Homeschool World Forum

Decrease · User Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 125 Location: Verona VA

You said I refuse to "accept" your beliefs and definitions. I asked questions because you do not define specifics. It is not that I do not accept your viewpoint, but that I believe it is logically inconsistent.

So, you are saying that while the baby is a in a parasitic state is it not viable. So, you would believe it is right to murder that child up until when? In other words, when does human life begin? I think I have scientifically shown that this is a human life from conception, give me an exact point this child is a life that should be protected... 22 weeks, birth???? This is important because the first couple of years of birth, some would still say that the child is in a parasitic state. Would you say that it was okay to kill a senior who was hooked up to feeding tubes and O2 because they are in a parasitic state? Would you believe that parapolegics are in a less of a state because they must rely upon people for their very substance? Some ethicists believe that based upon your argumentation that they hold to, killing a baby should be allowed up to 6 months after they are born. Would you agree? Why or why not? Also, define parasitic state. By most definitions, we are in a parasitic state of the planet earth. Finally, why is being in a parasitic state make the person less of a person? Could you please explain this? Are you saying that dependence upon someone for substance to live makes you less of a person?

By the way, Hitler believed the Jews were parasites of society. How would you differentiate your beliefs from that?

Finally, your statement about profiting from abortions in some manner I want to address. Yes, and there is not a person in the Western world who did not profit in some manner from the experiments Hitler used against the Jews. The medical progress made by Hitler at that time was extraordinary. While we cannot deny the fact it happened this does not mean the method of obtaining those medical advances are right. I hope we will not use the logical fallacy that says that since good came from something it therefore must be good.

Ceili · User Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 20

Hmmm…like jkenney, I found this site by doing an “Obama +home school” search. While it’s gotten way off topic, I find the debate interesting.

I agree with most of what Lily and jkenney have posted. I hate the thoughts of abortion and my Christian upbringing has caused me to struggle with the whole concept—I’ve always had an “I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to impose their beliefs on another” point of view.

Also, I heard Dr. Laura say something one time that made me pull my car over—a woman called in and told Dr. Laura that she has a 4-year-old son and she and her husband have been trying for a baby for a while. Well, she was finally pregnant and found out she had cancer. Her doctor said that waiting until the end of the pregnancy for treatment could cost her her life. She was stunned and dismayed that her husband wanted her to have an abortion and get treatment—they were, after all, good Christians and vehemently opposed to abortion. Dr. Laura’s reply? She told her that her husband is right and that she should have an abortion and get treatment so she can be there for her first child. I was stunned. I sat on the side of the road and cried. And I thought about it for days afterwards. I would never want to be in that position and therefore, I would never judge anyone in that position. It’s not my place to judge—it’s God’s. And I believe in a loving and merciful God, not a wrathful One.

Also, I have found that those who are so adamantly opposed to abortion are for the death penalty. That makes no sense to me. It makes no sense whatsoever to me that someone can be anti-abortion/pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. It’s contradicting. Innocent people can and are put to death, so the arguments given for pro-life should also apply to the death penalty. But I have never come across a pro-life person who opposed the death penalty. Interesting.

Back to Obama…he does seem to be the Democrat who is the least opposed to home schooling. But like someone else said, one or two issues don’t make or break a candidate for me.

My husband’s English and he finds it fascinating (in a sad way) that parties have come to “own” issues here—and citizens are made to feel that they have to vote for certain people based on religious convictions or they aren’t “good Christians”. And I have known extremely poor people, with no health care at all, who can barely feed their kids, who vote Republican for one reason—they are afraid the government will take their guns. How sad is that? My husband has voted in England for candidates who are for caring for the sick, young, and aged, but are for strict government fiscal accountability. Fiscal accountability/responsibility isn’t “owned” by the Conservative Party there, just as socialized medicine isn’t “owned” by the Labour Party.

I personally feel backed into a corner by manipulative party leaders/strategists who have taken possession of issues for their own benefit. Years ago, good Catholics always voted for a Democrat--Kennedy helped that along, I’m sure, but I remember hearing adults talk about how Jesus would have wanted all his people to be cared for and treated fairly and equally. And minorities always voted for a Democrat for civil rights issues, among others. But the moral, “Christian” angle (with abortion and gay marriage at the forefront) trumps all others now. And those who are running for office and claim to be Christian are so far from a good example of a Christian that I think it’s a joke. And I feel sickened that so many people are duped by it. But…very clever political strategy. Seriously…you have to hand it to them from a business/political standpoint, even if it makes fools of American citizens.

Lily · User Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 427

Theodore · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:12 am Post subject:

Decrease · User Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 125 Location: Verona VA

Lily,

There are two types of parasites. External parasites and internal. A tick is a parasite that requires a host. A tape worm is a parasite that operates internally. Is this irrational? If so, please tell me and how. Yet, according to science, I am right about parasites. A baby one day old could be, according to your ideas, be considered an external parasite like a tick. The problem with your rational, as well, is that a parasite is often considered a foriegn species unlike the host species. Thus, a tapeworm is another species. A human is not a different species. This baby has the DNA that is unique but is the same species. In all scientific measurements, this is not even a parasite, but a human with human DNA. As a result, it is neither a parasite nor a part of the mother's body. This is a human life.

You still will not define the exact point of life that should be protected. Why? Are you afraid to? It seems you are pointing to after birth... but you are not clear in your appraisal. I think the reason why is because whatever stand you take is philosophically impossible to argue and maintain consistency.

