Who Do you Agree with?

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by Razor

Jamber, is there an issue other than economics you'd rather discuss?

Please say defense policy!

Federalism would be another good one!

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Razor

Jamber, is there an issue rather than economics you'd rather discuss?

Originally Posted by USANick7

Please say defense policy!

Federalism would be another good one!

Abortion?


If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.

I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Abortion?


If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.

I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY

Brother...I wasnt even going to hope for this one....


here we go...

[USANick7]

Abortion should be a question of when life begins. If it is anything else, then we are arguing about whether life has intrinsic value or not. We can argue that if you wish, but I am assuming that you do believe that human life does have intrinsic value, since unlike your presidential candidate, you don't seem to support infanticide.

So let us go back to our original question...when does life begin?

Science has determined that if something is growing it is therefore living. Now this may seem like an overly simplistic definition, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Now there are scientists who believe that in order to make the cut the criteria should be more strenuous, but what is interesting is that even with a more selective criteria, the human fetus at the point of conception meets these requirements.

the next question would be, what defines "human life". We define the species according to DNA. At the point of conception you possess all of the DNA from an outside source that you ever will.

So therefore, without pulling on one morale argument we have established quite adequately that at the point of conception, what we have is "Human Life".

Do we really need to debate the one remaining question...the question of innocence, or are you willing to concede that an infant is not guilty of a crime?

If so, then we have only one thing left to do...accurately describe the policy you support...

"Abortion is the systematic destruction of defenseless, innocent human life"

If you do not accept this definition, I am willing to hear your counter argument.

if you do accept it, and are comfortable with continuing to support it, then we must now argue concerning the belief in the intrinsic value of human life.

What shall it be.

[sg1987]

I wouldn’t weigh in on this thread because you gents are often over this former grunt's head most of the time……except to note that the class demonstrated in this thread is much more impressive than some of the comments made in the college football thread.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by sg1987

I wouldn’t weigh in on this thread because you gents are often over this former grunt's head most of the time……except to note that the class demonstrated in this thread is much more impressive than some of the comments made in the college football thread.

LOL

Well that because they are dealing with some serious stuff!

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Abortion?

If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.

I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY

How many parents does it take to make a baby, jamber97?

If the father does not want the baby, can he kill it with impunity whenever he wishes?

What if he wants the child, and the mother does not? Should she be able to kill his child?

TR

[USANick7]

Damn, I was hoping he would answer my question before leaving!

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Abortion?


If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.

I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY

Jamber,

When I was close to your age, I held a similar position. One day, while doing maintenance in the Mortar Platoon Gun Room, one of my specialists (whose wife was pregnant) brought in a commercially-sold "coffee talble" book with pictures taken from within the womb as the fetus developed - at all stages. I was mystified, amazed, and mortified at the position I had previously held. Ashamed.

When my wife became pregnant on two occasions and I could see, hear, and feel life develop inside her, as well as witness the birth of my two daughters, I was forever changed. I know when they were conceived and saw them both born. At some point between those two events they became life. I am not about to "guess" when - or let someone else guess. It is life, plain and simple.

Also, by your argument, no babies should have "rights" because human infants cannot survive long "outside their mother" - whether "healthy and full-term" or not!

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by USANick7

Abortion should be a question of when life begins. If it is anything else, then we are arguing about whether life has intrinsic value or not. We can argue that if you wish, but I am assuming that you do believe that human life does have intrinsic value, since unlike your presidential candidate, you don't seem to support infanticide.

So let us go back to our original question...when does life begin?

Science has determined that if something is growing it is therefore living. Now this may seem like an overly simplistic definition, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Now there are scientists who believe that in order to make the cut the criteria should be more strenuous, but what is interesting is that even with a more selective criteria, the human fetus at the point of conception meets these requirements.

the next question would be, what defines "human life". We define the species according to DNA. At the point of conception you possess all of the DNA from an outside source that you ever will.

So therefore, without pulling on one morale argument we have established quite adequately that at the point of conception, what we have is "Human Life".

Do we really need to debate the one remaining question...the question of innocence, or are you willing to concede that an infant is not guilty of a crime?

If so, then we have only one thing left to do...accurately describe the policy you support...

"Abortion is the systematic destruction of defenseless, innocent human life"

If you do not accept this definition, I am willing to hear your counter argument.

if you do accept it, and are comfortable with continuing to support it, then we must now argue concerning the belief in the intrinsic value of human life.

What shall it be.

Thats a very good argument.

"Determining when life begins is way above my pay grade " I sidestep that argument and focus on the rights of the mother to determine if she feels her unborn mass should live or die. I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all. Most arguments tend to come from a religious point of view. If you approach it from a religious point of view it pretty clear cut.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Jamber,


Also, by your argument, no babies should have "rights" because human infants cannot survive long "outside their mother" - whether "healthy and full-term" or not!

I think you misunderstood my point. If you can make it survive outside the mother it has a right to life aside from the mothers wishes. As of now that would be 21 weeks 6 days. Until then its the mothers choice.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Thats a very good argument.

"Determining when life begins is way above my pay grade " I sidestep that argument and focus on the rights of the mother to determine if she feels her unborn mass should live or die. I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all. Most arguments tend to come from a religious point of view. If you approach it from a religious point of view it pretty clear cut.

I haven't approached it form the "religious" point of view...

If life does not have intrinsic value, then why not kill it after the womb as well? In fact, what is the fundamental (not practical) difference between what you believe and what Hitler believed.

Neither of you believed that Human Life has intrinsic value, your simply haggaling over details. If innocent human life is not intrinsically valuable at its beginning, than what makes it valuable later?

If you aren't going to accept the scientific definitions of "human life" I have presented than present an opposing argument, but insisting on calling it a "unborn mass" without an explanation is a cheap and intellectually dishonest trick, which I think you know wont fly around here.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by USANick7

I haven't approached it form the "religious" point of view...

If life does not have intrinsic value, then why not kill it after the womb as well? In fact, what is the fundamental (not practical) difference between what you believe and what Hitler believed.

Neither of you believed that Human Life has intrinsic value, your simply haggaling over details. If innocent human life is not intrinsically valuable at its beginning, than what makes it valuable later?

If you aren't going to accept the scientific definitions of "human life" I have presented than present an opposing argument, but insisting on calling it a "unborn mass" without an explanation is a cheap and intellectually dishonest trick, which I think you know wont fly around here.

No, my point is that "I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all”, I'm not saying that life has no intrinsic value. We exercise this principal in everyday life.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by USANick7

I
If you aren't going to accept the scientific definitions of "human life" I have presented than present an opposing argument, but insisting on calling it a "unborn mass" without an explanation is a cheap and intellectually dishonest trick, which I think you know wont fly around here.

I accept your definition.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I accept your definition.

So you are claiming that while life does have intrinsic value, this fact does not "trump all".

If an innocent persons right to live, doesn't supersede all other rights, don't you run into a very obvious problem?

If my right to live does not trump another persons right to kill me, don't we run into some very serious problems?