You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #23: yes, out of 47 women [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-24-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. yes, out of 47 women
who were still staying with children, **40** chose not to return to Rancho El Molesto.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

the longer they stay away from Predator Central, the more they are able to make their own decisions. wonderful news!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -30 pregnancies/babies among FLDS teens -- out of 77 children under 2 overall. pnwmom  Apr-24-08 05:53 PM   #0 
  - problems in that joint....sure....  MichiganVote   Apr-24-08 06:04 PM   #1 
  - Well, that makes a MINIMUM of 30 counts of statutory rape so far.  kestrel91316   Apr-24-08 06:14 PM   #2 
  - I doubt that those men will submit DNA. This is going to be an incredibly  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 06:23 PM   #4 
  - I've said before that the men won't submit to testing. I'll bet the worst offenders are in hiding.  Diane R   Apr-24-08 06:34 PM   #9 
  - How long until DU's "FLDS Apologist Squad" shows up to mire this thread in their BS?  dicksteele   Apr-24-08 06:18 PM   #3 
  - I edited the OP to compare the numbers of underage mothers  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 06:24 PM   #5 
  - I wonder who it will be today? They seem to rotate in and out on about  kestrel91316   Apr-24-08 06:28 PM   #7 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Apr-24-08 11:07 PM   #60 
  - 8:11. You definitely win.  riderinthestorm   Apr-24-08 07:14 PM   #17 
  - No joy in that victory.  dicksteele   Apr-24-08 10:25 PM   #48 
  - you were off by only minutes.  uppityperson   Apr-24-08 11:14 PM   #62 
     - Must be getting close to the night of the half-moon.  dicksteele   Apr-25-08 12:25 AM   #86 
  - Or...some are lying  Xithras   Apr-24-08 06:28 PM   #6 
  - They have less motivation than otherwise  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 06:32 PM   #8 
     - Perhaps, perhaps not. If they claimed to be 17, no laws would be broken.  Xithras   Apr-24-08 06:47 PM   #11 
        - Age of consent is a different issue. If they falsely claimed to be under 18,  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 06:56 PM   #12 
        - Well, maybe they can't figure all of this out, being raised in isolation  lizzy   Apr-24-08 07:11 PM   #15 
        - If the state knew the underage mother was lying to protect a serial rapist --  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 07:14 PM   #16 
           - Isn't the state claiming it wants to protect the children?  lizzy   Apr-24-08 07:15 PM   #18 
              - You were asking about OTHER cases, not this one.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 07:16 PM   #19 
              - Yey, they are being liberated, I suppose.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 07:18 PM   #20 
                 - How are they being punished? Which women are you talking about?  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 07:22 PM   #21 
                 - I am thinking that taking someone's children is punishment.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 07:31 PM   #24 
                 - They were taken to investigate child abuse, not to punish the women.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 09:34 PM   #38 
                    - Well, of course it punishes the women to have their children taken.  High Plains   Apr-24-08 11:05 PM   #59 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-08 11:15 PM   #63 
                       - Wondering where gandalf is. nt  uppityperson   Apr-24-08 11:23 PM   #66 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-08 11:26 PM   #69 
                       - I'll say 2 things. 1: Using children as sex slaves is a BAD THING. 2: You should stop defending it.  dicksteele   Apr-25-08 12:10 AM   #84 
                          - Simple and clear.  pnwmom   Apr-25-08 01:18 AM   #96 
                             - Well, it seems pretty simple and clear to me. And to you, and to 99% of EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.  dicksteele   Apr-25-08 02:38 AM   #105 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-08 11:42 PM   #76 
                          - "shut the fuck up unless you can contribute something."? bwahahahhahaha  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 12:41 AM   #88 
                       - And it punishes children to be living with people who ban laughter.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 11:41 PM   #75 
                       - Not everything that makes someone feel bad is a punishment  gollygee   Apr-25-08 07:01 AM   #106 
                 - Why didn't they remove the men? Instead of...  vanlassie   Apr-24-08 11:02 PM   #57 
                    - The psychologists felt that it would be easier to work with the  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 11:48 PM   #79 
