Children need one year of 'teaching' max, and that is for rudimentary math and learning to read. The rest of 'schooling' should simply be providing them with the proper, quiet, conditions to self-educate. It's called Autodidacticism. Look it up. Every child is born with it, but adults do their best to eliminate it through forced, 24/7 entertainment from the crib to the campus.

Here's a curriculum that needs no teacher (there are many others):
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/

Having no time is absolutely no excuse for failing to homeschool. Anyone want to picket your local school with a sign that says "DROP OUT OF SCHOOL FOREVER!" :-D

This is pure parenting failure right here. They did something that confused the child. I suspect this has to do with who is the alpha in the house and its obviously the mother. If your child was born with testicles and a penis then you raise them as a boy like these parents should have!

When he says they have a right to a mother and a father what he really means is that they MUST have a mother and father. To have a right to something is to be able to claim something. A newborn child does not have the capacity to claim anything. At best Romney's argument supports having only the mother listed. However, advances in reproductive technology allow for an egg to be fertilised by non-sperm cells meaning that a child can legitimately have two mothers in every sense of the word. In fact, a woman can technically fertilise her own egg. Furthermore, it is technically possible for a man to do the same but with a donated egg. With this egg the DNA can be extracted and replaced meaning that the child, if born through a surrogate, can have two fathers and no DNA related mother. Further furthermore, it is theoritically possible for a man to be able to carry a child to term though it would require drastic intervention. The future debates in experimental reproductive ethics is whether humans can be born to surrogate non-humans such as pigs thereby eliminating the risks and potential burdens of gestation for the mother (or father-mother).

Romney, the times they are a changing.

I look back at that wall of text and realize I've violated a cardinal tenet of discourse: "Seek first to understand before speaking to be understood."
To me, it seems the fundamental point of disagreement deals with when (i.e.: at what stage of pregnancy) a person considers it acceptable to perform an abortion. Knowing that "when" and understanding the "why" of that belief would probably illuminate a great deal of why a given person believes what they do on this issue. So, in the spirit of productive discourse, I pose the following questions (which I will attempt to phrase in neutral language):

Assumption A: I assume we all agree that killing a child already born would be unacceptable under almost any circumstances. Is this assumption correct? (If not, why?)

Assumption B: I assume we all agree that prior to fertilization, individual sperm and eggs are not considered "life", and are largely irrelevant to this discussion. Is this assumption correct? (If not, why?)

The Big Two Questions:
1) Up until what point in a pregnancy (or fetal development) do you consider it acceptable to perform an abortion? (Does this change based on the circumstances?)
2) Why that point?

@rebuilder I never said the birth canal was magical. It is very practical though.

If you feel that a person is a person at some earlier time, then by all means before a child is born require the parents to register the child at their local state office, get a birth person certificate, have the parents claim them on their tax form (while, again, still in the womb), etc. I think that taking such steps wouldn't make any sort of practical sense but hey, to each their own.

"...exists exclusively in the minds of extremists who oppose conservative stances."

So, anyone who opposes the conservative stance, MUST be an extremists? Wow, what logic you have Winston...

"It is perfectly rational to support punishment and justice of guilty adults..."

So if that's true, your FOR Mr. Bush being executed for lying to the USA over any number of issues that effected us from 2000-2008? Like those WMD's in Iraq? I doubt it, Winston. Your for punishment and justice, so long as the guilty parties are liberal and/or Democrat.

"...while defending the right to life for the most innocent of all humanity."

Yes, under 'conservative values', we created two major war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Put tens of thousands to the sword, including those whom carried child not born. All in the name of 'Defending Truth, Justice, and the American way!" You call wars (yes, plural) 'defending the right to life'?

"The only so-called 'contradiction' exists when individuals look at the issues only through the simplistic, biased filter of exclusively left-wing groupthink."

Oh yes, because RIGHT-wing groupthink can not exist in reality. I think the video above, Winston, blows your arguement out of the water.

"Over 58% of the country opposes..."

Where does this statistic come from exactly? Yes, please publish the source. Otherwise, I will publish the correct percentage of the USA, who opposes the current president. Not surprisingly, this number, just happens to be the same as those who voted for Mr. McCain in 2008. Coindence?

"It is not Limbaugh/Beck that are 'driving' the country. Limbaugh and Beck are merely echoing what the majority of Americans are feeling."

Fortunately for the MAJORITY of Americans (since the majority voted for the DEMOCRAT, and Democrats won, a good portion of the House and Senate), you are quite incorrect, Winston. Beck/Limbaugh simply dumb-down the information to small bites to conservatives. This is due, mostly in part that most conversatives really do not have much of a solid education on topics like 'health care', 'economics', 'law', 'biotechnology', 'energy conservation', and 'wisdom'. They do not really think their audience could handle a serious conversation on any of these topics (and they are right...sadly). The conservative talk shows matra is to use small sound bites, rather then lengthy concepts that require someone to ponder on the merits. Go listen to NPR when it talks about an arguement currently effecting the USA. The average conservative would switch the channel, as the arguements 'for' and 'against', quickly out paced their educational level (note: this has nothing to do with one's education level, i.e. bacholers of Science, Masters, or Ph.D.).

