Matt Walsh: Homeschooling rights are the canary of individual sovereignty

[LP1]

A quote from the article: "In a country where you do not have a right to your own offspring, to what else could you possibly have a right? Your home? Your car? Your body? Not in a nation ruled by bureaucratic deities so powerful that they may deign the very fruit of your loin to be their property. "

I find it interesting that so many INGOers support this position, yet they also believe (and vote) that a woman shouldn't have the right to control her own body.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

 

[IndyDave1776]

A quote from the article: "In a country where you do not have a right to your own offspring, to what else could you possibly have a right? Your home? Your car? Your body? Not in a nation ruled by bureaucratic deities so powerful that they may deign the very fruit of your loin to be their property. "

I find it interesting that so many INGOers support this position, yet they also believe (and vote) that a woman shouldn't have the right to control her own body.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

A woman's right to control her own body ≠ the right to murder someone else.

 

[flatbroke]

The Home school network here in Montgomery County is very well coordinated and has a very good support group network. I have seen a lot of these kids home schooled and excelled years beyond what public schools are pushing. Not to mention the political agendas entering the public school curriculum the past 30 years. Folks are able to teach their kids the truth without all the political correctness, sing Chrismas songs, pray at school, and say the pledge of allegiance.
Hats off to Home schoolers! A very worthy endeavor for the future of our youth and our country.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I love addressing this with people who think that 6-8 hours of peer-only interaction 5 days a week is socialization.

Dont forget that they are only allowed to interact on average for 5 minutes every 60. (with an additional hour for lunch/recess) So in reality its what, only 2 hours or so? The rest is "sit down, shut up, face forward and get indoctrinated." No thanks!

SOOO happy we are home schooling!

 

[HoughMade]

A woman's right to control her own body ≠ the right to murder someone else.

The hipocrasy is in supposedly protecting the rights of women by allowing the murder of little girls (and boys).

 

[LP1]

A woman's right to control her own body ≠ the right to murder someone else.

What "someone else"? Basic logic (lost on so many folks here) and legal precedent tell us that something that can't exist outside of a woman's body is not yet a person. Oh wait, someone is going to "prove" it with superstition.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What "someone else"? Basic logic (lost on so many folks here) and legal precedent tell us that something that can't exist outside of a woman's body is not yet a person. Oh wait, someone is going to "prove" it with superstition.

Using legal precedent and rationalization disguised as logic to prove something is just and moral? I'm pretty sure there are those that can use the same arguments to support NSA eaves dropping, to say ObamaCare is constitutional, and at one point in our history, to support slavery.

 

[actaeon277]

What "someone else"? Basic logic (lost on so many folks here) and legal precedent tell us that something that can't exist outside of a woman's body is not yet a person. Oh wait, someone is going to "prove" it with superstition.

So if I'm on life support, I'm no longer a person??????

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Superstition? What are you referring to?

 

[IndyDave1776]

What "someone else"? Basic logic (lost on so many folks here) and legal precedent tell us that something that can't exist outside of a woman's body is not yet a person. Oh wait, someone is going to "prove" it with superstition.

Good job digging yourself into a hole without even trying! By your (il)logic, one c ould justify killing a child at any point prior to that child becoming completely self-sufficient, or as actaeon277 pointed out, not self-sufficient at a later time on account of such causes as failing health.

 

[traderdan]

What "someone else"? Basic logic (lost on so many folks here) and legal precedent tell us that something that can't exist outside of a woman's body is not yet a person. Oh wait, someone is going to "prove" it with superstition.

Oh boy..am I glad that some "basic logic" is lost on me!!

 

[actaeon277]

What "someone else"? Basic logic (lost on so many folks here) and legal precedent tell us that something that can't exist outside of a woman's body is not yet a person. Oh wait, someone is going to "prove" it with superstition.

Fetal Homicide: A Question of When Do We Become Human

Might want to rethink that "legal precedent" thing.

 

[LP1]

So if I'm on life support, I'm no longer a person??????

Thanks for helping to prove my point. A person on life support has already existed outside of their mother's body.

 

[LP1]

Superstition? What are you referring to?

Pretty sure you already know, but just in case, I'm referring to "that which must not be mentioned on INGO".

 

[LP1]

Good job digging yourself into a hole without even trying! By your (il)logic, one c ould justify killing a child at any point prior to that child becoming completely self-sufficient, or as actaeon277 pointed out, not self-sufficient at a later time on account of such causes as failing health.

Again, another example of limited reasoning and reading comprehension skills. What part of "can't exist outside of a woman's body" is unclear? My post never said anything about being self-sufficient or disabled. It's simple - one becomes a person when one is born.

 

[LP1]

Fetal Homicide: A Question of When Do We Become Human

Might want to rethink that "legal precedent" thing.

There's an exception to everything. Yeah, let's model our laws on Kentucky, Texas, and California. I'll stand by the US Supreme Court, thank you.

 

[aikidoka]

There's an exception to everything. Yeah, let's model our laws on Kentucky, Texas, and California. I'll stand by the US Supreme Court, thank you.

Slave owners and obamcare

 

[aikidoka]

Thanks for helping to prove my point. A person on life support has already existed outside of their mother's body.

a temporary condition or location is a very shallow justification for a permanently destructive act

 

[jwh20]

Of course the leftist-elites (a.k.a. marxists) are against home schooling. They LOSE CONTROL and can't indoctrinate children the way they desire. As always, totalitarian government is about CONTROL. Again, remember this when we are voting next year. Any in many places the most important election is the PRIMARY because in many districts in Indiana, that's where the real choice is made. I urge you to vote for candidates who have demonstrated they are serious about LIMITING GOVERNMENT intrusion into all manner of things that the US Constitution reserves to the states and to the people.

We've abdicated way to much to the federal and even state governments and it will not be easy to take that power back. But the ballot box is still the best way to accomplish that.

The other thing is to keep up the pressure on politicians who will do whatever they want to do that benefits them the most when they think nobody is watching. Make sure they know you are watching their votes!

 

[steveh_131]

Again, another example of limited reasoning and reading comprehension skills. What part of "can't exist outside of a woman's body" is unclear? My post never said anything about being self-sufficient or disabled. It's simple - one becomes a person when one is born.

I think it's actually very unclear, subjective, and morally ambiguous. And your condescension is noted.

How do you decide when a child 'can't exist outside of a woman's body'?

Babies have been born at 21 weeks and survived. Is that where we draw the line? Some may survive if born even earlier. How do we know when that magical date occurs for each child?