Heartbreaking.

I don't understand how one can " intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than ... to remove a dead fetus"

Doesn't terminate mean the fetus is alive, and removing a dead fetus wouldn't have anything to do with termination?

According to what is being reported around here The USA Today article is right. I'm going to check into it futher because I thought Indiana's laws were set at viability. My son was born just at 7 months and that would be 7 weeks after viability (24 weeks):

www.theindychannel.com/news/15992668/detail.html

"Prosecutors could consider additional charges, such as feticide, against the gunman because the fetuses have died, said Marion County chief trial prosecutor David Wyser. In order for manslaughter charges to be filed in Indiana, Shuffield would have had to have been at least seven months pregnant, he said."

These were babies that the parents wanted and chose to keep, but no one gives a crap about that. Goodness knows we wouldn't want women who want their babies dead to feel as if the law was against them.

As long as abortion is legal is all anyone cares about anymore - no one cares about the women who will never see justice because the so-called feminists don't want any law which would make them feel bad.

They should be charged with murder. Low life scum.

The mother and only the mother should decide wether or not to continue a pregnancy.

"Doesn't terminate mean the fetus is alive, and removing a dead fetus wouldn't have anything to do with termination?"

Milehimama, I think when they say "terminate", it means removal of the baby, whether he/she is dead or alive. It's all overly complicated mumbo-jumbo which tries to protect abortion rights.

...

USA Today is like the rest of the MSM->liberal bias.

Jess,

so it's OK for the mother to murder but not the bank robber?

Jasper, you know I think that way because it's the mothers body. Come on.

You know how my evil mind ticks by now : P

"Doesn't terminate mean the fetus is alive, and removing a dead fetus wouldn't have anything to do with termination?"

Milehimama, I think when they say "terminate", it means removal of the baby, whether he/she is dead or alive. It's all overly complicated mumbo-jumbo which tries to protect abortion rights.

...

USA Today is like the rest of the MSM->liberal bias.
Posted by: jasper at April 25, 2008 8:18 PM

So in Indiana, a" termination of pregnancy" can result in a live birth?

Which has a higher penalty attached to it, feticide or aggravated battery?

Wow, Jasper, talk about mumbo-jumbo. These laws are a joke. Yikes!

A fetus is a human, a baby is a human, Janet is a human. If said humans are not inside of your body, then it should be murder to kill them.

"You know how my evil mind ticks by now : P"

I don't think your evil Jess, I bet you have a big heart. You see how your statements above are contradictory, don't you?

Not really jasper. I mean, it was the mothers egg implanted into the mothers uterus, it should be up to the mother wether or not it stays there. But I'm just a kid so I'm going to take your word for it.

Jess -

So it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child just because of it's location?

Doesn't that mean that the unborn child is a victim of the Natural Order of Life?

It's not the unborn child's fault that S/he is in that location. So why punish him/her?

Hi Jess,
Sticking with the topic on hand...this mommy did not choose to terminate her pregnancy...her twin babies were murdered.

Jess -

So it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child just because of it's location?

Doesn't that mean that the unborn child is a victim of the Natural Order of Life?

It's not the unborn child's fault that S/he is in that location. So why punish him/her?

Posted by: valerie at April 25, 2008 9:05 PM
................................................

Of course it is the woman's 'fault' and she is deserving of 'punishment'. Unless of course the pregnancy is wanted. Then the pregnancy is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the woman beyond a few months of minor inconvenience.

"So it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child just because of it's location?"

I guess that's about it.

Some stupid pro-life kid once asked about location, "If you held a baby under water would you have the right to kill it!?" No, if you held a baby under water it would die anyways. They might be babies but yeah they are humans and humans need air. kthx

Wonder why Doug hasn't commented on this post. After all these were apparently non-sentient beings that died, therefore there was no murder and therefore should be no charges.
Hmmmmm....??

Hi Jess,
Sticking with the topic on hand...this mommy did not choose to terminate her pregnancy...her twin babies were murdered.

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 9:09 PM

......................................................

I don't think that causing death indirectly, legally constitutes a murder charge.
This poor woman must be traumatized. Her life has been turned upside down. My concern is for the woman and her recovery.

I know Carla, see my 8:13 post.

This poor woman is also grieving the death of her precious twins.

I know Carla, I couldn't even begin to imagine the horror she is going through. I can't think of a punishment sever enough for the gunman.

I think I would have to be restrained from killing him with my bare hands. Someone would have to restrain my hubby too.

Sally:9:20: I don't think that causing death indirectly, legally constitutes a murder charge.
This poor woman must be traumatized. Her life has been turned upside down. My concern is for the woman and her recovery.

This gunman pointed the gun at her abdomen and shot at her and ran. This was an intentional attempt to harm her fetus(es)/babies. That's double murder.

As a Christian and God-fearing man, I cannot tell you how this stirs the absolute outrage in my heart. Where's the outrage by the Senators, Governor and President on this?

There is a Bible verse that talks about this stuff and when I find it I will post it.

If anyone disses that verse I will call for Jill to ban them from this site, otherwise, I will leave this site.

I have absolutely had it up to my gills with our governemnt and it's time to take a stand.

Sally -

"My concern is for the woman and her recovery. "

According to the husband she is in Critical Condition at Methodist Hospital - which is an excellent trauma hospital around here.

