So the parents are choosing to create multiple lives and then continually doing so. That is until their specific criteria are met.
I have never tried to deny someone their own child. Do you know something about doing that to others?
This looks just like the straw man BC spoke of earlier. The richest part, you presume to know Christ would kiss the children on the head? Like he wouldn’t love every single one completely. So which child would He kiss on the head? The children created via in vitro? Yeah, I know gratification is important to American’s as a whole. Especially the instant methods.
You have never once told me how adoption is a poor choice for those who struggle or fail to conceive naturally. We can even go with a better option, show me how life does NOT begin at the moment of conception.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The baby wouldn’t exist at all if the woman didn’t have IVF. There would be no child at all.
To deny someone their own child…
Didn’t Jesus excoriate the Jews because they made the rules more important than the people? I think Jesus would give the baby a hug, kiss the baby on head, and tell all the hidebound stodgy old priests to go re-read His teachings.
[/quote]
“The Committee on Medical Ethics of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York concluded that a fertilized egg not in the womb, but in an environment–the test tube–in which it can never attain viability, does not have humanhood and may be discarded or used for the advancement of scientific knowledge.”
[quote]Herx, who did not teach religion, "was not required to complete any training or education in the Catholic faith as a part of her employment," she says in the complaint.
…
Shen she told her principal about the treatment, she says, the principal told her, "You are in my prayers." She says [b]the principal did not object when she scheduled days off for her in vitro fertilization treatment[/b].
…
But more than a year later, after requesting time off for [b]a second round of IVF treatment[/b], she says, she was told to meet with Msgr. John Kuzmich, pastor of the St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Fort Wayne.
Herx says that Kuzmich told her at the meeting [b]"that another teacher had complained that Herx and her husband were undergoing IVF treatment."[/b][/quote]
Here are your pertinent points, the school was not consistent in their behavior.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“The Committee on Medical Ethics of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York concluded that a fertilized egg not in the womb, but in an environment–the test tube–in which it can never attain viability, does not have humanhood and may be discarded or used for the advancement of scientific knowledge.”
And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.
So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?[/quote]
Oh brother. The problem is the farming of embryos. Making and disguarding embryos is tantamount to abortion. That’s the problem. [/quote]
Problem for whom? An embryo is most definitely NOT a person, or life.
[/quote]
Soooo, what is it? A dead lizard? Science disagrees with you. Science says it’s both human and alive. I think you’ll have a hard case proving it’s neither.[/quote]
Living human tissue is living human tissue, not life.
Dead lizard? Seriously…WTF?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Yes, this teacher’s firing was totally warranted. It’s a disgusting practice that is morally abhorrent and should be banned all together.[/quote]
Then by all means, I would encourage you to never participate in the process then. But a hearty “fuck you” to those like yourselves who would push their personal religious views on the masses. Don’t like IVF? Then don’t participate; easy enough.
[/quote]
If you were right about the embryo thing, then I would agree, but you are not so I don’t.[/quote]
Oh, but I am right, in that my belief does not equate a clump of cells to “life”.
YOUR religious belief is that the clump of cells constitutes life somehow. Whatever, that’s your thing, you have the freedom to believe any damn thing that you want regardless of what I think of your belief. You don’t however, have the freedom to enforce your religious beliefs on others. Capeesh?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I know this doesn’t make sense to you, but we value human life, where as human life is about as valuable to you as getting gum stuck to your shoe. So I am not surprised you don’t get it.[/quote]
ORLY?
Listen, patty cakes, my 15 years as a firefighter/EMT has consistently put me knee deep in the tragedy and triumph of human life. You think you know me? You don’t know fuck all about me.
Ever deliver a baby in the bathroom of a shitty apartment or on the side of the road? My crew just last week delivered one three weeks ago; it was my second in the field delivery. Kid was a real screamer.
