Mothers in prison record books for th...

Mothers in prison record books for their children

There are 208 comments on the The Columbus Dispatch story from Dec 9, 2013, titled Mothers in prison record books for their children. In it, The Columbus Dispatch reports that:

Inmate Amber Short records a story for her children. The recording will be copied onto a CD and sent to her children, allowing them to listen to their mother read to them even as she serves her sentence at the Ohio Reformatory for Women.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Columbus Dispatch.

Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#106 Dec 13, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You answered your own question, it just took you a little while. Your last two posts are why people like you aren't able to just read the plain English of the constitution and understand what it means.
Counselor...exactly where does the Constitution discuss Child bearing?

you say I can't read, but you have had 3 days to prove me wrong, and have not remotely accomplished anything that would even question a belief of thinking the Constitution does.

because you are stupid....the same argument you posed yesterday saying the Constitution does explain childbirth, if used replacing the word BIRTH with ABORTION, makes abortion illegal by your own example.

it is no wonder you never argued before a judge, because a measly salesperson would mop the floor of you.

go troll under the bridge where you belong.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#107 Dec 13, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
Counselor...exactly where does the Constitution discuss Child bearing?
you say I can't read, but you have had 3 days to prove me wrong, and have not remotely accomplished anything that would even question a belief of thinking the Constitution does.
because you are stupid....the same argument you posed yesterday saying the Constitution does explain childbirth, if used replacing the word BIRTH with ABORTION, makes abortion illegal by your own example.
it is no wonder you never argued before a judge, because a measly salesperson would mop the floor of you.
go troll under the bridge where you belong.
There is nothing more amusing than an insufferably stupid person who thinks he is extraordinarily smart.
Realty Speaks

Columbus, OH

#108 Dec 13, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing more amusing than an insufferably stupid person who thinks he is extraordinarily smart.
you should know

I asked a specific question, and for days you dance around it, and never answer.

you are the poser, and the one in my rear view mirror.

show me how smart you are, and answer my question
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#109 Dec 13, 2013
Realty Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you should know
I asked a specific question, and for days you dance around it, and never answer.
you are the poser, and the one in my rear view mirror.
show me how smart you are, and answer my question
Walter, your question has been answered by Duke and me. You even answered it without realizing it. It's sadly amusing that you aren't bright enough to understand.
Realty Speaks

Columbus, OH

#110 Dec 13, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Walter, your question has been answered by Duke and me. You even answered it without realizing it. It's sadly amusing that you aren't bright enough to understand.
it was not answered....you provided some pencil heads opinion.

useless garbage was your proof.

I can read exactly what the Constitution says. I have 18 years of education, and 50 years reading experience.

Only those whom bill by the hour blurr the lines so they can keep billing.

Try something productive in lieu of leeching. Go sell something, and not confiscate by fear.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#111 Dec 13, 2013
Realty Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
it was not answered....you provided some pencil heads opinion.
useless garbage was your proof.
I can read exactly what the Constitution says. I have 18 years of education, and 50 years reading experience.
Only those whom bill by the hour blurr the lines so they can keep billing.
Try something productive in lieu of leeching. Go sell something, and not confiscate by fear.
Ummm.. I kind of hate to bring this up, but just the other day you were crowing about billing a group of attorneys $500 and hour for your time.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#112 Dec 13, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm...none of that is the least bit relevant to the original question about the fundamental rights to procreate and parent.
Bubba likes to pretend that those rights don't exist in America.
He is quite mistaken.
woof
Um, Bubba? No one here I know named Bubba.

Meow.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#113 Dec 13, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Are you going to stay on the subject? That's a no too.
I have been. Do you place the rights of an animal above that of a human fetus? That's a yes, too.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#114 Dec 13, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been. Do you place the rights of an animal above that of a human fetus? That's a yes, too.
For those not smart enough to understand (that's you), the discussion was about whether there is a constitutional right to a parent/child relationship. Try to keep up.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#115 Dec 13, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
For those not smart enough to understand (that's you), the discussion was about whether there is a constitutional right to a parent/child relationship. Try to keep up.
For those who lack social skills and lie about their professions (that's you), there is a fundamental human right to a parent/child relationship and I do believe the Constitution would be silent on that matter because it is *assumed*-- no one can interfere or break into that relationship without cause. You cannot order a breakup of a natural parent/child or adoptive parent/child relationship unless you can prove it destructive or harmful to the minor child. A parent/child relationship is a natural one.