"Of course it is the woman's 'fault' and she is deserving of 'punishment'. Unless of course the pregnancy is wanted. Then the pregnancy is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the woman beyond a few months of minor inconvenience. "

With the exception of rape and incest - how is it NOT the woman's fault? She laid down and spread her legs knowing that is how one gets pregnant. All the barriers in the world are not 100% and every contraception pill and device says that. With adoption being legal in America, I'm not sure what you mean by "punishment". Is it the pregnancy itself that is punishment or the thought of raising a child? Is a person "punished" because they got AIDS when they didn't know their partner had it? Is a person "punished" when they develop genital warts because their outerplay involved some genital rubbing but not penitration? Or is this just consequences of their actions? It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with consequences.

Most people admit that the fetus is a human being. How is terminating a human being not murder? and if the answer is because the fetus is inside the womans body, then you have just made the human fetus a victim of the Natural Order of Life. In order to have a victim, a crime had to be committed.

If this happened to my wife or daughter and the authrorities failed to do justice, I would have a moral obligation to take care of the matter myself.

Jasper said: "so it's OK for the mother to murder but not the bank robber?"

C'mon, Jasper. It's only murder if the mother says it's murder. The mother takes on the role of God and decides who lives and who dies. So it stands to reason that she should also decide if the bank robber is prosecuted for murder or for damaging some pieces of tissue in her body.

Whoever committed this vile act, is guity of shedding innocent blood and his days are numbered.

Proverbs 17:15
Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both.

Proverbs 24:24
Whoever says to the guilty, "You are innocent"— peoples will curse him and nations denounce him.

Isaiah 59:7
Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways.

Jeremiah 22:3
This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Deuteronomy 19:10
Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed.

Wait a minute HisMan, this story is really upsetting to everyone on this site. Don't let your anger get the better of you though. If you were to do something crazy and ended up in jail how would it effect your family then? Remember WWJD.

I'll try and take my own advice also, nothing upsets me more then when someone invades an innocent person's personal space.

Jess -

"nothing upsets me more then when someone invades an innocent person's personal space."

You're kidding me right?

Kinda like an unborn human baby in a mother's womb being an innocent's personal space.

If nothing upsets you more, then abortion should outrage you.

Don't worry, HisMan. He will repent or he'll get what's coming to him.

"Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.""

-Romans 12:19

"The one who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new."

Then he said, "Write these words down, for they are trustworthy and true."

He said to me, "They are accomplished. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.

But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

-Revelation 21:5-8

Janet:

Oor government is peverted, it is corrupted and it has lost its way.

Why? Because we have allowed it.

We will be held accountable to God if we sit by and do nothing.

The killing of this mother's children and injuring her is the most heinous type of evil. If I ma angry at this can you imagine how God feels? He restrains his wrath because of His love even for this slime bag murderer. I am not God, however, and I would off this guy in a heart beat.

You can't imagine how pissed off I am.

What just delete that last post I was going to add something but I don't want to get into a whole discussion now.

John L:9:57: Excellent point John. The mother who lost her babies should have a say in what charges are brought against the killers, and it should be taken seriously by the authorities.

John:

Yes, these words are true, however, my heartache, my anger, my outrage, that our goverment has become so twisted and perverse so as to even debate that this guy is not a murderer is beyond the pale.

We have lost our way and it is mostly the church that is at fault.

I don't think we should blame the church, there is a separation between church and state.

HisMan:10:13:

Let's pray that citizens and leaders from all over the world will see this story and realize how far this world has come in devaluing human life. It's time for a change.

Jess 10:25:

Look how well that is working out.

@Janet: And look at countries where government is fused with religion, stuff isn't much better. :-/

Rae:10:30: Point taken.... everything in moderation..But there's a big difference between killing over it and just instructing it (religion).

We can't even teach the kids the Ten Commandments anymore, as in "Thou shalt not kill". That's just going too far...

That said, I expect "viability" will get in the way of this case. State laws should strike this biased word from preborn homicide laws. Whether a baby is or isn't viable is inconsequential. If someone murders a nonviable born person, say someone with terminally ill cancer, it is still called murder.
.........................................................

A nonviable born person is a dead person. Murdering the dead is a very strange concept.

I am going to guess that the violent criminals that killed these two twins for no reason are black. Why do I guess this? Because I am a gambler and statistics say I am right more than half the time. Where is Jesse??? Where is Al Sharpton?? Do they not care about unborn lives?? NO, because that does not give them news time. They do nto care. Unless the babies were black and killed by a white policeman.

How much more complicated can we make this? Let's try to define viability.

Abortion Related Legal Terms
(from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)

Unborn child. The individual human life in existence and developing prior to birth.
A child not yet born at the happening of an event. A child not yet born at the time of an injury to his mother which causes the child to suffer an injury may recover in most jurisdictions after birth if the child were viable in his mother's womb at the time of the defendant's wrongdoing. In the majority of states, injuries sustained by a viable, unborn child which was the cause of the child's death may form the basis of a wrongful death action brought by the estate of the stillborn child. Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. 199, 501 A.2d 1085, 1087.
See also Child; Viable child; Wrongful death statutes.