Ever do unsuccessful CPR on a three month old, and have to tell the mom that her kid is dead only to have her wail and clutch at your arm to please keep trying even though the child is dead? That was my reality. (by the way, she prayed her ASS off the entire time. food for thought)
Ever hand dig a ten year old out of the side of the sand hill he was buried alive in? Have to walk around for years seeing flashes of his face and the dirt in his teeth from trying to get a tube past all the dirt that was packed into his throat? That’s what I seen for a few years after that one.
Ever cut down a woman who hung herself in her bedroom? listen to her teenage daughter cry her eyes out and pray to god that she not die? Your god wasn’t listening that time either apparently.
Ever have a successful CPR save? Go into their house, find them with no pulse, do your job well, and have them come see you at the fire station some time later to say thanks? You think to yourself, “Damn, I knew that guy when he was dead!”
Don’t lecture me on what I do or do not know about human “life”. I’ve seen more than my share of tragedy and triumph in the arena of “life”, patty cakes. That dog’s not gonna hunt.
[/quote]
I really didn’t need your resume. I don’t give a shit what you do for a living. Don’t be so touchy. I am merely stating that we regard the importance of life itself as the pinnacle of importance, and you value you thoughts, feelings, emotions and economics over human life so long as it’s not visible to you. That is unless you are suddenly pro-life. Which I doubt.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with my resume, it has everything do do with you running your suck recklessly and telling me what I do or do not value. The above is me pointing out that you have no clue about what I really value, and that you once again screwed the pooch. Just because I don’t think a clump of tissue equals life, doesn’t mean that I have no regard for life. Get it?
I value life just as much, and possibly more than, the average person. Believing that a clump of living tissue constitutes life is your thing, not mine. A clump of living tissue, IMHO, does NOT constitue life. If my wife and I ever had needed IVF, and made a personal family decision to pursue that, then it’s none of your fucking business. Period. End of story.
Wouldn’t it be super duper if you could just keep your shitty religion to yourself, and not try and force it down the throats of those who don’t share your beliefs?
There’s a thought…
[/quote]
It’s not a religious belief ding-a-ling, it’s a scientific fact. By admitting at least that its a ‘clump of cells’ you at least admit it’s alive. So now we’re at a ‘living clump of cells’. So now you argue that this living clump of cells, fair enough. So are you, just a bigger clump. So now, is this living clump of cells human or not?[/quote]
Scientific fact? No kidding.
Tell me, does the embryo have a vital function of any kind? NO, it doesn’t. It has no structure other than cellular. No brain, no nervous system, no heart beat; nothing. No life. Just a clump of cells. Now, does this clump of cells have the potential for life? Possibly, but that’s debatable as well, now isn’t it. Is a blank sheet of paper a potential drawing?
And I didn’t “arrive there”, dumb ass. A clump of cells is not life. But I’ll restate what I’ve said before; believing that a clump of cells constitutes “life”, is your thing. Have at it, you’re free to do so. But in doing so you’re invoking a religiously driven philosophy that’s personal to YOU.
[quote]pat wrote:
You’re the one arguing religion around here. I am arguing on the basis that IVF creates embryos with the explicit knowledge that most of them will be discarded and that is an immoral act. I don’t need religion at all to make my case.
Further, this is another religiously themed post started by an atheist, again. Seems to me atheists are more interested in religion than theists are.[/quote]
Again I’ll restate, if it’s an immoral act for you to discard living human tissue, than don’t participate. But you quite obviously DO need religion to hold your opinion on whether or not an eight cell clump is “life”.
[quote]nocturnus wrote:
Aaaahhh, the Catholic Church - where birth control and IVF make you a ‘grave, immoral sinner’ but abusing kids and covering it up is acceptable.
Strange set of rules.[/quote]
You got that right.