                    - Also the women would have just taken the kids and ran to one of the other compounds  Marrah_G   Apr-26-08 10:31 AM   #118 
                 - Because as you damn well know, there are other allegations  riderinthestorm   Apr-24-08 07:22 PM   #22 
                    - No, I don't know of any welfare fraud allegations or any other  lizzy   Apr-24-08 07:32 PM   #25 
                       - It's obvious you haven't followed anyone's links showing you what's going on  riderinthestorm   Apr-24-08 07:45 PM   #26 
                       - Isn't the standard of CPS that people should get individual hearings?  lizzy   Apr-24-08 07:56 PM   #27 
                          - If you had bothered to read anyone's links, you'd know that they ARE getting individual hearings  riderinthestorm   Apr-24-08 08:39 PM   #28 
                          - Just shows how un-informed you are.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 08:46 PM   #30 
                             - The initial hearings were joint. Everything going forward will be individual. Try again. nt  riderinthestorm   Apr-24-08 08:50 PM   #33 
                             - No. You try again.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 08:52 PM   #34 
                                - The appeals court agreed to hear the case next week BUT  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 09:39 PM   #40 
                                   - I didn't say it' looked promising.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 11:45 PM   #78 
                                   - There will be individual hearings for all the children by June 12.  pnwmom   Apr-25-08 01:25 AM   #100 
                             - And that same court allowed the children to be put into foster care pending  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 09:37 PM   #39 
                             - The people won't identify themselves as individual families  marshall   Apr-26-08 10:53 AM   #119 
                          - You are a sick sick individual  Marrah_G   Apr-24-08 08:44 PM   #29 
                             - I thought I had you on ignore.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 08:48 PM   #31 
                                - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-08 08:49 PM   #32 
                                   - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-08 11:09 PM   #61 
                                      - So now everyone who objects to slavery and child-rape is a Nazi? Good luck with that meme.  dicksteele   Apr-25-08 12:23 AM   #85 
                       - Huh. Proving you don't read the links to stories that people post.  uppityperson   Apr-24-08 11:18 PM   #64 
              - They are not about to let them play "Hide the Kielbasa" anymore  saigon68   Apr-24-08 10:25 PM   #47 
                 - From the Polish town of Pulaski--North of Green Bay  saigon68   Apr-24-08 10:28 PM   #49 
                    - apparently, you're not allowed to hide them in texas anymore...???  QuestionAll   Apr-25-08 01:04 AM   #94 
        - People are known to be illogical when access to their children are at stake.  Xithras   Apr-24-08 09:18 PM   #37 
           - Come on. Don't you think it is far more likely that these women  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 09:43 PM   #42 
        - What about incest? n/t  malaise   Apr-24-08 08:55 PM   #35 
        - There are no serious accusations of incest.  Xithras   Apr-24-08 09:16 PM   #36 
           - Sex between first-cousins, as Jeff arranged in "spiritual marriages",  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 09:46 PM   #43 
           - it's almost as if it were written with woody allen in mind...  QuestionAll   Apr-24-08 10:18 PM   #44 
           - Oooh. Woody Allen better stay away from TX.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 10:22 PM   #46 
           - It was written with advice and counsel from Utah/Arizona legislators  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 10:44 PM   #51 
              - No shit.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 10:49 PM   #52 
                 - Good for them. No state should allow 14 year olds to marry.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 10:56 PM   #54 
           - It's a felony in TX now to marry your cousin?  lizzy   Apr-24-08 10:20 PM   #45 
           - That is already the case in many states. I assume that if you were legally  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 10:41 PM   #50 
           - I dunno. TX says it's a felony to marry your cousin.  lizzy   Apr-24-08 10:51 PM   #53 
              - I don't know. Got a cousin you want to marry?  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 10:59 PM   #56 
                 - Why exactly are you against cousins marrying?  lizzy   Apr-24-08 11:04 PM   #58 
                    - It is not much higher BECAUSE it is rare. But when cousin marriage  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 11:23 PM   #67 
                    - Then why exactly not go further and prohibit people with  lizzy   Apr-24-08 11:36 PM   #73 