Viability. Capability of living. A term used to denote the power a new-born child possesses of continuing its independent existence. That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems. The constitutionality of this statutory definition (V.A.M.S. (Mo.), §188.015) was upheld in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788.
For purposes of abortion regulation, viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physical on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388, 99 S.Ct. 675, 682, 58 L.Ed.2d 596. See also Viable; Viable child.

Viable. Livable; having the appearance of being able to live; capable of life. This term is applied to a newly born infant, and especially to one prematurely born, which is not only born alive, but in such a state of organic development as to make possible the continuance of its life. See Viability; Viable child.

Viable child. Unborn child who is capable of independent existence outside of his or her mother's womb, Libbee v. Permanente Clinic, 268 Or. 258, 518 P.2d 636, 637; even if only in an incubator, Sylvia v. Gobielle, 101 R.I. 76, 220 A.2d 222, 223. In most states a viable unborn child is considered a person under the wrongful death statute, e.g., DiDonato v. Wortman, 320 N.C. 423, 358 S.E.2d 489, and in some states is considered to be a person under the homicide statute, e.g., Commonwealth v, Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324. See also Child (Rights of unborn child); Unborn child; Viability; Wrongful death statutes.

http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/terms.htm

Well Janet, since we don't have religious uniformity in this country (thank goddess) it would be difficult to fuse government with religion. And if we teach Christianity in schools we should teach about other religions too.

Janet:

Prayer without action is ineffective.

Faith without works is dead.

If one prays in faith without taking action on what's been prayed for especiaily when the Lord has provided the time, talent and treasure, He laughs at the calamity that results when our prayers go unanswered. I'm not saying that we shouldn't depend on God, I'm saying that part of praying requires action.

We must pray and then act on our convictions. The Gospel is clear on this.

The church has gone namby-pamby and think all they have to do is pray and they've done all they're required to do. Their words are meaningless and just lip-service. If prayer were just enough, then the King of Prayer would not have to have been crucified.

That prayer does not require corresponding action is a lie from the pit of hell.

To end abortion and change all these perverted laws, we must run for office, vote out bad politicians, change the laws, and hold these moral midgets accountable.

The time to act is NOW.

"Rae:10:30: Point taken.... everything in moderation..But there's a big difference between killing over it and just instructing it (religion).

We can't even teach the kids the Ten Commandments anymore, as in "Thou shalt not kill". That's just going too far..."

Agreed.

I still maintain that things like the 10 Commandments is meant to be taught in the home, it is the parent's responsibility to teach their child morality, not the school or society. Again- my opinion.

Hisman,

I agree, we need actions, not just words!!!!! You are preaching to the choir!

Rae:

The 10 Commandments were given to Moses not to parents.

Moses represented authority.

It is a soceital repsonsibility (which includes parents) to teach God's ways as revealed in His Word.

Also, and without getting into the theology of it, teaching the commandments is only one part of it. Teaching the commandments and that we cannot obey them without Christ is what must be done.

Someday, perhaps when things get so bad, we will all wake up and say, hey let's try teaching our kids moral values in school as well. To be educated without morals is to be ignorant. It's like building a car without having the fuel to power it.

This is why my children will NEVER attend a public school. What we teach them at home is reinforced where they spend most of their formative, and early lives.

Well whose morals HisMan? I mean, what if one of the children is Shintoist? How would the child feel if we were to say, "ok well this Christian religion is the only right one"?

The Shinto religion has been around longer then Christianity.

@HisMan: Good for your kids. I went to public school my entire life (even college), my parents went to public school, and my kids will also suffer through the boredom that is public school. My parents turned out pretty good, I turned out pretty good, and my future chitlins will also turn out well.

It is NOT a teacher's responsibility to teach morality. A teacher's responsibility is to prepare kids for the work world and college. That's it. It is the church's and parent's responsibility to teach their kids to be good, moral, citizens.

Yes, the teachers do reinforce those teachings in school by disciplining unruly students, but in the end, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to make sure their children are respectful, and behave in a moral manner.

Sally -

"My concern is for the woman and her recovery. "

According to the husband she is in Critical Condition at Methodist Hospital - which is an excellent trauma hospital around here.

"Of course it is the woman's 'fault' and she is deserving of 'punishment'. Unless of course the pregnancy is wanted. Then the pregnancy is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the woman beyond a few months of minor inconvenience. "

With the exception of rape and incest - how is it NOT the woman's fault? She laid down and spread her legs knowing that is how one gets pregnant. All the barriers in the world are not 100% and every contraception pill and device says that. With adoption being legal in America, I'm not sure what you mean by "punishment". Is it the pregnancy itself that is punishment or the thought of raising a child? Is a person "punished" because they got AIDS when they didn't know their partner had it? Is a person "punished" when they develop genital warts because their outerplay involved some genital rubbing but not penitration? Or is this just consequences of their actions? It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with consequences.

Most people admit that the fetus is a human being. How is terminating a human being not murder? and if the answer is because the fetus is inside the womans body, then you have just made the human fetus a victim of the Natural Order of Life. In order to have a victim, a crime had to be committed.
Posted by: valerie at April 25, 2008 9:48 PM
.........................................................

