Who Do you Agree with?

[echoes]

Jamber,

Your Signature brought me to the conclusion that you were a woman. You don't need to say yea or nay in the public forum, just my own belief.

I have read each and every word you have written in this thread, and in my own analysis, your words speak to the idiocy that makes up a liberal woman in todays soceity.

You dance around, cloak, and toy with the male gender of conservatives on this site, by ocilating between being for abortion, but against it in "relative" terms. (You know what I mean.)

You are the type of woman that attempts to paint, with broad strokes, your opponent...only to play the "emotional" card when it suites.

Disgusting, IMHO.

Holly

[Pete]

The last couple of pages are getting a little heated.

Make your points but remain civil.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by echoes

Jamber,

Your Signature brought me to the conclusion that you were a woman. You don't need to say yea or nay in the public forum, just my own belief.

I have read each and every word you have written in this thread, and in my own analysis, your words speak to the idiocy that makes up a liberal woman in todays soceity.

You dance around, cloak, and toy with the male gender of conservatives on this site, by ocilating between being for abortion, but against it in "relative" terms. (You know what I mean.)

You are the type of woman that attempts to paint, with broad strokes, your opponent...only to play the "emotional" card when it suites.

Disgusting, IMHO.

Holly

No, I'm not a woman but I appreciate the compliment. I've been married for 12 years and have two children 3 and 5 years old. My wife doesn't share my views. I'm far from being a liberal or interested in accepting any label you might try to attach. I have strong convictions that I wouldn't dream of forcing on the masses. I believe in a persons right to make their own choices free from force as long as that persons rights do not encroach on the rights of others.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by afchic

If you chose to have sex and become pregnant, whose fault is it, the tooth fairy's??? If you have fear of a condom breaking, or the birth control pill not working, or any other plethora of reasons I am sure you will throw back at me, then don't have sex.

Here is a story for you. When I was a 1st Lt, I was single, on birth control, and got pregnant. Now I had my sq/cc as well as my 1st Sgt and a bunch of other senior ranking officers tell me that it would be best for career if I had an abortion because being a single parent took a lot of effort, and would be distracting to my career. Sounds difficult to believe, but it is true.

My take was, I was the one who made the mistake, not the child I was carrying. So why should it have to pay for my mistakes? Had I a been a little more selfish, maybe that would have been the road I took. But my parents taught me to own up to my mistakes, and learn from them. So I was a single parent for 5 years, and guess what, it didn't effect my career in the least. Now my daughter is 11 years old and has been the light of my life from the moment I found out I was pregnant.

I am tired of people saying they have the "right" to have sexual intercourse, but the child created doesn't have the right to live. I have the "right" to bash my husband over the head if he pisses me off, but there are also consequences to be paid for said action.

Do you know how many families there are in this country seeking to adopt a child? If you don't want the child, fine put it up for adoption. There is no excuse for the killing of an innocent life because it is an inconvenience, or the timing isn't right, or I am just not ready to be a parent. Goes back to my narcissism idea.

I support your right to make that decision regardless of your reason.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I think that in your haste you are misreading or reading selectively the posts of people who disagree with your position.

We are not 'backing into' anything. I am suggesting a scenario in which science confirms a matter of faith and that matter of faith then becomes a matter of scientific 'fact.'

Granted, this scenario suggests a paradigm shift of Copernican dimensions and is therefore, according to the late Thomas Kuhn, unlikely, but science does have a tricky way of making the improbable common place.

Considering the fact that Americans are historically a very religious group overall, why should values derived from religious sensibilities not play a pivotal role in the formulation of public policy.

(In anticipation of the separation of the church and state argument, I would ask: are you sure that the separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and not for the protection of religious freedom?)

That scientific Copernican argument is over my head. I'll need to do a little research on that.

Values derived from religious sensibilities should not play a role in the formulation of public policy because religion is subjective. Many "sensibilities" existed long before organized religion came on the scene.

