Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Rico

But it's ok to stand by and say nothing when the government decides to punish innocent people because of the actions of others?

I'm not in agreement with removing children from their mothers unnecessarily, which I've already stated. I am in agreement with the state for taking some action. Unfortunately the programs in place to deal with the children and mothers is flawed at best, and that's the main source of my worries. If these kids were going into capable hands or into a community environment, which they're obviously accustomed to, with as many family members present (sisters, brothers, mothers) as possible, I wouldn't be nearly as horrified.

I'm not particularly interested in the "rights" of women who knowingly allow young women and children in their care to be coerced into marriages, pregnancy and a lifestyle they lack to capacity to freely choose, which undermines their whining about religious freedom at its core.

And I have no intention of standing by and saying nothing about what the government does. My first statement is with my vote.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't believe any are innocent that LIVE at the compound. They are endorsing the behaviour.

Sister, if you keep this up I am going to have to resurrect the HOGWASH award. Don't make me have to resort to such drastic measures!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I don't think any charges against the "spiritual marriages" will stick.

Sex with minors charges will.

Charges against the parents should stick for giving consent to underage marriage - sex to minors - yes.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rico

Sister, if you keep this up I am going to have to resurrect the HOGWASH award. Don't make me have to resort to such drastic measures!!

LOL! I'll just skip on down the street with it. It's my opinion and I am not likely to change that.

If they want to live that way then move to another state. We don't want it here!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not in agreement with removing children from their mothers unnecessarily, which I've already stated. I am in agreement with the state for taking some action. Unfortunately the programs in place to deal with the children and mothers is flawed at best, and that's the main source of my worries. If these kids were going into capable hands or into a community environment, which they're obviously accustomed to, with as many family members present (sisters, brothers, mothers) as possible, I wouldn't be nearly as horrified.

I'm not particularly interested in the "rights" of women who knowingly allow young women and children in their care to be coerced into marriages, pregnancy and a lifestyle they lack to capacity to freely choose, which undermines their whining about religious freedom at its core.

And I have no intention of standing by and saying nothing about what the government does. My first statement is with my vote.

I am for removing them from their mothers. Any women that would give their child to a perverted older man doesn't have the right to raise that child.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Yes the parents should be charged.I know Mormonism is a false religion ,but at least the big bodies of them based out of Salt Lake City have dropped the polygamy stuff.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I stand on this:

In Texas, it is a felony to have sex with a person younger than 17 if the perpetrator is more than three years older than the teen. Sex with any child younger than 14 is considered aggravated sexual assault.

"Religion appears to play little or no role in the allegations about practices at the Eldorado ranch. No religious belief held by an adult justifies any kind of child abuse. No religious belief allows an adult to have sex with an underage girl. One fear is that any children that you don't remove will be themselves abused, and the other fear is that any children you don't remove will be whisked out of the state, which both puts them at risk potentially and impedes an investigation" " Scott McCown, a former district judge.

Most of these children, like the young babies, there is no evidence whatsoever they were under any threat of being physically or sexually abused. You are removing children because 12 or 14 years down the line, they are gong to be sexually molested.

Leaving the Eldorado ranch families intact was not a viable option. Investigators found clear evidence of a pattern of sexual abuse, including 20 girls who had been impregnated between the ages of 13 and 16 and boys who were being indoctrinated to become adult perpretrators of sexual abuse.

State Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville whose district includes Eldorado, speculated that law enforcement and CPS probably had a loose plan in place. Hilderbran remembers talking to CPS officials about the ranch in 2005, when he worked to pass a bill targeted at the sect that raised the legal marriage age with parental consent from 14 to 16. The bill passed.

1. I believe but have not yet verified that the age of consent was 16 up until the community arrived and the age was changed in 2005. Will try to find out for certain later in the day.

2. Do you understand that this has been going on for generations and they are happy with their lives as they are? Do you understand that Texas leads the nation in teenage pregnancies? And every forth pregant teenager is having a second child? (A large percentage of these are adult fathers)?

3. Do we take babies from all minor mothers? What if most of the family has had teenage pregnancies for generations? What if particular areas of Texas have higher concentrations of teenage pregnancies such as hispanic communities along the border?

4. Do you understand who is pregnant right now? A seventeen year old who will be eighteen next month, a sixteen year old who is also almost 17 and finally they have counted another teenager pregnant because she refused to take the test. I don't know her age.

5. Do you understand that CPS went in and looked at more than 400 children and the most they can say about it is that they have found a pattern of abuse due to some babies being conceived to teenage mothers?

Physical abuse? No
Well fed and healthy? Remarkably so.
Tales of horror to tell? Nope not that either.

But let's traumatize every single one of them anyway. How dare they choose to marry off their daughters at the same age or older than most civlizations had done for thousands of years.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am for removing them from their mothers. Any women that would give their child to a perverted older man doesn't have the right to raise that child.

For the sake of the child, it would be best to remain in the supervised care of the mother, IMO.

Those who "gave" their children to older men should be prosecuted as much as the man. However, I think it would be in the best interest of the children to keep as many familiar faces around as possible. Even if only an older sister or brother....

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

For the sake of the child, it would be best to remain in the supervised care of the mother, IMO.

Those who "gave" their children to older men should be prosecuted as much as the man. However, I think it would be in the best interest of the children to keep as many familiar faces around as possible. Even if only an older sister or brother....

According to the law, this is what they must do. It is a bad situation, and I place that blame on the compound members and not the State of Texas.

"Religion appears to play little or no role in the allegations about practices at the Eldorado ranch. No religious belief held by an adult justifies any kind of child abuse. No religious belief allows an adult to have sex with an underage girl. One fear is that any children that you don't remove will be themselves abused, and the other fear is that any children you don't remove will be whisked out of the state, which both puts them at risk potentially and impedes an investigation" " Scott McCown, a former district judge.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Newman

1. I believe but have not yet verified that the age of consent was 16 up until the community arrived and the age was changed in 2005. Will try to find out for certain later in the day.

2. Do you understand that this has been going on for generations and they are happy with their lives as they are? Do you understand that Texas leads the nation in teenage pregnancies? And every forth pregant teenager is having a second child? (A large percentage of these are adult fathers)?

3. Do we take babies from all minor mothers? What if most of the family has had teenage pregnancies for generations? What if particular areas of Texas have higher concentrations of teenage pregnancies such as hispanic communities along the border?

4. Do you understand who is pregnant right now? A seventeen year old who will be eighteen next month, a sixteen year old who is also almost 17 and finally they have counted another teenager pregnant because she refused to take the test. I don't know her age.

5. Do you understand that CPS went in and looked at more than 400 children and the most they can say about it is that they have found a pattern of abuse due to some babies being conceived to teenage mothers?

Physical abuse? No
Well fed and healthy? Remarkably so.
Tales of horror to tell? Nope not that either.

But let's traumatize every single one of them anyway. How dare they choose to marry off their daughters at the same age or older than most civlizations had done for thousands of years.

Thousands of years ago doesn't apply to our law now.

I am on the authorities side on this one.

"Religion appears to play little or no role in the allegations about practices at the Eldorado ranch. No religious belief held by an adult justifies any kind of child abuse. No religious belief allows an adult to have sex with an underage girl. One fear is that any children that you don't remove will be themselves abused, and the other fear is that any children you don't remove will be whisked out of the state, which both puts them at risk potentially and impedes an investigation" " Scott McCown, a former district judge.