That you need to subscribe 'fault' to the process of gestation is what puzzles me. What is the incessant need to assign blame over a biological occurrence?
Clearly most people would not wish to contract a disease in any manner. Just as some women would not wish to remain pregnant if that should happen.
Risking a condition with a behavior does not justify societal insistence upon physical consequence. Pregnancy does have physical consequence up to and including death. To demand such possible physical consequence is a violation of human rights. Unless you are compelling one single individual to preserve their own life. In some instances.
You cannot compel a person to sacrifice their well being to save another person much less to create another life.

Jasper said: "so it's OK for the mother to murder but not the bank robber?"

C'mon, Jasper. It's only murder if the mother says it's murder. The mother takes on the role of God and decides who lives and who dies. So it stands to reason that she should also decide if the bank robber is prosecuted for murder or for damaging some pieces of tissue in her body.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 9:57 PM
.................................................

And if she should decide to turn the other cheek and forgive him?

If someone murders a nonviable born person, say someone with terminally ill cancer, it is still called murder.

That's because a born person with terminal cancer is not "nonviable." If they are born, and they have been living outside their mother's bodies for some time, they are obviously viable.

Being a former nurse, you ought to know that, so I'm not sure why you're playing dumb.

Rae:11:16: @HisMan: Good for your kids. I went to public school my entire life (even college), my parents went to public school, and my kids will also suffer through the boredom that is public school. My parents turned out pretty good, I turned out pretty good, and my future chitlins will also turn out well.

It is NOT a teacher's responsibility to teach morality. A teacher's responsibility is to prepare kids for the work world and college. That's it. It is the church's and parent's responsibility to teach their kids to be good, moral, citizens.

Yes, the teachers do reinforce those teachings in school by disciplining unruly students, but in the end, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to make sure their children are respectful, and behave in a moral manner.

I don't doubt you turned out pretty good, but why settle for "pretty good". In the Catholic church, we are trying to raise children to be saints (well, it doesn't always happen, but it's a goal to strive for!:)

Discipline means "teaching". Discipline teaches kids how to act in a civilized way, how to contribute to society in a productive way, and to stay out of trouble. Do you see the connection? You can't separate morals from classroom teaching. Consider "The Book of Virtues" written by Bennett. It's a wonderful compilation of stories for children/adults that teaches morals and virtues. It is a joke that, there are probably people who would suggesting banning this book in a classroom because there might be *gasp* a few bible stories in it. The problem with many schools is that all they are concerned about is teaching kids how to take tests so they can get into a good college, and get a good job. Schools need to teach children how to think as well. To do that you have to expose them to a wide range of disciplines. (There is a lot to be learned from studying Christianity, for example, even if you don't "believe" in it.)

You cannot compel a person to sacrifice their well being to save another person
--------

But, that's exactly what abortion is.

Compelling the child to sacrifice their well being and very life to save their mother.

Jess and Reality:

I am just too angry to respond tonight.

Today's posts have got me so hot I'm just gonna lay it down for now because you do not want to hear what I have to say.

Schools need to teach children how to think as well.
------

And this is why my children will all be homeschooled.

Schools do indeed teach children how to think and I have no control over the method, style or content of what the state and school board deem appropriate. Currently for the sake of being P.C. and not associating with religion, many schools are teaching moral relativism, ie, it may be wrong for you, but it's right for me. We can all see the fruits of this!

Sally: 11:20: That you need to subscribe 'fault' to the process of gestation is what puzzles me. What is the incessant need to assign blame over a biological occurrence?... You cannot compel a person to sacrifice their well being to save another person much less to create another life.

You are puzzled? Here's an analogy to abortion:

When you are more than three months pregnant, it's pretty easy to see that you aren't the only "piece of the puzzle" in this pregnancy of yours. Just look down at your expanding belly. At the end of month one, it isn't always easy to see this. Whether you are one month pregnant or three months pregnant, this "other piece" has been there since day one (conception). Women who consider abortion fail to realize that this "piece" is meant to be a part of the puzzle that is your life. If you throw it away before you're done, you can't complete the puzzle. There will be an empty hole in your life that you'll never get back. Your life won't be complete the way it was meant to be. Just something to think about, before you abort.

"The problem with many schools is that all they are concerned about is teaching kids how to take tests so they can get into a good college, and get a good job. Schools need to teach children how to think as well. To do that you have to expose them to a wide range of disciplines. (There is a lot to be learned from studying Christianity, for example, even if you don't "believe" in it.)"

I agree, that is a problem, and I think it's very regrettable that that is the case. I think it's pathetic that we're basically taught according to exams.

*sigh*

Sally:9:20: I don't think that causing death indirectly, legally constitutes a murder charge.
This poor woman must be traumatized. Her life has been turned upside down. My concern is for the woman and her recovery.

This gunman pointed the gun at her abdomen and shot at her and ran. This was an intentional attempt to harm her fetus(es)/babies. That's double murder.

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 9:30 PM
..............................................