Yet, the issue is simple. So, I ask you the question, when can we stop calling the baby a parasite and stop killing it. Some ethicists on colleges use your argument to say that a child under 6 months old should be killed. Where do you draw the line?

BTW, I think most mothers if you told them your child was a parasite, would be offended. This is a baby... from conception. Prove it otherwise. I notice you have yet to do so, just calling it a parasite does not mitigate the facts, this is a human life with unique DNA who feels pain, sucks its thumb, hiccups, jumps, and only needs a safe place to develop. It is a child. You are essentially saying that the value of human life is totally measured on how independent the child is. All life is precious, even if you believe it is trash.

Why do you believe that a parasitic state means you are allowed to be destroyed? Do you have any scientific evidence to show a child is anything less than a human life? Or, would you agree, that you are essentially saying that some human life it is okay to murder?

Decrease · User Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 125 Location: Verona VA

Addendum,

I wanted to add a couple of things on the parasite issue. First, I think all scientists throughout history have recognized that the parasitic is:

1. Often to the detriment of the host.
2. Often not sought nor desired by the host
3. Is from a foreign species in which the parasite wishes their life is as a parasite.
4. The species that is a parasite is one by its very nature and never "outgrows" this.

Scientists actually have another name for what we are discussing that they say is unique from parasites. The scientific word that you may or may not have heard is called pregnancy. This actually is of benefit. The host actually had to engage in a certain act in order to achieve this state--the vast majority of the time they enjoyed the act and many times with the express purpose of achieving the state of pregnancy. Except recently, this was a desired state. Eventually, the host will "give birth" and have the child who will never ever desire to be in that state again. The organism that is birthed, is not a parasite by nature, in other words it does stop receiving nutrients from the host (usually after College).

I have never seen the host of a parasite cry because they lost the parasite pre-maturely. I have never seen a host of a parasite talk to friends saying how they wished they could get a tape worm. I have never seen a host talk glowingly about how they feel the tapeworm growing inside of them and show off ultra-sound pictures of the little rascal. This is a baby.

Accordingly, my position is consistent. This is not a parasite, no scientist would say this baby is one. My position is the following:

1. This baby in the womb is scientifically a living human with distinct and scientifically verifiable qualities which confirm this fact. This is not, by definition a parasite or something other than a human with life and dignity.
2. All innocent human life should be protected from death.
3. Therefore, a baby in the womb should be protected from death.

That is a logical sequence. You have not refuted one of those three statements. You wish to degrade a baby by calling it a parasite... There is no scientific evidence to support such. This is a baby... who hiccups, jumps, sucks his thumb, and has all the scientific characteristics of a human life in a special event that scientifically we call "pregnancy". If you disagree with any of my 3 points, I will be glad to defend it. Yet, you have failed to even attack these ideas.... you have just resorted to calling a baby a parasite. Please, the next time you go to your OB and see a room full of mothers... go around and tell them they just have a parasite in their belly... not a baby.

You wish to degrade pregnancy to a tape worm, life as a bunch of cells, and uplift choice to the extent of murder.

Yes, if one has had an abortion, there is forgiveness. Yet, let's not degrade one of the most precious things God has given us... the gift of bringing life into this world.

Lily · User Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 427

Theodore · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:

Hmm. So if someone else decides it's ok to kill their aged relatives, that's fine because it's part of their belief system? What about handicapped children? What about black people? Etc. The only way abortion based on individual decision can be morally ok is if you assume that babies don't count - in which case you're already imposing your point of view. Let's face it, the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive, and it's impossible to be open-minded enough to include both.

The classic example of open-mindedness is a professor who says that all viewpoints are equally valid, then complains when a thief steals his wallet. Wouldn't forcing the thief to give back the wallet be imposing another's viewpoint on him, to his detriment?
_________________
The Farming Game - Software Edition for PC, Mac, Linux
The board game has sold over 350,000 copies worldwide, garnered many awards, is used by over 2,000 schools, and is used extensively by homeschoolers.

Decrease · User Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 125 Location: Verona VA

Lily,

So a point of "viability" is the point in which you define when abortions should stop. I did read your entire post, I am sorry you are not going to take the time to read my own. In summary, parasite issue is degrading and wrong and that my point is the following:

1. This baby in the womb is scientifically a living human with distinct and scientifically verifiable qualities which confirm this fact. This is not, by definition a parasite or something other than a human with life and dignity.
2. All innocent human life should be protected from death.
3. Therefore, a baby in the womb should be protected from death.

Therefore, I believe you are saying one of the following:

1. The baby in the womb is either not human.
2. That some innocent human life should not be protected from death (murder).

Thus, I am trying to find a place for life. Yet, in your most recent statement you said essentially #1 does not matter. Why? You said it does not matter when you define life.

Therefore, by your own admission you disagree with this phrase, "All innocent human life should be protected from death".

That is the only rational conclusion to your last post. Therefore, you hold the same belief as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc... I would be glad to argue for my viewpoint "that all innocent human life should be protected from murder."

You have offered no basis for your belief except that you believe it should be a choice (which, by definition, this is circular reasoning. You have not tried to show the logical sequence of that rational, unlike me in which I point out three points).

That is it in a nutshell. You do not believe all innocent human life should be protected from death (murder) and I do.