Oh sure, like Rosa Parks, a great woman. In this student's case, bad idea, of course imo.Most of those who have helped make positive changes within the laws have done so by either breaking the law or ruffling the feathers of those who matter.
Oh sure, like Rosa Parks, a great woman. In this student's case, bad idea, of course imo.Most of those who have helped make positive changes within the laws have done so by either breaking the law or ruffling the feathers of those who matter.
Content, place of recital, or both?After watching the video, I agree with her
Most game changers ruffle feathers.Oh sure, like Rosa Parks, a great woman. In this student's case, bad idea, of course imo.
She picked the right place, the world has seen it.Content, place of recital, or both?
So be it.Most game changers ruffle feathers.
And whether it’s a good idea or bad idea is merely an opinion. I personally like what she did . Way to go ‘that girl.’![]()
She is graduating, so no discipline. In semester, subject to discipline legally.She picked the right place, the world has seen it.
Precisely. Mission accomplished.She picked the right place, the world has seen it.
The teacher is in a position of authority, and she's also an agent of the state, so to speak, since she works for the government. So that would violate the Constitution. Even if she taught at a private school, it would still be wrong since she would still be in a position of authority.Answer my part about the teacher, what if she taught that is class, and streamed it live or not?
Yes, she is a state actor, but students are also subject to constitutional restraints, see my post 48. I think I'm out of this one because mostly no one is going to agree that case law applies, which was my point, along with the place of oration. If she preached about legalizing prostitution at a high school commencement, then that should be okay too?The teacher is in a position of authority, and she's also an agent of the state, so to speak, since she works for the government. So that would violate the Constitution. Even if she taught at a private school, it would still be wrong since she would still be in a position of authority.
Abortion is not the only option. All pregnant women have the option to carry their baby to full term and then immediately turn their baby over for adoption if they don't want the baby....all expenses paid.Coming from a much older generation, I can remember the bad old days in Sydney of backyard abortions were women were so desperate, they were prepared to risk being mutilated by women who had no idea what they were doing yet happy to charge a huge fee for the privilege. The women in the world today have a hard enough time surviving in this life - broke, unemployed, verging on homelessness, without adding the extra horror of being stuck with a child they never wanted. I've also seen the unwanted children with cigarette burns from a mother who hated them. Abortion is a no brainer IMO.
In BONG HiTS 4 JESUS, the student was promoting illegal drug use.Sorry Patch, wrong, she was on school property and if you don't think that makes a difference, you are wrong, look up "Bong hits for Jesus", and internally citing Fraiser.
Sure, she could have advocated for the legalization of prostitution or the legalization of pot, but not for students to break the law.Yes, she is a state actor, but students are also subject to constitutional restraints, see my post 48. I think I'm out of this one because mostly no one is going to agree that case law applies, which was my point, along with the place of oration. If she preached about legalizing prostitution at a high school commencement, then that should be okay too?
Most laws are rooted in religion -- thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, etc.All anti-abortion laws are rooted in religion.
Arkansas is one of the states that prohibits abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. Alabama is one of the states where it is illegal to prescribe, purchase, or take the morning-after pill.Most laws are rooted in religion -- thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, etc.
This is not a new issue and I didn't think she said anything particularly brave.
I think issues like this should be debated seriously with both sides aired. Using her platform for her side only seems a little unfair to me.
Her basic premise, that this law takes away all a young woman's rights to control her own body is wrong. She can still use reliable contraception, the kind that is 99.9% effective and if she's worried about that one in a thousand she can combine that chemical contraceptive with a barrier type (IUD plus condom for example.) It would be almost impossible to get pregnant then.
If she is raped or the victim of incest (she mentioned that twice) there is always the morning after pill -- given to rape victims at the hospital or bought at the drugstore the next day.
If this hypothetical young woman with the fabulous future and glittering career ahead of her can't figure out how to do any of that, she can still carry to term and give the baby up for adoption.
I'm not getting into either pro-choice or anti-abortion issues. I just wish her speech had been about the need for young women starting out in the world to take responsibility for their own bodies by using reliable birth control. If so there would be very little need for abortion at all.
How is this issue about the separation of church and state? Abortion is about health care and the laws concerning the same.Let me be clear on the point with this. She was chosen Valedictorian to speak for the graduating senior class. Not to promote a personal agenda on any subject. Salutorian addressess should be the same.
ANY social media would a complish and achieve the same or a even greater result. No she wasn't a hero, it was stupid of her.
What if a Teacher would have done that in class? Would that be ok?
What about seperation of church and state?