The blurbs say nothing about intentional aim of the shot. Obviously the woman was the threat and therefore the target. I seriously doubt if the man thought that the possible contents of her uterus were an impediment to the success of his robbery. It's impossible to know if the man even recognized her pregnancy as a possibility. Unless of course, you believe that the man wasn't really there to rob a bank but rather to find a pregnant woman to shoot in the abdomen.
What ticks me off is the lack of concern for the woman and her trauma. You folks would like to compare being the victim of violent assault to voluntarily ending a pregnancy. It's so very dismissive of the experience of being a victim of violence. And don't you dare make yourselves even more dismissive by comparing this woman's experience to aborted embryos incapable of experiencing anything.
Every minute of every day a woman is being beaten by a man that has professed to love her. Many of them are pregnant. Many will miscarry due to their abuse. Where is the outrage? Where is the political call to arms over this outrage?

I'm sorry HisMan, I'm sorry if I said anything to hurt or offend you. I don't come on this site to hurt anyone. I'm sure you're doing a wonderful job of raising your children, they seem like they're growing up into fine young adults the way to write about them here. I'm not saying we should take religion out of schools, on the contrary, we should teach about all religions. The vast majority of the world is religious, we should educate our children to be understand and be open minded toward all beliefs : )

P.S. I really do appreciate the passion you have for your cause HisMan.

Oh please, Sally. Check the internet news sites. It's been reported that she was shot in the abdomen, OK? At 5 months pregnant, she'd be showing most likely, unless she's six and a half feet tall.
We have no clue as to these guys' motives (there are reports there were four men), they may have been acquaintances for all we know.

Of course there is concern for the woman as people have commented!!! Your uncaring attitude about the babies is most outrageous.

Sorry, to is you and understand is understanding. Whatev' dudes I need sleep.

Actually Janet it might not have shown if she was overweight or what she was wearing or depending on a few things. But that definitely doesn't change the fact that this monster killed two people.

Sally, you wrote: "Every minute of every day a woman is being beaten by a man that has professed to love her."

When does she sleep?

Numbers 35:33
33 Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

Psalm 106:37-42
37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons.
38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
39 They defiled themselves by what they did;
by their deeds they prostituted themselves.
40 Therefore the LORD was angry with his people and abhorred his inheritance.
41 He handed them over to the nations,
and their foes ruled over them.
42 Their enemies oppressed them
and subjected them to their power.

2 Kings 24:2-4
2 The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely these things happened to Judah according to the LORD's command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, 4 including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive.

And this is why my children will all be homeschooled.

Schools do indeed teach children how to think and I have no control over the method, style or content of what the state and school board deem appropriate. Currently for the sake of being P.C. and not associating with religion, many schools are teaching moral relativism, ie, it may be wrong for you, but it's right for me. We can all see the fruits of this!

Elizabeth G, while I don't want to dissuade you from homeschooling your children, I think you need to be aware of some of the effects. As someone who has been both homeschooled and publicly schooled, I think it's GREAT that you want to provide additional education to your children. I'm certain I would not have excelled in high school without my mother's patient teachings and my father's great genes. However, you may be disempowering your children by homeschooling them!

While it's easy to recite what you're going to say in case someone challenges your argument (my parents gave me some good responses to say if people questioned my faith), it's not as easy to do that in practice. So if you really want to instill your beliefs in your children, you need to be sure they get that practice in.

In fact, I think public school is a great place for children to be exposed to ideas of all kinds. It's a true test of your parenting skills as well -- if your kid makes it out and still has your viewpoints, you've won!

In fact, I happen to like the way I was schooled. Spent the first 8 years being homeschooled (well, more like 9 -- I got bored when my big brother started school so I've always been more on his level; we graduated high school the same year too) and the last 4 in public school. All of my brothers have done the same thing.

I didn't learn how to "think" in high school... since by then they sorta expect you to think on your own, but I did learn how to stand my ground!

Besides, it's college you gotta REALLY be worried about. :D

P.S. I can't remember any moments when moral relativism was taught in school. It's kinda something you realize on your own when you take a few history classes and can then SEE moral relativism in action.

Discipline means "teaching". Discipline teaches kids how to act in a civilized way, how to contribute to society in a productive way, and to stay out of trouble.

Haha, I don't think my mother would have described it quite like that. Or maybe she would... in theory, but not in practice!

You can't separate morals from classroom teaching. Consider "The Book of Virtues" written by Bennett. It's a wonderful compilation of stories for children/adults that teaches morals and virtues.

I read that when I was a child. :) Can't remember a damn thing from it though, but I'm sure I must have gotten something from it...

It is a joke that, there are probably people who would suggesting banning this book in a classroom because there might be *gasp* a few bible stories in it.

The problem is not the Bible stories any more than making children read Aesop's Fables. The problem is that some would like to perpetrate the idea that the Bible is "truth" while others would like it to remain as historical fiction. I believe "parable" is the best term for such Biblical stories in that particular book, but I'd have to read it again to be certain.

The problem with many schools is that all they are concerned about is teaching kids how to take tests so they can get into a good college, and get a good job. Schools need to teach children how to think as well. To do that you have to expose them to a wide range of disciplines. (There is a lot to be learned from studying Christianity, for example, even if you don't "believe" in it.)

You are completely right about that first bit. The high school class following mine had Chemistry and Biology completely eliminated from curriculum and replaced with a dumbed down, to-the-test, general science material. Needless to say, the AP Chemistry classes I enjoyed and AP Biology classes my friends enjoyed soon dwindled.

But schools are NOT at all concerned with their students going to college or getting a job. They get funding based on their graduation rate, which is considered "success," and for the higher number of students who pass tests.

