Political Discussions
DEATH PENALTY / ABORTION ????
Posted by HollytheHousewife • 1/17/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: abortion, death penalty
I am trying to figure out why some people
don't agree with the death penalty,but
they have no problem in killing babies.
The babies haven't even had the chance to become
a criminal. The criminals who get the death
penalty have done something evil like "JOHN COUEY"(he brutally raped Jessica Lundsford and then burried her alive).
I am just trying to figure out the logic behind this.
User Comments
-
I don't believe in either of them and here's why:
Abortion is killing an innocent life that had no "choice" in what was being done to his/her body.
I don't believe in the death penalty because,I think it is the easy way out.
I think instead of the death penalty we should be able to keep the scum of the earth barely alive and truly punish them,the way they did it to their helpless victims. Give them a dose of their own medicine and when God is ready to finish the job,he will in his own time.-
You are right.
To kill an unborn child is murder. In the case of a child conceived in a rape - abortion is like executing the child because of the crime of the father.
I support the death penalty. If 'life without parole' actually meant life without parole instead of something like 5 years with time off for good behavior - I would be less likely to see the death penalty as the best way for society to deal with murderers.
Barbara
tobarbara.blogspot.com -
I agree.
-
I didn't realize the justice system was actually set up to be a revenge system. The point of jail isn't to make people suffer; its role is to protect the community.
-
-
I'm on the fence about both, to be frank. I have problems with both, and I see a need for both.
The death penalty can rid the world of seriously deranged criminals - saving everyone the millions of dollars it takes to keep them alive. However it is a long, expensive process, and quite frankly, it is irreversible if you or the courts are incorrect.
Abortion in late terms with the exception of life threatening circumstances or the removal of non viable fetuses to me makes no sense. However, I define the beginning of "life" quite differently than those who outright oppose abortion, and that's where the disparity lies for supporting the choice to abort in early pregnancy. I would rather see a woman who has no intention of caring for herself during pregnancy, or caring for the child after birth abort the fetus before it becomes viable. In that regard I find the act to be far more merciful than exposing the fetus, and eventually the child, to drug addictions via pregnancy, and abuse or heinous death after birth - when the child can actually feel and understand pain and neglect.
In both cases I support better education and programs to help people prevent themselves from even having to face the choice of an abortion, or be in prison on death row. However, I also support the existence and legality of both because at this time, we still have a need for it. -
Here we go again. It's like a broken record from you radical right-wingers. Abortion is murder... abortion is murder... abortion is murder...
The majority believe that abortion should be safe and legal. Deal with it.-
Sati, the majority in California apparently believe that same-sex marriage should NOT be legal. Is "deal with it" your response to that as well? -
The anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage arguments are religious arguments and our founding fathers intentions were to put up a wall separating church and state.
-
The majority believe that abortion is murder. You deal with it. It might help you deal with it better if you watched some of the sonogram videos.
AT what age do you say life begins? How about age 3?
OR - age 10 - so you will have a good idea of how they are going to do in school.
THEN - when do you say life ends? How about as soon as someone signs up for social secuirty? At that moment they have started taking more from society than they are giving. That would probably be a good time to end it.
And what about people with mental problems? But, then you have to define 'mental problem'. How would you define that? like - people who have the audacity to disagree with you?
Face the truth. Abortion IS murder.
-
-
ok sati
you obvioulsy don't have kids. You are not wanting to debate. You want to fight.
I don't understand. The problem is people do think HUMAN LIFE is started when the sperm meets the egg. I don't believe in viable or unviable.
I don't believe in cells or fetuses.
It is going to be a human life no matter how it starts. I don't care about
technacalities. I don't care what a woman does to her own body. That is her
choice. The problem is it isn't the woman's body that is being sucked out.
It is the begining of another totally different body or life.
That body or life has no choice.
How is that fair?
You still didn't comment on the death penalty. I bet you don't believe in that huh?-
Then don't have an abortion.
Amazing how simple that is. -
Then don't have an abortion.