Yes, Mr. Obama, does not speak to conservatives this way. He believes, through being intelligent, educated, and patient, he can reach their more noble side. But as evidence has shown us, conservatives really dont have a noble side (as we saw with town hall meeting this summer). He speaks in a way, most conservatives can not understand on their own (with exceptions, like, well, you). Conservative talk shows, Mr. Beck, Mr. Hannity, and Mr. Limbaugh, then take what the president said, change it in to something vile, and then, dumb down the information to dispense to conservatives.

It REALLY happens that way, Winston. I hate to be the one, to tell you, the God's honest truth. And yes, there are liberals, whom are quite fantical and ignore sound wisdom, to promote the president's concepts and goals without thought. Fortunately, they are a smaller number, then there are 'thinking' and 'wise' conservatives in the USA.

The whole point of the pro-life movement is to encourage an increase in Christian(tm) population to counteract the so-called population growth of the 'heathen' religions.

A child is born with zero knowledge of Jesus and other fantastical religious mythologies. They are programmed into it. You'd think a real god would instill an innate (even if basic) knowledge of divine origin within his/her creatures. Makes no sense not to do so. If you are a divine being who feeds on the faith of one's followers and had ultimate power in the universe over absolutely anything and everything... then why the fuck would it create a world as fucked up as this one? Thousands if not more competing religions, people killing each other over petty grievances, disease, suffering, birth defects, short lives, and an astronomically HUGE universe with a single tiny little habitable planet with a bunch of self righteous idiots who all claim to know what the BIG GUY IN THE SKY knows when they haven't heard a single fucking word or phrase from 'the source'. Of course they all claim they do hear, by default making them liars... whether they be ignorantly self-deceiving, or lying outright for twisted personal gain and profit (televangelists anyone?).

All rooted from a multi-version contradictory, violent, intolerant, unrealistic fantasy riddled tome that is more often than not cherry picked for tidbits of supporting commentary that agree with it's readers world view. The bits that disagree are conveniently ignored and dismissed as a vague parabole having some other meaning than in the horrific form it is written.

Yeah. God works in mysterious ways indeed.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ Kind of feel bad about saying it, but me too. My first child was born in Torrance, SoCal - near the end of the year. When I heard all of the guns going off around us and our new born on New Year's eve - decided to get out.

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

Oh?

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.
>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.
No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.
Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.
How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.
If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.
If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?
As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.
If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.


It's flawed because it is an attempt to reduce marriage to solely a tax issue. There are more rights involved.

I can understand why you feel the tax status is unfair. As I said before it's really a minor change in status, and since I didn't make myself clear earlier, I wouldn't shed a tear if everyone held the same status.

It's not just about divorce protections. Consider hospital visitation, being able to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, and the ability to inherit valuables in the event death. In the case of an unmarried couple the sick or injured partner's family can step in and essentially screw the healthy one over.

Still, choice is really at the heart of the issue.

>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.


Oh?


I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."


Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.

>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.

No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.

Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.

How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.

If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.

If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?

As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.

If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.


Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.

Boy, officer itchy finger must be pretty mixed up right now. Kills a man, and days later his first child is born. Wonder if he believes in reincarnation?

hey guys....by the taliban, you mean the same kind of 19 guys(who later turned out to be only 6) who sneaked thru the security in the airports on 9/11, security that was in he hand of jeb bush´s firm, in all the airports they went thru. you meant those geniuses who spent most of their lives feedin on goatmilk. is that what you mean by the taliban? those guys were clever, to attack a city in the u.s at the same day, the only day of the year(THE WHOLE FUCKING YEAR)the air-force doing practice.....wake up, the game is rigged, and you look silly...........

prior to 9/11...in the year 2001, 66 times planes dissapeared from radar, or contact was lost.in 66 cases out of 66, fighter jets were sent up there to locate those planes, on 9/11, 0! not a single plane. WHAT ON EARTH DOES IT TAKE YOU FOOLS TO START TO ASK QUESTIONS? i believe dick cheney,whose first child is born 9 months and 2 days after congress passed laws that married men without children could be sent to vietnam, smiling thru the the windows of the cock-pit just before it hit the tower, is still not convincing for you. may god, that imagenary old man, up ther, have mercy on your souls, for being so easily manipulated....amen, as they said in egypt(1500 yrs before jesus,when praised their god, amen, or was his name ame rai? nevertheless,wake up.)