The solution is not to force schools to change their curriculum (certainly, I know a good number of my teachers were appalled by the to-the-test method) but to instead increase funding to schools, raise the salaries (and other incentives) for teachers, and require more qualified teachers. The curriculum will increase naturally.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "schools must teach students to think" because I don't know if thinking is something that can be taught, necessarily. But I do recall studying quite a few logic-based texts and critical thinking books, so I think those should be fundamental as a part of English courses. How to refute an argument, for example, needs knowledge of logical fallacies. Most math is taught not by logic, but by memorization, another failure on the part of educators. When a student understands the how, following steps to reach an answer is not just a calculation, it's a reasoned process. If by "think" you mean something along the lines of moral reasoning, I think you can argue that teachers can and do such things (I believe they're done more in lower grades, right?) but I would not trust a teacher (or teachers) to make one big decision for the parent on what "moral" means. For example: Many people think homosexuality is completely acceptable. I'm certain some parents would not want that taught. I believe a teacher's role is to say it's unacceptable to harm others who are homosexuals, whether that's in slurs, personal attacks, or what have you, but if the parent wants the child to know it's wrong, then it's the parent's job to inform the child of such.

And I completely agree about a wide range of disciplines. I am in full support of theology classes in public schools.

Janet said:11:47:You can't separate morals from classroom teaching. Consider "The Book of Virtues" written by Bennett. It's a wonderful compilation of stories for children/adults that teaches morals and virtues.

I read that when I was a child. :) Can't remember a damn thing from it though, but I'm sure I must have gotten something from it...

You may be trying to be funny here, but the humor is lost on me. Your perception of what thinking and educationare seems a bit "off". The way I read your comments you see education as a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose what you like, whereas I would education to a 7-course meal, where disciplines build upon the previous ones. One encourages critical thinking, while the other encourages "free thinking".

Sorry, It's early, let's correct this last post to make it more readable:

Janet said:11:47:You can't separate morals from classroom teaching. Consider "The Book of Virtues" written by Bennett. It's a wonderful compilation of stories for children/adults that teaches morals and virtues.

Edyt said:2:57: I read that when I was a child. :) Can't remember a damn thing from it though, but I'm sure I must have gotten something from it...

You may be trying to be funny here, but the humor is lost on me. Your perception of what thinking and education are seems a bit "off". The way I read your comments, you see education as a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose what you like, I see education as a 7-course meal, where disciplines build upon the previous ones. One encourages critical thinking, while the other encourages "free thinking". *I see learning critical thinking as more important in the long run.*

Sally:9:20: I don't think that causing death indirectly, legally constitutes a murder charge.
This poor woman must be traumatized. Her life has been turned upside down. My concern is for the woman and her recovery.

So if I aim my gun at your head and the bullet goes through you killing the guy behind you, I won't be charged with his murder also? Realllllly?

Sally,

A nonviable born person is a dead person. Murdering the dead is a very strange concept.

Are you honestly saying that a fetus that is 11 weeks old is "DEAD"???? You're kidding right?

Again Sal,

You are preaching to the choir. You should be asking yourself, not us, these questions. WE all know that killing an unborn child is an outrage, whether it is from a husband beating his wife or a woman having an abortion...

Gosh, you sure do see things in black and white. Just cuz a guy beats his wife doesn't mean he's a bad man...Is your notion that men beating their wives is a bad thing, the only thing that keeps you from being a sociopath? Why are you so hung up on placing blame? Why are you outraged? Why does anyone have to be at fault? Why can't beating your wife just be a personal decision without you making a moral judgment? It's just your opinion! Many people see wife beating as a perfectly acceptable way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Many wives deserve to be beaten. You don't know both sides of the story. You're quick to judge the guy, but who knows. Maybe his wife didn't have dinner ready on time, or ruined his favorite shirt. Before you go casting aspersions, you should think. Not everything is a clear cut as you would like it to be...

Edyt,

Thank you for your perspective. I do believe that faith and ideas need to be tried and refined when the time is right. However, I'm not one who believes in sending children to battle.

I'm still young, so I was in highschool a little less than a decade ago and have taught in public school as well and can absolutely say that school, as with the rest of this world, is a spiritual battleground.

Fourteen to Eighteen are still very formative years and I don't want my children molded for eight hours daily by things totally outside my control and in many cases knowledge.

That's not to say we're moving to a compound in the country and never letting our children see daylight ;) We live in a big city and our families have different world views then we do, so there will be plenty of opportunities to see and discuss "what else is out there."

(We also have many other reasons for wanting to homeschool, but this is most important to us.)

mk, you really should put up a sarcasm warning for new readers. Even Paul did this, "and here I speak as a fool."

Hi Elizabeth,
Please do not say as a parent you have no control over what is taught in school. You do. You are the parent. I know some states(CA!)are trying to say parents have no voice but it is the parents that can have a major impact on the school board and curriculum. I love reading how parents and students challenge policies and win! :)

It's not only curriculum, it's the beliefs of the individual teachers (yes this does come through, teachers are humans) and the other children and their parents.

California does scare me. The laws against "gender discrimination" will have very bad effects in the schools. When you can't legally tell a boy to get out of the girl's bathroom or locker room, it's a bad thing. Is there really anyone who does not see that getting horribly abused and girls getting hurt?