To answer your last point: Separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and religious freedom.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Pete

Jamber;

You have just agreed with the majority of posters here. At least in that 3rd trimester abortions should be restricted. Since it is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be viable in these days.

The agrument will now have to move into the 2nd trimester.

Pete

As medical advances improve it modifies my stance on when its a womans' right to abort. Before the fetus is 21 weeks six days.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Pete

The last couple of pages are getting a little heated.

Make your points but remain civil.

Pete Sir,

My appologies if my posts have not been up to PS.com standards.

Will attempt to do better in the future.

Now, I am out to do PT!

Holly

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by jamber97

To answer your last point: Separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and religious freedom.

Where exactly in the Constitution is the separation of church and state commanded?

<edit>

Regarding the right to choose/right to life issue, consider this quote from the father of our nation:

"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
(emphasis mine)

[JMI]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Where exactly in the Constitution is the separation of church and state commanded?

Federalist Papers. Commanded? It is pretty much an unprecedented requirement. If loosing the bonds of Religion from Politics bothers you, I have no idea where you believe it goes from there. It cannot end well if Politics and Religion mix - like ultra-Conservatives wont to do.

If you're trying to make a point, all good. If you don't know the answer to your own question - wow.

Not good.

[JMI]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
(emphasis mine)

Of course the emphasis was yours. It is a ridiculous reach that makes no sense.

Abortion was on the table back then so he wanted us to "BE AWARE" of the coming devil? LOL. Are you kidding me?

Seriously, you ultra-conservative Republicans are making it very difficult for mainstream-Republicans like me to defend ourselves.

Can we label you something else?

Way out of touch, maybe?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by JMI

Federalist Papers. Commanded? It is pretty much an unprecedented requirement. If loosing the bonds of Religion from Politics bothers you, I have no idea where you believe it goes from there. It cannot end well if Politics and Religion mix - like ultra-Conservatives wont to do.

If you're trying to make a point, all good. If you don't know the answer to your own question - wow.

Not good.

In which article of the Constitution do you find the Federalist Papers?

Was the person to whom the "separation of church and state" quote attributed even a signer of the Consitution?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by JMI

Of course the emphasis was yours. It is a ridiculous reach that makes no sense.

Ad Absurdum

Noting that the emphasis was mine is merely a style formality when quoting.
Mocking it does not make an effective argument.

Originally Posted by JMI

Abortion was on the table back then so he wanted us to "BE AWARE" of the coming devil? LOL. Are you kidding me?

Ignoratio Elenchi

In the context of the thread, the quote addresses the inherent narcissism present in typical pro-abortion arguments.
Presenting and knocking down an irrelevent straw man argument misses the point.

Originally Posted by JMI

Seriously, you ultra-conservative Republicans are making it very difficult for mainstream-Republicans like me to defend ourselves.

Can we label you something else?

Way out of touch, maybe?

Ad Hominem

There are a great many flaws in me.
However, I am not the issue.

**********
**********
In my post responding to Jamber's "separation of church and state" comment, I was attempting to point out that the issues surrounding this quote are much more complex than the oft-quoted 5 words.

"Separation of church and state" is a favored tool among those not willing to look more deeply.
Most of the time, it is used as a secundum quid et simpliciter argument.


FWIW, I am well aware of the origin of "separation of church and state", the historical context in which it was written, and, if one were to accept the contemporary interpretation, the implication of severe cognitive dissonance which would have to be attributed to the author, considering the first sentence of his most famous document.

[Dozer523]

never mind . . . too weird for me

[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.

[BMT (RIP)]

I don't think ANYONE on this thread has ever been confronted with this situation.


Our first child was born with a birth defect. We were able to love and enjoy her for a short 16 month's.

During most of this time I was in SFTG. My COC went the extra mile to give what ever support I needed. I probably had more 3 day passes that started on Wednesday than anyone in the Army.

I was at Ft Holabird when I got the call to come home.

When I went back to the 'Bird to finish my instructorr's couldn't believe how my grade were so high with this hangin' above my head.


BMT