[/quote]
Don’t worry, your record is safe. Atheists have murdered over 300 million in the 20th century alone. Nobody is going to beat that record anytime soon. And according to nocturnus, if a few people belonging to a group do a bad thing, it is automatically acceptable by that group. Ergo, in that model, atheists murdering non-atheists is acceptable to atheists. Just like abusing kids is acceptable to Catholics. [/quote]
Ah yes, the old meme of “atheists killing in the name of no god”. LOL…yea
Glad you dragged this out, I’ll have a chance to address it later.[/quote]
Go nuts.[/quote]
On second thought, this old meme is so tired and fallacious that it’s really not worth the time. I do believe that a face palm is in order though, as a tribute to such a classically shit stupid line of reasoning.
And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.
So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?[/quote]
Oh brother. The problem is the farming of embryos. Making and disguarding embryos is tantamount to abortion. That’s the problem. [/quote]
Problem for whom? An embryo is most definitely NOT a person, or life.
[/quote]
Soooo, what is it? A dead lizard? Science disagrees with you. Science says it’s both human and alive. I think you’ll have a hard case proving it’s neither.[/quote]
Living human tissue is living human tissue, not life.
Dead lizard? Seriously…WTF?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Yes, this teacher’s firing was totally warranted. It’s a disgusting practice that is morally abhorrent and should be banned all together.[/quote]
Then by all means, I would encourage you to never participate in the process then. But a hearty “fuck you” to those like yourselves who would push their personal religious views on the masses. Don’t like IVF? Then don’t participate; easy enough.
[/quote]
If you were right about the embryo thing, then I would agree, but you are not so I don’t.[/quote]
Oh, but I am right, in that my belief does not equate a clump of cells to “life”.
YOUR religious belief is that the clump of cells constitutes life somehow. Whatever, that’s your thing, you have the freedom to believe any damn thing that you want regardless of what I think of your belief. You don’t however, have the freedom to enforce your religious beliefs on others. Capeesh?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I know this doesn’t make sense to you, but we value human life, where as human life is about as valuable to you as getting gum stuck to your shoe. So I am not surprised you don’t get it.[/quote]
ORLY?
Listen, patty cakes, my 15 years as a firefighter/EMT has consistently put me knee deep in the tragedy and triumph of human life. You think you know me? You don’t know fuck all about me.
Ever deliver a baby in the bathroom of a shitty apartment or on the side of the road? My crew just last week delivered one three weeks ago; it was my second in the field delivery. Kid was a real screamer.
Ever do unsuccessful CPR on a three month old, and have to tell the mom that her kid is dead only to have her wail and clutch at your arm to please keep trying even though the child is dead? That was my reality. (by the way, she prayed her ASS off the entire time. food for thought)
Ever hand dig a ten year old out of the side of the sand hill he was buried alive in? Have to walk around for years seeing flashes of his face and the dirt in his teeth from trying to get a tube past all the dirt that was packed into his throat? That’s what I seen for a few years after that one.
Ever cut down a woman who hung herself in her bedroom? listen to her teenage daughter cry her eyes out and pray to god that she not die? Your god wasn’t listening that time either apparently.
Ever have a successful CPR save? Go into their house, find them with no pulse, do your job well, and have them come see you at the fire station some time later to say thanks? You think to yourself, “Damn, I knew that guy when he was dead!”
Don’t lecture me on what I do or do not know about human “life”. I’ve seen more than my share of tragedy and triumph in the arena of “life”, patty cakes. That dog’s not gonna hunt.
[/quote]
I really didn’t need your resume. I don’t give a shit what you do for a living. Don’t be so touchy. I am merely stating that we regard the importance of life itself as the pinnacle of importance, and you value you thoughts, feelings, emotions and economics over human life so long as it’s not visible to you. That is unless you are suddenly pro-life. Which I doubt.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with my resume, it has everything do do with you running your suck recklessly and telling me what I do or do not value. The above is me pointing out that you have no clue about what I really value, and that you once again screwed the pooch. Just because I don’t think a clump of tissue equals life, doesn’t mean that I have no regard for life. Get it?