Honestly what scares me far more is the reasoning the CA judge gave in the Feb. case where he tried to overturn homeschooling statewide. It's the same thought currently used in Germany and legally enforced there. Your kids belong first and foremost to the state and it is the state who decides how to endoctrinate them.

Hopefully that's just a renegade judge and not where American society will be heading. We'll be watching it closely.

"C'mon, Jasper. It's only murder if the mother says it's murder. The mother takes on the role of God and decides who lives and who dies. So it stands to reason that she should also decide if the bank robber is prosecuted for murder or for damaging some pieces of tissue in her body."

Excellent John.
You're right,logically, the mother is the one who should decide if the bank robber is prosecuted for murder.

HI Sally,
Justice needs to be done. Perhaps this woman can someday forgive him for killing her babies, but this man needs to face the consequences of his actions.

Although some public schools are good (very few), most of them are failures, many of the teachers belong to the ultra-left wing teachers union (hard-core Democrats). When I drop off my son at school, I see many Obama bumper stickers on their cars. I'm starting to worry.

I am thankful that my children have had Christian teachers in their public school. Very loving, caring and moral. They even say Merry Christmas! (can you imagine?!)My 2nd grader brings her bible to school for show and tell and reads from Genesis. :)

Hey Elizabeth G:
You are a homeschooler! Wonderful! I homeschooled my kids for 9 years before my x made me put them into school.
It was funny how the school system reacted to us based on what my x told them.
I think they expected a bunch of freaks who couldn't relate to anyone.
My eldest girl was co-valedictorian in gr 8 and maintains a 90+ average in high school.
my middle girl is a gifted musician studying violin and piano and who recently won scholarships in both instruments at our music festival.
She's in gr 8 now and was 2 grades ahead when she started in the system at gr 5. She's mostly bored.
The youngest girl is in gr 5 and doing well with top of the class marks.
They have many friends and are not freaks.

My son had the toughest time but that's because he was thrown to the wolves in high school and he played piano which he got a lot of flak over.

Now the teachers have quite alot of respect for me. I taught my kids critical thinking and logic courses and my older son Latin.

Keep up the good work! I wish I were still able to homeschool Rebecca because it would make her music studies so much easier.

"P.S. I can't remember any moments when moral relativism was taught in school. It's kinda something you realize on your own when you take a few history classes and can then SEE moral relativism in action.

Posted by: Edyt at April 26, 2008 2:35 AM

BTW: moral relativism is rank throughout the textbooks which are for the most part USELESS.
My kids attend Catholic schools here in Canada but the teachers are anything but Catholic. My eldest girls vocal teacher is engaged to a divorced man who's likely not annulled and whom she's living with! Some example!!

You just keep on plugging away Elizabeth. Your kids are the real future of our society.

Jasper-

no need to worry, he's our next president.

As for public schools, it seems that it's (mostly) inner city schools that are suffering in terms of quality of education and teacher shortages, but it is beginning to spread more and more into suburban schools, even in wealthy communities.

As for the teacher union being to the left, I dunno. There are teachers in my school who joined the union but are anything but to the left politically. It's funny, political views here almost seem to be divided by what subject the teachers teach, bit comical really. We've never been outright told by any teacher where they stand on what, it's all simply been interpretation on our part, but the trends are interesting nonetheless.

Actually, I live in Indianapolis and have been following this story since I first saw it on the local news. I'm sad to have heard that she lost the babies, but I hope she survives (they don't loose her too) and has a swift recovery. My prayers and thoughts are with their family.

Hi Dan,
You don't think the NEA is to the left?? Might need do some homework.

Valerie said:
According to the husband she is in Critical Condition at Methodist Hospital - which is an excellent trauma hospital around here.

I can imagine it is, although fortuantly I haven't personally known anyone who's needed their services. Also Indiana University Hospital is supposed to be an excellent hospital in specialized care. BTW, just out of curiosity Valerie, do you live in the the area or in state?

As for political language used by the news sources for referring to the pregnancy, Fox News was using the term, "unborn babies," sensitive to the situation of a wanted pregnancy, NBC and CBS were using the medical term "fetuses" for generic purposes and political correctness.

Another horrible case similar to Lileigh's.

Jill said

That said, I expect "viability" will get in the way of this case. State laws should strike this biased word from preborn homicide laws. Whether a baby is or isn't viable is inconsequential.

I agree Jill - but the problem isn't really with the word. The Roe ruling (particularly Blackmun's circular logic re: his own definition of viability) has redefined the popular understanding of the word - that's the problem.

Viability means successfully living under normal conditions. If those normal conditions are dramatically and externally altered, such as induced abortion or a gunshot, how does that change the bearing on the value of the preborn? It doesn't. Very few people are viable when they've been subject to radical changes in their environment.

If a man were physically thrown off the deck of a ship in the middle of the ocean, and he died because he was non-viable in those conditions, wouldn't the culprit who tossed him be tried for murder? Of course.

The laws simply reflect a view of the preborn that is either selfish (the abortion distortion) or ignores their intrinsic value because of a philosophical unfamiliarity with how Environment has bearing on morality. A change in environment shouldn't have bearing on the moral agency and applicability of morality and law upon that human person.

