gadgetlady

How does one prove that a being is fully human? I'm curious about the scientific criteria. Where else might it begin? At birth, is "life" magically bestowed when the being travels through the birth canal? Or at viability, is "life" bestowed depending on current medical technology? Or when the mother thinks that "life" exists -- is that when the baby becomes a life? "Life" is not an arbitrary principle. The unborn baby has unique characteristics that make it not a part of the mother, but a separate entity. Basic biology teaches us this. It is a FACT that life begins at conception. The argument those in favor of abortion make is not that that life exists (if there's no baby there, why would the mother need an abortion?), but that the value of one life (the mother's) overrides the other life (the baby's). My argument is that no one has the right to kill another person because they deem that person's life to be valueless or unworthy.

Nope. Not what I said. I said if a fertilized egg is left alone, it will be an adult one day. It is already a person, albeit a tiny one. Just as a newborn is not an adult and a toddler is not an adult, yet they are still persons. I have a news flash for you. Without proper nutrition and proper living conditions, you will cease to be a person too. However, you are currently a person, and the removal of nutrition and proper living conditions won't remove your personhood. It will only cause your death. You are a person and you always were a person from the moment you were conceived, regardless of your future prognosis.

Agreed. I don't think homeschooling would be so popular if public schools were remotely acceptable, though. But yes, this is about parental rights more so than education.

That's weird, because the petition was taken down on March 20th. Did it give you a box to check to be on their email list? He should subscribe to the email alerts at Welcome to HSLDA. There are various other organizations that have similar alerts going, but they are all generally the same information. He can also go to ParentalRights.org and sign that petition, which is related by topic but not specific to California. There aren't any protests planned at this point.

LOL! How did you know??? Essentially, I believe this is the same issue. Do we, as parents, OWN our children? Can we do whatever we want with their little bodies, to the point of killing them or allowing them to die? Of course not! They are in our care, but we don't own them by any stretch of the imagination. This is why I am so opposed to abortion as well. We do not have the right to decide for another person that their life is not worthy or up to snuff and therefore they should die. We also have a duty to ensure that those in our care are properly treated.

I believe the government has to presume that parents will always do what is in the best interest of their children. I am a BIG believer in freedom, especially parental freedom. We're not going to have OSHA coming in to the home to check and make sure everything is up to snuff. But when a child dies, then there is a question as to what happened. If the parents are prosecuted, it will serve as a warning to other like-minded parents, that if they ignore the physical health of their child they might be held liable in the case of that child's death.

Here's the problem. The child DIED. The child didn't have the opportunity to protest her lack of medical treatment, and you can't reverse death. I'm all for parents' rights, especially as it impacts religious freedom. Feed your children a wacky vegetarian diet, teach them they have to pray only while underwater, make them wear funny headdresses to honor your god, whatever. But I draw the line at death. If a wacky belief that you have causes your child to die, that is neglect at the very least.

I believe that the Catholic Church has exemptions for things like this, that would interfere with your health if you didn't take them. But I'm not sure because I'm not Catholic. In every case where abortion has been illegal, there has been an exception if the physical life of the mother is threatened. It is taking one life to save another.

How coincidental. I've been thinking about that joke since I started reading this discussion.

Wow. Just wow. I can't imagine such a scenario, so I can't logically answer the question. What a doctor does to a child can't damn a child to hell. But again, what if people had a weird religion that said God will provide all nourishment and therefore we don't have to feed our children? Would that fall under the free exercise of religion or would it fall under neglect. I place it under neglect.

You think schools in Texas are bad? You should see California! It's worse the a trainwreck. It's a trainwreck carrying nuclear waste through a suburban neighborhood on a Saturday during Little League championships. The bottom line is that for the most part, any student who's receiving one-on-one teaching from a parent, whether certified or not, is likely getting a better education than he would be sitting in a class with 29 other students being geared toward the lowest common denominator.

snuffy65, if you go back and perform historical revisions (changing your prior comments to add new arguments), I will likely miss them. If you have something new to say, please put it in a new post (that is, if you want me to respond. If, like in Congress, you just want the record to reflect something that didn't actually happen at the time of the discussion, continue editing away).

Prior to Roe v. Wade, in states where abortion was illegal, the charges were always enforced against the abortionist, not the mother. There's no reason to believe that would change if/when Roe is reversed, but I guess that's up to the courts and the legislators. Personally, I believe the culpability lies with those who take advantage of these mothers in their often emotional states, by convincing them that what's growing in the womb is a blob of tissue rather than a human being. Again, another question answered. Would you like to answer some of mine, or just throw more questions at me? I think those who have been reading this thread since it's inception will verify that I'm happy to answer every question posed. I cannot say the same for one single person on the pro-abortion side.

Thanks for the support, but how did you sign it? The petition was closed when 250,000 signatures were reached. Did you find another petition somewhere?