I value life just as much, and possibly more than, the average person. Believing that a clump of living tissue constitutes life is your thing, not mine. A clump of living tissue, IMHO, does NOT constitue life. If my wife and I ever had needed IVF, and made a personal family decision to pursue that, then it’s none of your fucking business. Period. End of story.
Wouldn’t it be super duper if you could just keep your shitty religion to yourself, and not try and force it down the throats of those who don’t share your beliefs?
There’s a thought…
[/quote]
It’s not a religious belief ding-a-ling, it’s a scientific fact. By admitting at least that its a ‘clump of cells’ you at least admit it’s alive. So now we’re at a ‘living clump of cells’. So now you argue that this living clump of cells, fair enough. So are you, just a bigger clump. So now, is this living clump of cells human or not?[/quote]
Scientific fact? No kidding.
Tell me, does the embryo have a vital function of any kind? NO, it doesn’t. It has no structure other than cellular. No brain, no nervous system, no heart beat; nothing. No life. Just a clump of cells. Now, does this clump of cells have the potential for life? Possibly, but that’s debatable as well, now isn’t it. Is a blank sheet of paper a potential drawing?
[/quote]
So you judge life by whether it’s functional? huh? No, life? LOL! so it’s a bunch of dead cells?
Okay, so this clump of cells, is not life, and may possibly be a potential for life?? Ha! That’s a good one, I thought you were being serious! Oh. You were?
K, this cell clump are are not only alive, but are also human. Not in part, in total. Everything a person is, is in those cells.
A blank sheet? Not hardly, the DNA structure in those cells have already every physical feature of that person from then until death.
There is nothing that is present in you current physical condition, that wasn’t already ‘decided’ at this clump of cells stage.
First that’s a red herring. You’re trying to submit my claim is wrong, not because the claim itself is wrong, but your perception that it’s all driven by religion. So therefore, you posit, I must be wrong, because the facts presented are religious in nature and not based in anything other. I can simply retort that your refusal to see things as they actually are is colored by your religious sensibilities. Choosing to be an atheist is a religious decision. You’re wrong on both counts.
I believe that the ‘clump of cells’ as you call it, is not only actually living, but is a human life. That has nothing to do with religion. It’s simply a fact. That ‘clump of cells’ is either a human life, or it’s not.
We can play the link game and I can supporting this fact, from a purely scientific stand point.
Here is one, it’s quick and easy, short and to the point and nary a single mention of anything religious.
LOL! an 8 cell human zygote isn’t alive?.. So is it like a dead animal where the thing was alive but died? Or is it more like an inanimate object, say like a rock? Or is it more like a virus, that technically is not truly alive until it bores into host cells that they then destroy and replicate themselves from?
And technically yes, your whole self is one giant tissue.
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[/quote]
I have lost track of how many times I have said this: If the Catholic church wants to hire lay people, especially non-Catholics, to work for their businesses in the US, then they have to follow US laws on the matter. If the Catholic church, or any other one, does not want to do that then do not operate a business in the US. The law requires contracts to be specific and do not allow employers to arbitrarily decide when and where to apply general clauses that are in employee contracts. In this case it means either not renewing any contracts of any people who violate any catholic tenants or morals like the contracts state or you have to be specific about which morals and tenants have to be followed and which do not, and fully inform employees about those requirements.
[/quote]
So what laws where broken in this case?
Second, I read a little more into it, she has no case. She wasn’t ‘fired’, the just chose not to renew her contract.
Each institution can and do make their own rules about their work place. Further they do have based rules of conduct that apply everywhere especially if they reflect back on the institution itself which this case would. For instance, if you went on twitter and facebook and bashed the people you work for, and the institution you work for and did it repeatedly, chances are, you’re going to get canned. Even if you did it after work. I am not comparing the case to bad mouthing folks on twitter, I am illustrating that you can get shit canned because of thing you do outside of work.
