[USANick7]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Correct




Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.



You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.

Here is the problem Jamber, we are right back to "definitions of Human life".

You claimed that you accepted my definition, now you appear to be contradicting yourself.

If you do except my definition, then this response makes no sense.

You make several assertions in here which are based merely on your opinion rather than verifiable scientific evidence.

Let us return once more to the definition of human life and go from there...otherwise you will force me to return to my obvious response, that if Human life does not have intrinsic value at the point of conception, why do YOU get to choose when it starts having "rights"...

I can see that we are also going to trail into the notion of relativism vs. objectivism...that will come up, but first we must be settled on this point..

Human Life begins at conception. (You agreed with this statement)

If human life begins at conception, then what prey tell gives you the right to snuff it out?

Apparently it is a question of development....

So again, we have established what you believe: (It is acceptable to destroy human life at its most innocent and defenseless stage)

We are merely arguing over details.

You wish to say that attaining an ability to "reason" is the criteria by which we should decide. And if Hitler should disagree, you appear to have no morale response....you just simply agree to disagree.

Now I'm sorry to keep bringing up Hitler, but it is necessary to demonstrate the fundamental problems with allowing abortion to continue as is. Your argument suggests a lack of understanding of what "intrinsic" means as it is applied to Human Life.

You also appear to be oblivious to the obvious flaw in your reasoning. You claim to be all for individual liberty (strange since you support greater government involvement in the economic sector), yet deny the very first right we have, the right to LIVE. The most fundamental of all rights.

This right you claim is subordinate to YOUR opinion that life only has value when YOU determine it does. I find that disturbing. because if life only has value when you determine, instead of when it begins, than who are you to tell someone else they are wrong when they determine that innocent human life can be destroyed a month after birth (Yale ethicist Peter Singer).

Furthermore, you suggest that there is some difference between a religious response to abortion and a "rational" one. But you partially defeat this argument when you claim that life has intrinsic value. If life has intrinsic value, then you are arguing from a Theistic viewpoint, for how can something possess value intrinsically in a closed system, devoid of absolute truth or morale law.

Don't get me wrong, I think you are correct in approaching it from a "Theistic" viewpoint.