We're looking at it from two completely different sides. I see a life being formed, regardless of the circumstances that brought it into being. You see a fetus that does not yet count as alive. This is a major difference. From the first perspective, abortion is like killing a small child because it's burdensome, just at an earlier and impersonal stage. From the other, abortion is terminating a potentially troublesome pregnancy, or a standard medical issue. I personally view it like this: You would definitely think it is vile crime for a mother to kill her child after they had been born. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between killing baby in the nursery and aborting a fetus is that you have a face to associate with the child already born. It becomes more important to you because you can see him/her.

Tofumar, a self-defense analogy is a bit weak. I was referring to the story the doctor gave at the end of the article about the muslim boy. The doctor's ultimate point was that since the boy feared the girl's brothers would kill him, he saved a life by aborting the baby. My point was that viewing the aborted baby as being alive means the doctor killed an unborn child to save a man from fear. Were the girls brothers going to kill him? How does the doctor know that's truely what will happen? If that was the case, there are no better reactions than to murder a child to save a man that made poor choices? I don't mean he should be killed either, but he can't find a better way to deal with his problems? I think in this situation it should be viewed as courageous for them to find a way to give that child a chance to live, not for killing it to buy themselves temporary happiness. To bring that back to self-defense, what does killing the baby have to do with it? Self-defense is defined as "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant" or "a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack." Under those circumstances, killing the brothers would be self-defense if they attacked him. A defense against someone that has chosen to attack you, not against someone completely different to prevent a suspected attack at an undetermined point in the future. Killing the baby is just plain murder.

Farhad, you're using some pretty flimsy logic to connect Roe vs Wade to "the largest drop in crime rates in the US." Could it be a factor? Possibly. Is it the sole cause of a decrease in crime. Certainly not. You're usually really good with framing logical arguments so I find that one pretty out of character. The small-government part of me can definitely see your point about social programs and adoption though. It all comes back to the core issue, how do you view the pregnancy? As a fetus, or an unborn baby? If you believe it is not yet alive, then it becomes a clinical issue to you. No different than removing a tumor or other harmful condition. If it's an unborn baby, it's much more complex. Everything else has to be weighed against the idea of ending a life for convenience. Is it worth the money to support these children so they have a chance to live, or is it better to chose for them and kill them before they are born?

"I guess the sanctity of life ends when the child is born, eh?"

that's a good one

prolifers should maybe spend more time on contraception education than on shouting about murder. if they just dished out a few condoms they might have more effect, and show that they REALLY care about life, as opposed to caring about protests and self righteousness. How many prolifers would dedicate their whole life to caring for the unwanted product of a rape instead of just standing around with a sign on weekends?

Criminalising abortion just hands the industry to nasty people with dirty tools, it doesn't actually stop abortion. The comparison to homicide is not valid, it's just convenient for prolifers to equate abortion to murder when clearly they are not the same thing, with totally different motivations.

The government has the right to draft citizens to go and die in illegal wars, but a woman shouldn't be able to control her own womb?

I think there's priorities, and the "sanctity" of unborn children is below many other things on my list.

i have personal experience btw. but i'm not chatting about that here.

I think some people who try to dismantle the pro-choice movement by applying the choice argument to other, real if you will, offenses need to give a second thought to the reason why women look to abortion.

In earlier posts I've seen the thought that prematurely born babies should be terminated aswell as the fetuses women choose to abort.
"I'm sure if I wanted to, I could find a few pro-choicers who would like to extend the law to allow the termination of prematurely born babies. After all, they're the same age as those in the womb normally right?". Wrong, but that's not the point.
To me, this looks like a person who haven't really considered why women decide to abort, and this person also doesn't seem to fully grasp the difference between a prematurely born baby and an undeveloped fetus, so let me try to explain my point.
A prematurely born baby is saved and kept alive because the mother did not have an abortion, obviously, but also because it's wanted and have developed enough to have a chance at surviving. You'll be surprised to know there are some fetuses who are so prematurely born that they're unable to survive no matter how much the parents would want it to. A woman having an abortion usually does so for a reason, of which there are plenty good enough to stop a life from starting.

Consider the reason before anything else, like the offspring of a rape, the parent/s being unable (for a plethora of reasons) to support the child in any or all ways. For these reasons women will have abortions regardless of the law, which makes it toothless and in effect meaningless unless of course you want to legislate morality (in which case we could come up with lots of fun laws).
In conclusion, I feel having a baby is a huge undertaking, and writing off abortion as murder is to me completely unacceptable. To make a similar stupid generalisation for everyone to ponder, torture comes in many more forms than just the ones used in Abu-Ghraib, like for instance raising a child in an unsafe, financially- and emotionally barren enviroment. I guess the sanctity of life ends when the child is born, eh?