                       - This is off topic. I don't care to argue anymore about this. n/t  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 11:49 PM   #80 
                       - Because the law was changed, TX could potentially charge these people  lizzy   Apr-24-08 11:52 PM   #82 
                       - Reading comprehension lesson...  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 12:44 AM   #89 
                       - Thank you for STFU  0007   Apr-25-08 11:40 AM   #110 
                       - Most of these people are probably unaware that they're carriers of genetic diseases  XemaSab   Apr-25-08 12:34 AM   #87 
                          - Oh they are perfectly aware because they have it.  lizzy   Apr-25-08 12:48 AM   #91 
                          - Non sequitur. nm  dicksteele   Apr-25-08 12:53 AM   #93 
                          - Most of the FLDS people, or people with recessive genes?  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 12:53 AM   #92 
                          - A geneticist has spoken to them before,  Lars39   Apr-25-08 08:53 AM   #107 
                    - you just crack me up...  snooper2   Apr-25-08 12:05 PM   #112 
           - Full Faith and Credit Clause  LanternWaste   Apr-25-08 11:20 AM   #109 
           - Ah, I didn't know they'd changed it. It's legal here in California  Xithras   Apr-25-08 11:04 AM   #108 
           - I've read that all the men are called "uncle" by their children.  yardwork   Apr-24-08 11:28 PM   #71 
              - In our culture some people call each other "brothers."  lizzy   Apr-24-08 11:43 PM   #77 
                 - reading comprehension: If you don't know who your father is, you may marry him.  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 12:45 AM   #90 
        - But that would hinge on the 14 year old being LEGALLLY married to the 40 year old man  marshall   Apr-26-08 10:30 AM   #117 
  - Wow. The most important info is that only 7 wanted to return to the ranch, 40 chose not to.  Diane R   Apr-24-08 06:38 PM   #10 
  - Are you referring to the mothers who took a bus to San Antonio today?  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 06:58 PM   #13 
  - Okay -- I just found link to your numbers.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 07:06 PM   #14 
  - Thank you for posting that.  uppityperson   Apr-24-08 11:22 PM   #65 
  - I'm sure it's a nightmare for them, and very hard for the children.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 11:35 PM   #72 
  - Only seven out of the 64 women returned to the ranch.  yardwork   Apr-24-08 11:25 PM   #68 
     - The ones who did claim it was because CPS workers  lizzy   Apr-24-08 11:51 PM   #81 
        - No, they feared that would happen  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 01:11 AM   #95 
        - From the link:  lizzy   Apr-25-08 01:22 AM   #98 
           - From the link:  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 01:27 AM   #101 
              - These are not contradictory statements.  lizzy   Apr-25-08 01:31 AM   #102 
                 - Contradictory.  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 01:37 AM   #103 
        - There is no particular reason to trust these women.  pnwmom   Apr-25-08 01:20 AM   #97 
        - I guess you can decide on whom you would trust or not.  lizzy   Apr-25-08 01:25 AM   #99 
           - That's true. And that's why we have this legal process.  pnwmom   Apr-25-08 01:45 AM   #104 
        - Velvet and Ruth.  janx   Apr-25-08 01:53 PM   #115 
  - yes, out of 47 women  musette_sf   Apr-24-08 07:27 PM   #23 
  - I hope these women are treated with tender loving care.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 09:42 PM   #41 
     - I hope so too pnwmom  horseshoecrab   Apr-24-08 10:59 PM   #55 
  - Plus another 20+ women are staying in another location with their babies.  yardwork   Apr-24-08 11:26 PM   #70 
     - Hmmm . . . I think you're overlooking some women here.  pnwmom   Apr-24-08 11:37 PM   #74 
        - I'm talking about the group that dispersed most recently. I'm citing the latest news reports.  yardwork   Apr-25-08 12:01 AM   #83 
  - I can piss higher than you. No you can't because you can't read.  0007   Apr-25-08 11:57 AM   #111 
  - what the heck does that have to do with this topic?  uppityperson   Apr-25-08 01:03 PM   #113 
     - You can read. Figure it out for yourself!  0007   Apr-26-08 10:13 AM   #116 
        - Oh boy, another cryptic poster who won't clarify.  uppityperson   Apr-26-08 12:14 PM   #121 
           - Go back to your pissing contest!  0007   Apr-26-08 08:40 PM   #123 
              - Thank you for continuing to kick this topic so more people will be informed.  uppityperson   Apr-26-08 09:31 PM   #124 
  - THIRTY?  janx   Apr-25-08 01:45 PM   #114 
  - I KNEW I had read there was a huge increase in the number.  Breeze54   Apr-26-08 11:53 AM   #120 
  - I've been reading some of the responses here  newspeak   Apr-26-08 12:39 PM   #122 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC