, no, someone might not know what it's like to have cancer... but they might have been there all through the last months, seen the effects, watched a loved one fade away... and that would certainly qualify them to join the discussion.

My mother likes to say she has helped raised a thousand kids, and she is right in a sense.  She taught early childhood and was in charge of class after class of toddlers and 3-5 year olds for roughly 20 years.  She saw kids all along the spectrum.  She saw kids who were gender confused (already), and she dealt with having to "teach" children who did not speak five words of English... and parents who spoke less than that.  She has heard "he started it" more than any one person should ever have to.  She has seen kids playing doctor, boys offering to pee on a frog to comfort a screeching little girl, no shortage of impoverished children stealing lunches, and so on.

I'd like to think that, even if my sister and I did not exist, that sort of person would know quite a lot about the subject of spanking.  

Also, to the point of your post, please remember that the people in question are not those who've raised a child to 18.  A lot of the people offering opinions have children who seem to only just be reaching "that age," so other than the early period with the diapers and the saying cute things, it appears they are on even footing with not having experience with 6+ year olds

----------


## CrissyNY

Didn't read any of the replies....

but I am a single mother of a 4 1/2 year old boy and I think spanking is disgusting.

I don't know about enacting a ban against it, because I haven't thought about it enough.

But I do believe it is totally ineffective and bordering on barbaric.

So.  Try talking to your kid instead?

----------


## cjm

> Also, to the point of your post, please remember that the people in question are not those who've raised a child to 18.


It wasn't the experience that I was trying to emphasize, but the personal obligation of being responsible for someone's life, health, and happiness.  New parents are arguably more sensitive to that since they are closer to that paradigm shift in their lives and have more years remaining on that obligation.  Veteran parents have gotten past that initial life-changing shock and have fewer years remaining on the obligation.  

School teachers deal with lots of different kids, but frequently send kids off to be disciplined by someone else.  As a parent, you can't just send the child to the principal.  The different obligation gives a different perspective.  I'm just saying that the two experiences are not equivalent.

----------


## cjm

> Didn't read any of the replies....


That's not a requirement around here.  Welcome to the thread.

----------


## MelissaWV

> It wasn't the experience that I was trying to emphasize, but the personal obligation of being responsible for someone's life, health, and happiness.  New parents are arguably more sensitive to that since they are closer to that paradigm shift in their lives and have more years remaining on that obligation.  Veteran parents have gotten past that initial life-changing shock and have fewer years remaining on the obligation.  
> 
> School teachers deal with lots of different kids, but frequently send kids off to be disciplined by someone else.  As a parent, you can't just send the child to the principal.  The different obligation gives a different perspective.  I'm just saying that the two experiences are not equivalent.


Ahhh gotcha.  I misunderstood a bit

----------


## AlexAmore

> Spelling police.


It was ironic. Plus my arguments are steeped in researching definitions, that's how we know what we're talking about on a philosophical and legal level. So to get some crazy hypothetical from someone who refuses to click a link on NAP makes me finally....

----------


## tod evans

> It was ironic. Plus my arguments are steeped in researching definitions, that's how _we_ know what *we're* talking about on a philosophical and legal level. So to get some crazy hypothetical from someone who refuses to click a link on NAP makes me finally....


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...in-your-pocket

I suppose if there are several personalities bouncing around inside one head that could justify speaking in the plural.

Instead of offering hypothetical scenarios how about I make it simple, try out your philosophy in the real world instead of a protected environment.

I can assure you the ideas you profess, like seeking to legislate parent/child dynamics won't float here in the sticks and some poor tired mother of several kids _will_ violate your NAP all to hell if you try.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I agree, but is that your citation?
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to hear.  I agree with you, but this position conflicts with Rothbard's.  So we agree that Rothbard was wrong on applying the NAP to abortion "rights" of the mother?


It doesn't contradict Rothbard. Block's evictionism is fleshing out Rothbard's stance on property rights and self-ownership and applying it to abortion:




> The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every mans absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mothers womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mothers freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic invader of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as murder of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mothers body.


That is the genesis of evictionism.

----------


## Origanalist

> The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.


What utter horse$#@!, $#@!ing mental gymnastics to justify matricide.

----------


## cjm

> It doesn't contradict Rothbard.


Go back and re-read the posts.  I asked if libertarian doctrine prohibits abortion and silverhandorder said, "Yes." The position that libertarian doctrine prohibits abortion conflicts with Rothbard's position which allows it.  No?

----------


## king_nothing_

> What utter horse$#@!, $#@!ing mental gymnastics to justify matricide.


You mean _infanticide_.

----------


## Origanalist

> You mean _infanticide_.


You are correct. ( I'm a bit goofy with some kind of bug, excuses, excuses)

----------


## Natural Citizen

This is the first arrest in the state of Delaware under the new child-abuse statute that took effect in October.

The home is a block away from where my inlaws live and I drive by there almost weekly. It's amazing to consider what we don't know that is happening right under our noses.. Cannot believe that people are the way they are sometimes. The mom apparently "home schooled" the minor so there was really no way to know what was happening.

Actually, she _didn't_ home school it sounds like. Seems that it was just an excuse for the child to not be in school. Regardless of that, the kid is lucky to get away. He ate for four hours straight once he had the opportunity to get some nourishment.

Police: Newark couple kept child locked in room for three months

----------


## angelatc

> This is the first arrest in the state of Delaware under the new child-abuse statute that took effect in October.
> 
> The home is a block away from where my inlaws live and I drive by there almost weekly. It's amazing to consider what we don't know that is happening right under our noses.. Cannot believe that people are the way they are sometimes. The mom apparently "home schooled" the minor so there was really no way to know what was happening.
> 
> Actually, she didn't home school it sounds like. Seems that it was just an excuse for the child to not be in school.
> 
> Police: Newark couple kept child locked in room for three months


I might be wrong, but I am guessing that they would have been arrested under the old law too.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I might be wrong, but I am guessing that they would have been arrested under the old law too.


Sure they would have been. This was right next door to a school, btw. Not that it matters but is just a weird irony.

----------