The religious anti-abortion crowd is afraid they won't go to heaven if they don't try to prevent abortions. So all the debating in the world isn't going to change their minds. -
@ Anok
I'm not gonna have an abortion. It isn't as simple as that. It's sad that the baby isn't getting a choice. I don't understand why the mom gets the choice,but,the baby doesn't. -
Because the mom has a different opinion than you - as does science.
And yes, it is very much that simple. If you feel that abortion is murder - and you hold that opinion then don't have one, and your problem is solved. -
Anok, you know that's a disingenuous argument. It's no different from saying, "Don't beat your kids if you don't think it's a good idea" or "if you're against pedophilia, don't molest children". I understand that you don't think that fetus is a valuable human person, but you can't possibly pretend to think that to a person who DOES believe it's a human, "just don't have an abortion" is the simple answer. If you do, the same reasoning extends to all of our "opinions" about things like murder, rape, child abuse, etc.
-
You realize that a sperm and an egg can meet but if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall it's just going to get flushed out. So let me ask you Holly, how many babies has your uterus murdered? -
It's not disingenuous at all.
Because a globular - perhaps not even attached - amount of cells are very, very different from conscious, aware, and feeling individuals - such as live children.
To compare the expulsion of a group of cells to the beating of a live child is the disingenuous argument. Becasue we all know it is no where near the same thing. -
Anok, I'm not sure whether or not you're intentionally missing my point--I think that you must be because the shift toward "comparing" here (which I haven't done at all) seems very intellectually dishonest. What I said was that you can't possibly believe that TO A PERSON WHO BELIEVES THE FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING, not having an abortion is the "simple answer". TO A PERSON WHO BELIEVES THE FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING, simply letting his/her own live and the hell with the rest is not a solution.
You disagree that it's a human being. I get that. Many people do. But you can't pretend that you don't understand that having a genuine and deeply held belief that it's a helpless little person changes the analysis. You can believe those people are wrong in their conclusion all you like, but you can't seriously expect them to feel fine about other people murdering babies so long as they don't do it themselves. -
No, I didn't miss your point.
However I don't actually believe that anyone believes that early term fetuses and zygotes are actually helpless babies. In fact, when pushed, most admit to considering them "potential" life or, the building blocks of life.
It's a disingenuous emotive argument that's been beaten to death by the prolife groups who readily claim to rally for helpless "babies" but who often look the other way when actual helpless babies are beaten, neglected and killed.
Where are the pro-life groups when that happens? Where are the protesters? The bullhorns, and the pictures of the murder victims?
Sorry, Tiffany, I have to call this one as I see it - a straw man argument.
-
-
The problem, Holly, is that you see abortion here in black and white terms. It is murder for you. Period. There are many of us for whom it is not a desirable outcome, but who see how the fetus' life must be balanced against that of the mother. But this perspective requires you to see shades of gray, and you already stated in another thread that you only recognize two colors, black and white. If you want to understand, you will have to make a leap of the imagination and try to comprehend those shades of gray. That doesn't mean you will make the same judgement call. It just means you have to recognize the difficult moral issues that people on the other side of the debate wrestle with.
I also doubt that there is a one-for-one correlation between death penalty opponents and abortion rights advocates. Life and the moral compasses that we use to guide us in it are built differently than you are assuming.-
@ renal
exactly renal, GOD has his own way of working things out.
-
-
What are you talking about stoneman? Ok mr. stoneman I'm bout to tell you a little story. When I was expecting my 2nd child I was told that her test
came back positive for trisomy 18. The only way to find out if that was the case, was either do an amnieo syntysis (wich 50% of the time ends in spontanious miscarriage),have an abortion,or go ahead with the pregnancy
and see if we can give her a fighting chance.
I chose the latter of the 3. I figured if I wasn't supposed to be pregnant
then GOD would have his will.
It turned out that my baby was born perfectly healthy. Even if she did have trisomy 18 then there was a reason GOD did this. Even if he allowed me to have a baby that was problably gonna die within 6 to 12 hours after being born There still would have been a purpose.