If a gunshot wound changes the environment for a born human person, it does the same thing for a preborn human person.

Thanks for the observation.

Elizabeth G,

Lol...I forget sometimes that not everyone knows me or my sense of "humor"...

Love that line "Here I speak as a fool..." I'll have to remember.

Wonder why Doug hasn't commented on this post.

Patricia, because I was working in a power plant, keeping your lights on.
......

After all these were apparently non-sentient beings that died, therefore there was no murder and therefore should be no charges. Hmmmmm....??

You are mighty confused. It isn't sentience or not that makes for murder or not. We'll see what the Indiana courts decide if the case goes.

You're also wrong if you think that Pro-Choicers would say there should be no charges in such a case.

The problem with many schools is that all they are concerned about is teaching kids how to take tests so they can get into a good college, and get a good job. Schools need to teach children how to think as well.

Janet, my wife's a teacher, and yes, they have to "teach to the test," bigtime. It's mandated by the states, and the "no child left behind" deal is a dismal failure, overall, in the opinion of most teachers I know.

Doug said: "Patricia, because I was working in a power plant, keeping your lights on."

You wouldn't be the Safety Inspector in the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, would you? It would explain a lot.

"the "no child left behind" deal is a dismal failure, overall, in the opinion of most teachers I know."

I just love how some teachers don't think that they should be held to the same standards as people in any other profession. In any other profession, if you don't produce, you get fired. Teachers just whine about it.

@JohnL: NCLB leads to cookie-cutter education...where kids really learn nothing and only memorize crap for exams.

I do think that bad teachers should get canned...I hate the concept of tenure because it kept so many crappy teachers at my school growing up when they should have been fired for incompetance YEARS ago. I also really hate teacher's unions because the union was biatching about not getting a day off at the end of the year after graduation to finish last minute grading(WTF? As if a whole SUMMER isn't enough?) , so the selfish creeps decided NOT to go to graduation to watch their STUDENTS graduate! It was sooooo ridiculous and I lost pretty much the last modicum of respect I even had for my teachers.

Rachael: 9:38 AM: As for political language used by the news sources for referring to the pregnancy, Fox News was using the term, "unborn babies," sensitive to the situation of a wanted pregnancy, NBC and CBS were using the medical term "fetuses" for generic purposes and political correctness.

Thanks for pointing this out. These babies were 5 months old in utero. Do doctors still call them fetuses at five months? That just sounds so stupid! It's a baby. Duh!

You anti-choice people ignore one unavoid-
able fact:women will seek and obtain abortions whether they are legal or not.And if they are too
poor to do this they will try to abort themselves.
The only way to prevent abortion is to
prevent unwanted pregnancies,but that is more
easily said than done.Just telling women
"don't have sex" won't cut it.

Robert,

What DID the world due before Roe vs Wade. Your generation has been so brainwashed it's incredible.

How gullible are you?

MK, oh, you know, the same things other parts of the world are doing right now.

Still having abortions.

Does that make me "gullible" for reading news reports about women having illegal abortions in other countries? Am I "gullible" for believing these reports when they state that WOMEN ARE DYING from illegal abortions? Am I "gullible" for believing the stories of women who had abortions and doctors who performed them in a time when it was illegal in the U.S.?

Am I "gullible" for believing there must have been a damn good reason for changing them from an illegal status?

Am I "gullible" for believing the stories of women who had abortions and doctors who performed them in a time when it was illegal in the U.S.?

Ummm- yes.

Go look at the data in the years prior to Roe vs Wade and tell me about the number of deaths. I want to see objective, verifiable evidence, not anecdotal rhetoric.

Here start with: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (CDC Surveillance Summaries 9/4/72) p.33. Table #15

Nevermind. I'm the fool - thinking you'd seriously look into it, without your morality subjectivity skewing your view.

I forgot - you're someone who can observe "moral relativity in action"...nevermind.

Hey Chris, here's a hint: You don't have to die for something to be dangerous to your health.

P.S. If you read a history textbook you can observe moral relativity in action. Hell, if you want two people having a conversation you can witness moral relativity in action.

Hey Robert, didn't I tell you that you could keep emailing me your pro-abortion propaganda BS if you wanted to? I love deletin' me some stupid crap from my Inbox. I see that instead you're posting it on here, and apparently you have not yet mastered the technology of the keyboard. Here's a hint: You're hitting the "Enter" key too much!

John L: You wouldn't be the Safety Inspector in the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, would you? It would explain a lot.

No, but that's The Simpsons, right? One of the greatest shows ever.
......

"the "no child left behind" deal is a dismal failure, overall, in the opinion of most teachers I know."

I just love how some teachers don't think that they should be held to the same standards as people in any other profession. In any other profession, if you don't produce, you get fired. Teachers just whine about it.

That's not it, John. It really is meaning that kids get sent through school with the aim being on just making it through the tests. Often it's only a couple kids who for whatever reasons take so much of the teacher's time that the whole class suffers.

Hey John,you still think that abortion
will go away if it becomes illegal in the US.
Wake up! You are deluding yourself,just like the other pathetic anti-choice people on
this site.

Robert, just curious, how old are you?

I'd like to know that too, Janet.

Come on, Robert, fess up... : )