I'd bet you would argue that gays have the Constitutional right to a marital relationship but you'd argue that there is no Constitutional right to a parent/child relationship?

God you're an ass. Change your login name to Grinch and eat that sauerkraut sandwich with arsenic sauce.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#116 Dec 14, 2013
Jesus wept, this thread is even stupider than usual. Which just boggles the mind. You've got folks suggesting that constitutional rights are limited to those explicitly spelled out in the body of the text, which...just....wow.

I can't tell if it's the grey winter light, last night's cider or simply the actual lack of awareness demonstrated here but the end effect is that this level of stupidity makes me very sad.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#117 Dec 14, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
For those who lack social skills and lie about their professions (that's you), there is a fundamental human right to a parent/child relationship and I do believe the Constitution would be silent on that matter because it is *assumed*-- no one can interfere or break into that relationship without cause. You cannot order a breakup of a natural parent/child or adoptive parent/child relationship unless you can prove it destructive or harmful to the minor child. A parent/child relationship is a natural one.
I'd bet you would argue that gays have the Constitutional right to a marital relationship but you'd argue that there is no Constitutional right to a parent/child relationship?
God you're an ass. Change your login name to Grinch and eat that sauerkraut sandwich with arsenic sauce.
If you pop back through this thread you'll find Che and Duke citing the amendments which help make up what courts have interpreted as constitutional parental and family protections. They seem to agree with your less informed but still correct assumption that there exists a core set of family centered rights supported by the constitution.

I'm not really sure why you think they're disagreeing with your position, unless you've failed to understand what's been written?
Duke for Mayor

United States

#118 Dec 14, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
Jesus wept, this thread is even stupider than usual. Which just boggles the mind. You've got folks suggesting that constitutional rights are limited to those explicitly spelled out in the body of the text, which...just....wow.
I can't tell if it's the grey winter light, last night's cider or simply the actual lack of awareness demonstrated here but the end effect is that this level of stupidity makes me very sad.
Don't let it sadden you. Rejoice and give thanks that you are not one of them. Thank your parents, your teachers, and fortuity for providing you an avenue which enabled you to escape such a fate.

woof
Duke for Mayor

United States

#119 Dec 14, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
If you pop back through this thread you'll find Che and Duke citing the amendments which help make up what courts have interpreted as constitutional parental and family protections. They seem to agree with your less informed but still correct assumption that there exists a core set of family centered rights supported by the constitution.
I'm not really sure why you think they're disagreeing with your position, unless you've failed to understand what's been written?
It is very simple.

She believes that Che and I are "liberals". Perhaps we each are. But that simple fact causes her to be unable to observe issues and areas of agreement and common ground.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#120 Dec 14, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
For those who lack social skills and lie about their professions (that's you), there is a fundamental human right to a parent/child relationship and I do believe the Constitution would be silent on that matter because it is *assumed*-- no one can interfere or break into that relationship without cause. You cannot order a breakup of a natural parent/child or adoptive parent/child relationship unless you can prove it destructive or harmful to the minor child. A parent/child relationship is a natural one.
I'd bet you would argue that gays have the Constitutional right to a marital relationship but you'd argue that there is no Constitutional right to a parent/child relationship?
God you're an ass. Change your login name to Grinch and eat that sauerkraut sandwich with arsenic sauce.
I love it when you lecture me about something I never suggested. It shows how incredibly obsessed you are with the prospect of proving me wrong about something. It also makes you look really, really stupid.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#121 Dec 14, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
where in the constitution is child birth covered?
my copy must be missing pages?
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. And those things are just what it says, not what certain Conservative talkers want them to mean. Having children covers ALL THREE, or would you disagree?