Just Imagine if I had taken that dr. at face value. Just Imagine if I was one of those women who decided that because I have another life living inside of me,I could have made the choice to literally suck out my kendall
from the face of the world.
This is not a black and white issue. This is a life and death issue.
There absoulutely is a correlation between "death penalty" and "abortion"
Please tell me what the difference is.
Let me guess you don't agree with the death penalty,but have no problem
that a mother "chooses" to have an innocent human being literally "life"
sucked out of her. All in the name of,it is my body. This other "life" or "body" has no say so because "it is living inside of MY body.
All the while you sit there and believe that the evil people in this world like "John Couey",and every other sick sick pervert takes lives of innocent
people like Jessica lundsford, Dylan Groane,and every other evil evil person
out there.
No they don't deserve to get their just desserts. It would just be way to in humane compared to raping and murdering and ravaging an intire family.
Those people will never ever ever have a peaceful day again until they meet there maker. (u know the families of these poor poor victims having to relive and imagine what these evil people did to there loved ones having nightmares and being haunted the rest of their life by the words "IF I JUST")
No way to inhumane to give these evil people a shot and send them to hell.
No you would rather argue that there is a grey area to am innocent life that has yet to even be brought on this earth and have a choice to life or death.-
Wait... so because some guy raped and murdered a family, I can't get an abortion?
Does God have a plan for everyone? Did God plan for John Couey to rape and murder those people? Maybe God plans for people to abort their babies too. DO NOT DEFY THE LORD! -
"amnieo syntysis (wich 50% of the time ends in spontanious miscarriage),have an abortion,or go ahead with the pregnancy"
There is not general agreement on the risk of spontaneous miscarriage as a result of amniocentesis, but the various studies place the risk at 1 in 400 (a quarter of one percent) to 4 in 400 (1%).
-
-
So Anok
I see you have a wonderful position. I guess that is how u jusify laying your head down on your pillow.
Science says it's ok to suck out a body from another body because it's cells
haven't multiplied enough yet to feel anything.
Yup. love ur logic,but, when it comes downt to evil people we can't take them out because there cells did get a chance to multiply.
Makes so much sense. NOTT!!-
You only believe it's murder because you believe it's a viable life.
*shrug*
I gave my opinion about abortion - that education and prevention are key. What's your solution? -
@madame
My doctor gave me my odds on the amnio syntisis.I didn't know the stats.
I was just taking him at his word. Maybe he was telling me I had a 50/50
shot at continuing the pregnancy after the procedure. Maybe he was basing
it on how far along I was.
It doesn't really matter though because I didn't get the procedure done for
fear of loosing my baby.
Also there was no point in getting the procedure since I had already decided
to give kendall a fighting chance.
It didn't matter to me if we had found out before she was born or not.
-
-
Yea. Thx for your opinion. We can agree to disagree. I believe that life starts from conception. I think that when the sperm meet an egg and LIFE
instantaniously starts to happen. It is one of the most awesome,awesome,
thing in the world. You and a whole lot of other people don't think so.
That is yall's perrogative though. I on the otherhand think it's one of the
most awesome,special,and wonderful miracles I have ever had the privilage
to witness.
Life is beautiful. I wish every human cell that starts dividing had a choice to experiance it.-
life is very beautiful - if you are born into a life that doesn't include drug addiction from the womb, abuse, starvation, neglect and death after the birth by the very person who could have prevented the pain of all that by having an abortion before the fetus even had a nervous system to feel, or a brain to understand it the pain.
See, I'm more concerned about the quality of life of the children who are born. The children who can feel, hear, and understand that they are being beaten, starved, neglected and even killed.
I think it's 100% worse for a junkie to carry to term a drug addicted baby only to leave it to die in a dumpster, than for that junkie to have an early term abortion.
Or an even older baby left for dead in a dumpster:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28674269/
I think it's 100% worse for a family to have a baby with health problem when they have no intention of caring for the child - leaving her to starve to death in a dark room, alone, as they sit in the next room watching TV, than getting an early term abortion:
rational-outrage.com/2008123047/cultural-outrage/disabled-child-left-to-die...