It’s not a secret that IVF is in the same league as abortion as is considered by the church and quite frankly most Christian churches. She can plead ignorance if she wants to, but unless the IVF folks left her totally in the dark about the process, she knew what she was doing and she knows fertilizing eggs and then disguarding them is a big no-no.
Of course in typical fashion, the news media takes only her side of the story, and puts it out there as if it were facts from both sides.
[quote]nocturnus wrote:
Aaaahhh, the Catholic Church - where birth control and IVF make you a ‘grave, immoral sinner’ but abusing kids and covering it up is acceptable.
Strange set of rules.[/quote]
You got that right.
[/quote]
Don’t worry, your record is safe. Atheists have murdered over 300 million in the 20th century alone. Nobody is going to beat that record anytime soon. And according to nocturnus, if a few people belonging to a group do a bad thing, it is automatically acceptable by that group. Ergo, in that model, atheists murdering non-atheists is acceptable to atheists. Just like abusing kids is acceptable to Catholics. [/quote]
Ah yes, the old meme of “atheists killing in the name of no god”. LOL…yea
Glad you dragged this out, I’ll have a chance to address it later.[/quote]
Go nuts.[/quote]
On second thought, this old meme is so tired and fallacious that it’s really not worth the time. I do believe that a face palm is in order though, as a tribute to such a classically shit stupid line of reasoning.
[/quote]
Good boy!
It goes both ways you know. You do realize you started this ‘classic shit line’ of reasoning? I was just happy to play along, like I said I have good documentation.
We are no more for molestation than you are for mass murder. But if you say we are for molestation, than I will say you are for mass murder.
[quote]nocturnus wrote:
Aaaahhh, the Catholic Church - where birth control and IVF make you a ‘grave, immoral sinner’ but abusing kids and covering it up is acceptable.
Strange set of rules.[/quote]
Where is it acceptable? So by this rational, if people who belongs to a organization does something wrong, then by default, that action is acceptable to that organization? That’s an interesting slippery slope…[/quote]
Pat- When there is such a large and on going scandal with catholic priests molesting and raping young boys, and a history of the catholic church being complicit in such case. Then yes I believe it is, acceptable to believe that the church then accepts such behavior from their clergy.
Also Pat, you are the epitome of the ignorance and stupidity that the catholic religion propagates in its followers. From your arogant comment about fixing all the immorality that people who are not religious commit to your blind faith and support of child molestors. In actuality Religion has been the cause of many of the most horrendous acts in our past. Below I have linked a top 10 list of the horrible shit religions have brought to us. Pardon me if I do not thank you for your contributions to society, they are not what you have been brainwashed into believing they are.
Actually, it’s no higher than other clergy. And apparently MUCH lower than the secular public school system.
[i]Consider the statistics: In accordance with a requirement of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system.
Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.
“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
So, in order to better protect children, did media outlets start hounding the worse menace of the school systems, with headlines about a “Nationwide Teacher Molestation Cover-up” and by asking “Are Ed Schools Producing Pedophiles?”
No, they didn’t. That treatment was reserved for the Catholic Church, while the greater problem in the schools was ignored altogether.
As the National Catholic Register’s reporter Wayne Laugesen points out, the federal report said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation ? a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.
Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger ? and ongoing ? abuse scandal in public schools.[/i] http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1933687.html
Underlined the last tidbit to highlight the unprofessional conduct of the general media. 4 stories about a far larger scandal. 4. Don’t even try to suggest there wasn’t a conscious effort to selectively protect on one hand, and demolish on the other.
“The media have left many with the impression that sexual abuse is a Catholic problem ? as if Catholic beliefs and customs make sex abuse inevitable. Church teaching for its part is clear: Sexual abuse of minors is always wrong. A more likely culprit would be a non-religious ambivalence about the pedophilia, as seen, for instance, in the media’s refusal to broaden its scope to include teachers when considering the issue.”
My favorite part is the part where they say the “more likely culprit is non-religious ambivalence” because it could definitely not be the fact that the catholic church knew about what had happened and instead of helping their followers they decided to cover it up to save face, which consequently allowed the molestation of thousands of other children.
That article is nothing, if not a catholic reporter trying to defend the fact that the catholic church is only molesting its fair share. And they only molest a fraction of the kids that the californis school system molest. Oh that reminds me your numbers are extremely misleading, “422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation ? a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.” Yes there are more public school students then catholic ones, but how many of those public school students will be molested by their catholic clergy and attend catholic services where they would be in contact with catholic clergymen? The children molested by the catholic clergy do not necessarily attend a catholic school. So the whole article is a self serving catholic publication with skewed numbers, used to make their molestation of children and the subsequent cover up seem like not such a big deal.
The author Tom Hoopes writes for a catholic newspaper and the article you quote is from the opinion section of CBS if I am reading that right. As I searched him online I found that all he writes is catholic propaganda articles.
Thanks for putting some effort into citing an article, I appreciate that. But, you will need to find something more respectable then this skewed POS.
And just for fun a top ten list of the good moral things the catholic church has done in its past to keep power and some of the people who got killed for being in the way.
[quote]WW3General wrote:
“The media have left many with the impression that sexual abuse is a Catholic problem ? as if Catholic beliefs and customs make sex abuse inevitable. Church teaching for its part is clear: Sexual abuse of minors is always wrong. A more likely culprit would be a non-religious ambivalence about the pedophilia, as seen, for instance, in the media’s refusal to broaden its scope to include teachers when considering the issue.”
My favorite part is the part where they say the “more likely culprit is non-religious ambivalence” because it could definitely not be the fact that the catholic church knew about what had happened and instead of helping their followers they decided to cover it up to save face, which consequently allowed the molestation of thousands of other children.
That article is nothing, if not a catholic reporter trying to defend the fact that the catholic church is only molesting its fair share. And they only molest a fraction of the kids that the californis school system molest. Oh that reminds me your numbers are extremely misleading, “422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation ? a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.” Yes there are more public school students then catholic ones, but how many of those public school students will be molested by their catholic clergy and attend catholic services where they would be in contact with catholic clergymen? The children molested by the catholic clergy do not necessarily attend a catholic school. So the whole article is a self serving catholic publication with skewed numbers, used to make their molestation of children and the subsequent cover up seem like not such a big deal.
The author Tom Hoopes writes for a catholic newspaper and the article you quote is from the opinion section of CBS if I am reading that right. As I searched him online I found that all he writes is catholic propaganda articles.
Thanks for putting some effort into citing an article, I appreciate that. But, you will need to find something more respectable then this skewed POS.
And just for fun a top ten list of the good moral things the catholic church has done in its past to keep power and some of the people who got killed for being in the way.
“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
These aren’t the words of the author of the article. Those are the words of the researcher, Charol Shakeshaft, tasked by the Department of Education to look into the issue.
And just for fun a top ten list of the good moral things the catholic church has done in its past to keep power and some of the people who got killed for being in the way.
…While no central authority tracks the number of teachers accused of molesting in one jurisdiction who then pick up teaching in another, Charol Shakeshaft, a professor of education administration at Hofstra University, studied 225 sexual abuse complaints against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994 and found that in only 1 percent of the cases did superintendents follow up to ensure that molesting teachers did not continue teaching elsewhere. In 54 percent, superintendents accepted the teachers’ resignations or retirements. Of the 121 teachers removed this way, administrators knew for certain that 16 percent resumed teaching in other districts…
Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.
“They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated,” says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in teacher sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University.
It’s a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames _ “passing the trash” or the “mobile molester.”
Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there’s no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore.
School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also don’t want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they don’t want to face a challenge from a strong union.
I would say the CBS opinion piece author has the evidence on his side. My question now is, why did you spend time checking on him, and not the researcher for the DoE, whose report spurred his article? Or look for similar articles from other organizations, such as the NYT? An odd order of priorities for someone concerned about sexual misconduct involving minors, no?