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#122 Dec 14, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, do re-print all the vile from your crap-laden mouth on your annual Christmas letter you send to your family. I'm sure that they'll laugh as they swing from the trees.
My existence began when I was conceived, I believe. I carried four kids, and I can attest they responded to stimuli well before they were born. One knew when the alarm going off--bugger would kick my gut and kidneys. Tell me that ain't a sentient human...
The male and female gametes comes together within 3 weeks from the time of male ejaculation. When the spermazota penetrates the female ovum, a zygote is formed. This process is called CONCEPTION, and at this stage no child is formed yet. The zygote still has to DIVIDE into several stages. So technically, it is not a child it's CONCEPTION. You weren't' alive' at this point.

What of the other millions of spermazota? Aren't those" living" microscopic entities wiggling around aimlessly, waiting to die and douched out at a later time (hopefully within 30 minutes after sex). The "life" of mankind are carried in the balls! Every ejaculation is premeditated murder that'll get you eternity in Hell. Isn't that right, my Catholic friends!

You have FOUR kids...DAAAAAMN, your ex was given you the business for real.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#123 Dec 14, 2013
wiseAfricanAmerican wrote:
<quoted text>The male and female gametes comes together within 3 weeks from the time of male ejaculation. When the spermazota penetrates the female ovum, a zygote is formed. This process is called CONCEPTION, and at this stage no child is formed yet. The zygote still has to DIVIDE into several stages. So technically, it is not a child it's CONCEPTION. You weren't' alive' at this point.
What of the other millions of spermazota? Aren't those" living" microscopic entities wiggling around aimlessly, waiting to die and douched out at a later time (hopefully within 30 minutes after sex). The "life" of mankind are carried in the balls! Every ejaculation is premeditated murder that'll get you eternity in Hell. Isn't that right, my Catholic friends!
I don't have a problem with the argument of premeditated murder, in fact that is actually funny in my view. I sorta look at that as nature's problem. No control over it.

I have always had that "grey" area of a question you are referring to. However, it is still "alive"--a series of cells, dividing and replicating, each with specific DNA codes. When then do you technically then decide that is a "fetus" or a "child?" Week 3: brain and spinal cord development begins. Week 4: Heart is beating. Week 5: Brain development kicks in big time, it is beginning to specialize in the various parts (frontal lobes, etc.). Week 6: Brain wave activity has been recorded in fetuses (or whatever you care to refer to it).

So.... doesn't this all sort of beg the question since there really is no hard and fast dividing line for any of these terms that are tossed about--"personhood," "fetus," etc.? Conception only starts the process, and isn't it "alive" at conception. Dead things do not have cellular division...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#124 Dec 14, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let it sadden you. Rejoice and give thanks that you are not one of them. Thank your parents, your teachers, and fortuity for providing you an avenue which enabled you to escape such a fate.
woof
Your fate is one which I am happy to have avoided. Who ever said this was just a discussion of liberals vs. conservatives? I don't always agree with the "conservatives"--as you would define them. In fact, I hate most politicians and think the overwhelming majority of them are self-centered, self-serving jackasses.

Can't be happy unless it it's a black-and-white argument full of conflict? Reflects a tortured soul I think, can't accept another point of view.

“Zuzu's Petals”

Since: Sep 10

Bedford Falls

#125 Dec 14, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus probably was conceived with the use of a turkey baster.
How else could it possibly have happened?
woof
Can't you read?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
America Held Hostage Day 35 2 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 7
High Crimes and Misdemeanors 11 min Pope Che Reagan C... 117
What is happening in Sweden? 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 104
The Arrogant Donald Trump (Sep '15) 1 hr BizzyBee 267
Keeps pushing and pushing.... 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 190
Narcissistic Behavior FYI 1 hr every troll here ... 8
Who is the Biggest Liar? 1 hr Colonel Pale Rider 1 104

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages