Progress in the views of the liberal minded.

I see that the Republicans have proposed a plan to fix many things while the Democrats either attack or filibuster, without even proposing a plan for themselves.

Howard Dean is the chair of the Democratic National Committee, that surely is not progress for the Democratic party.

I agree that you should not point out problems unless you have given some thought to potential solutions.

haha Tadpole summarized everything I said in one sentence.

eh..My Ethics class has changed my writing from being basic thoughts, to very detailed thoughts.

Government service teaches you how to take a lot of rhetoric and sumarize it quickly to something more concise. It seems Officers love to say things in long drawn out speeches, which I have to translate for the troops. Often a half hour of talking boils down to "clean & paint the ship"...

good point.

Well, I haven't read or seen anything that a liberal judge did that was scary. But I do know that there are conservative judges that believe such things like abortion should not be legal. And I would say that is the opposite of progress. So no, I don't think you can look at conservative judges being progressive in very many ways.

For this argument, the definition of abortion is the killing of a person inside the womb. A person is defined as someone who has the ability to reason, or who will one day have the ability to reason.

1. It is wrong (immoral) to kill an innocent person.
2. It is not moral or immoral to kill human tissue (such as an amputation, removal of a tumor, fetal material before it becomes a "person", etc).

There are three options for a fetus:

1. It is always a person, and never just "human tissue", and thus it would always be wrong to kill it.
2. It is always human tissue, and never becomes a human, and thus you can kill it any time. This is impossible since every person originates as a fetus, and eventually becomes a person...otherwise mothers could kill their five year old children, since they are still only human tissue.
3. It originates at human tissue and at some specific point in time becomes a person.

Most pro-choice people will agree with #3. The problem with this is that there is no clearly defined point at which the human tissue becomes a person. Since I define a "person" as someone who has the ability to reason, or who will one day have the ability to reason, then from the instant of conception, they are a person, since the fertilized egg will eventually become a reasoning person.

IF the fertilized egg is not yet a person, then there MUST be some point where it becomes a person. In order for abortion to be moral (and not the killing of a person), then you must perform the procedure before the human tissue becomes a person. What point is this? I do not know, nor do I think this point can be proven. Viability? The age of viability is different for every fetus. You cannot guess at viability...but I guess viability for babies who are aborted is practically zero... When the heart beats? What is the heart is unable to beat by itself because of defect, but the baby would otherwise survive? If you are pro-abortion, then you must know the magic point...otherwise you are potentially killing innocent people...which I hope we all agree is wrong.

If you assume that the moment of conception is the point at which human tissue becomes a person, you will never accidentally kill a person. I want to be a moral person. If there is a such a magic point...and it is not at conception...then please alert me to it, because prior to this moment, abortion is (by this argument) morally okay. But to kill an innocent person is wrong...no matter what the circumstances, and would not be a risk I would be willing to take.

Is abortion wrong to me? Yes. Is abortion wrong for women? Unless they are certain of the instant a fetus becomes a person, and do the procedure prior to that moment, yes.

You can morally reason yourself into a blackhole if you try hard enough.

It comes down to a simple point. This is a case of personal morality. Since no person, or group of people, have the right to define personal morality as they see fit; it should be left between the mother and her God (or lack of God).

Or you can stand for the legality of abortion, but disagree with it's use outside of necessary reasons to the mother (rape, incest, serious health risks), then you've got no problems.

This has got to be the most well written, clear, well thought out response from any conservative I have ever seen. Bravo sir.