Suppose the family didn't feed the child, saying instead that their nourishment would come from God? That's not damage inflicted by another, but rather the withholding of something that would otherwise preserve the child's life.

I don't get what you don't get, but I'm also not understanding 100% because of your grammar and spelling. I'll try to make it really simple. Prevention of pregnancy: OK. Killing of a baby after conception by any means: Not OK.

Ok, let me try again. If the baby is already conceived, then I don't believe a mother should be able to take a drug and kill the baby. And I believe in harsh sentences for the abortionists.

You have your reasoning wrong. The view that black people were 3/5 of a person was the law as written into the US Constitution. It was also generally accepted among Southern states and slave owners that slaves were not fully deserving of the rights afforded whites because they were people of diminished capacity. Slavery wasn't abolished due to it's lack of popularity. There was this little thing called the Civil War; even though the North won, people still weren't convinced about the full humanness of blacks. In the end, however, it shouldn't matter who wins the popularity contest in any given year. Human life is not a nebulous theory swaying in the wind depending on current statistical analysis. Unique human individuals should be afforded the rights that all other unique human individuals have, regardless of their age or place of residence. And again I ask: if the became a popular view, would you accept the ban of abortion based on this popular view?

Nope, don't think so.

I never mentioned jail for mothers who abort. And I'm happy to answer about birth control and the morning after pill: I have no problem whatsoever with birth control or anything that prevents ovulation and therefore conception. In fact, I'm a big fan of anything that prevents pregnancy in those who do not want to be pregnant. Once a separate human life is conceived, however, I don't believe a second human being has a right to take that life. Now would you answer some of MY questions?

The thinking AT THE TIME and the LEGAL definition of a black person was 3/5 of a person. They believed genetically that a black person was less of a person than a white person. You and I know that definition is ludicrous NOW, but they didn't back THEN. I would be willing to venture a guess that the belief that blacks weren't fully human was at greater than 65% prior to the Civil War. We shouldn't define personhood based on public opinion polls. If opinion sways to where 65% of this country's population believes life begins at conception, would you be OK with the law changing to match that? I don't think so. The bottom line is we need to base the law on facts, not on what people believe.

People defended slavery by saying that a black person was 3/5 of a person. All we have to do to deny people rights is define them as something less than a person. We need to learn the lessons of history.

There's hope for you yet :smile: (please, please take that with the teasing nature it was intended)

The issue of partial birth abortion was brought up because a woman on this thread said she had a friend for whom a partial-birth abortion was medically indicated. She claimed that her friend didn't want to have the abortion and it broke her heart to do so. I asked her why, since partial-birth abortion is no different from delivering the baby alive, except for the fact that you stab the baby in the base of the skull and suction out the brains, why this woman didn't attempt to preserve the life of her baby -- especially if she was so opposed to the abortion. She never answered. You brought up the same issue using a quote from that discussion, claiming that it was less strenuous for a woman to have a partial-birth abortion than deliver normally because the baby's skull would be crushed. I then asked why we would deem it reasonable to take a life to prevent some vaginal stretching, and you didn't answer. As to your claim that all pro-lifers start at partial-birth abortion and work their way backwards, that's ludicrous. We have been fighting for the pro-life cause long before the partial-birth abortion procedure even existed. Our arguments are not contingent on what the gestational age of the baby is, but rather that the baby, from conception, is a human being separate from the mother. A sperm, left alone, will not eventually be an adult one day. An egg, left alone, will not eventually be an adult one day. A fertilized egg will. Therein lies the difference. At the time of conception, a separate being is created with separate DNA, a separate circulatory system and a separate heartbeat (at about 18 days), separate brain waves (at 42 days), etc. No other human being will ever have the same DNA as this tiny human being. (The crux of the matter is that I can't understand sarcasm?) While I did understand it to be sarcasm, there was also a point there, which is evidenced by your questioning above how a sperm alone and an egg alone are different from the result of their union. While you might have thought it cute and/or sarcastic to talk about men masturbating into tissues, clearly you also considered it a relevant argument. What someone believes spiritually is of no consequence. Not everyone believes in spiritual things, the presence of a soul, etc. These are not sound things on which to make a legal decision. What DOES matter is what MEDICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY is the start of life. And the existence or lack of a social security number is equally inconsequential. I didn't have an SS # until I was 5 years old. Was I not a human being until that point? Heck, illegal aliens don't have an SS# as adults! Why? Why are they bad? Why shouldn't they be taken lightly? Fathers have ZERO rights in the abortion decision. If the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, she can have an abortion anyway. If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, she can have the baby and he's still liable for child support. I don't understand why you don't understand this. It is for the same reason that the "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave" argument doesn't hold Water. It is because we are talking about the fundamental right to life of a human being who doesn't have the opportunity to defend his or her own rights in a court of law.

laurend! Is this the first subject we've agreed 100% on? Yay for us!