I think 100% worse to allow a mother and fetus to die because the pregnancy was ectopic, than to allow an abortion to occur.
Yes, I support the choice for abortion because we still have a need for it right now. I would love nothing more for the horror stories I try not to read in my daily paper about parents killing their LIVING children - children old enough to feel pain and understand that the one they trust most are hurting, abusing, and killing them - didn't happen. I would love nothing more than to know that all babies re born into happy, loving homes and that all people did the right thing all the time.
But reality is much more brutal than that. -
Holly
'I don't understand. The problem is people do think HUMAN LIFE is started when the sperm meets the egg. I don't believe in viable or unviable.
I don't believe in cells or fetuses.'
So you don't believe in science? What's not to believe in viable and unviable, cells and fetuses? Massive numbers of fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted by the body, do you grieve over all these lost humans? They abort [proper name for miscarriage] because they are unviable, nature doesn't get it right all the time, accidents happen, cells misform. Other mammals after the babies are born check them out thoroughly, and will often kill a deformed baby which would otherwise go on to suffer while trying to survive in a hostile world, it's kindness.
Predators regularly pick off the less than perfectly adapted members of a prey species, thus keeping the herd fit and healthy and better able to survive. The reason why some humans have so much trouble with these issues is because we have removed ourselves from the normal constraints of survival of the fittest, and somehow got the idea we are somehow special.
Of course 'life' is created when sperm hits egg and the cell divides, but you have to be some kind of nut to describe this as a human. Is a sprouted acorn an oak tree? How many acorns are lost, become part of the soil again, never make it to full treehood?
This attitude of preciousness of humans is belied by the wars, serial killings and domestic murders that our species specialises in.
-
-
@ renal
I didn't say that. My question was "why do you believe in aborting human life when that life doesn't have a choice,and, Why do you think it isn't
ok to take out the people who murder,ravage,and rape?
I was wondering what the logic behind that was.-
Death penalty has resulted in too many innocent people murdered by the state, found out years later to be innocent, but dead. How do you deal with that? Only kill people who you are 100% certain are guilty? Naive, you can never to totally certain unless someone admits freely to it; but are they lying because they want to die and can't manage it themselves? Too many questions, although I do feel more in favour whenever there is a horrendous murder case, especially of children.
Now abortion. Foetuses aren't children. They are possible children and there's many a slip betwixt conception and birth, a percentage don't make it naturally, perhaps because something went wrong and nature tends to correct its mistakes.
Abortion of a day old foetus is no different to a spontaneous abortion otherwise called a miscarriage, which occurs all the time. Many young unmarried women who got pregnant by mistake are glad and happy when this happens. You got something against contraception too, you people who bang on about abortion? The videos used by anti abortionists are always of late term pregnancies as no one gets emotional over a blob of jelly, whereas something resembling a baby in that it has arms and legs and eyes etc. is likely to upset anyone.This is abuse of argument, as a tiny percentage are late terminations [and perhaps they should be stopped] but anti-abortionists are opposed to any abortions on principal [the principal being that all humans are special and have a right to life ... what, even future murderers?]. It is likely that actions against abortion actually increases the numbers of late abortions by making it difficult for women to get early ones. The easier it is to have an abortion, the greater the likelihood they will be early, in fact the morning after pill should be available to all teenage girls, part of their personal bits and pieces, part of their life, as should contraception. Just say no is such a dumb phrase whether applied to drugs or sex. I'm in favour of women having the right to choose THEMSELVES what they do to their own body. No one, and especially men, has no right to an opinion on it even. It is the woman's right to choose.
On the human life is sacred argument, what because god made us? Yeah sure, that what gives us the right to slaughter any other species too. I reject it, humans are just one species among many, not more important, just more fortunate. Our big brain has been of use in survival, but has also created the atom bomb, pornography and deceit. Know any animals that lie?
There is currently a plague of humans on the planet, destroying everything as plagues tend to do, eating all available food, wiping out other species which are all integral to the web of life, that fine ecological balance which used to keep the ecosystem balanced. What we don't need is hordes more humans, filling concrete boxes towering into the sky, scurrying like ants building bigger and bigger concrete nests, covering the land, cutting down forests, setting fire to huge areas... sacred? A rampant naked ape that fell in love with itself more like. No surprise the neo-cons deny evolution as well as thinking human life sacred while being in favour of state execution, which, in the US involves a disproportionate number of black people, thus continuing the ignoble traditions of racism the country was founded on.
-
-
@ renal
To answer your other question. I don't believe GOD made the choice to brutally rape,ravage,and burry that poor baby alive. I think John Couey
made that choice. I do believe GOD choose to take that baby on home
because the man that so horrendously stole her innocence probably robbed
her mind of any kind of normal life aferwards. So I think GOD did decide
to go ahead and bring her home to paradise. It wasn't God's choice to do
what that evil evil person did to her. It was God's choice to bring her home though. -
Why don't you believe God didn't intend for those babies to be aborted as part of his plan?
-
@ renal
He gave every person a brain to make their own choice. -
You said God had a reason for doing things. You were perfectly willing to accept that God would have your baby die (apparently he was just screwing with you with that diagnosis).
-
-
I don't know anyone who justifies killing babies, but an embryo is not a baby to a lot of folks, and the answer to the question "is an embryo alive" is an intricate philosophical question which has been asked throughout history and to which the answer has fluctuated and dependent on beliefs, values and social constructs of the person answering the question.
I believe in choice for women to abort an unwanted pregnancy should she make the, more often than not, very difficult decision to do so, because I do not believe an embryo to be any more human than a salamander.
I am not totally against the death penalty I am against the fact that those who can afford good legal counsel and those who can not often end up getting a totally different kind of justice making the sentences some what unjust overall. Were all things equal in some cases I'd be fore the death penalty.-
"because I do not believe an embryo to be any more human than a salamander."
How sad!
-
-
@ Anok
Hunny.That's fine that is your opinion. I disagree. I said there is a reason
for that beautiful innocent life. I don't care that you think because the baby can't feel it's cells being sucked out. I mean why does that matter.
The baby's cells are splitting at a rate that we can't even comprhend.
Does it make you feel better that the cells that make up the nervous system
haven't split yet.
So in the hell what. They will split. They will feel pain. They are not its
or fetuses or embryos. They are life.
Your stance is as long as the "nervous system" cell haven't split yet it's ok to go and get snuffed out. Why? because the mother has a choice to decide
if a human life and body is growing inside of her it's ok.
Yea. It kind of sound like the landlord who didn't get his rent on time.-
No, that's not what I said at all.
I said it was far better to abort a group of cells with no conscious and no ability to feel pain than to let that child live only to be abused, neglected, and killed at a point in their life when the pain, fear, and trauma registers in their little brains.
I have read one too many stories in my local paper about parents killing their children because the children "inconvenienced them". Babies being drowned in bathtubs because they had a cold, and were crying. babies being put outside in nothing but a diaper in subfreezing temperatures and snow because she woke the parents up too early.
Its obvious that the quality of life of the children don't matter to those parents one bit - whether they abort the child in utero - or two or even 12 years after giving birth - they don't care. When the child becomes and inconvenience, they kill it - regardless of it's ability to understand it's being hurt by the person they love and trust.
The only people who care are the ones who have no control over the situation. I care about the child's quality of life AFTER birth - therefore I support the ability for a person to abort a fetus before they decide to kill it once it's already born.
I sure wish the world was perfect - as do all of the children who have been brutally murdered after being born.
-
-
@ cooper
All I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way. Like I said I don't understand
your logic. To me an embryo is a person. To me an embryo is life. To me an embryo is the next barak obama,mother teresa,and pope. To me an embryo is life. I wish you could open your eyes and realize the precious precious
miracle that is taking place from the moment of concpetion.
That is your loss not mine.-
Many in the animal kingdom feel pain and we kill them. Like you said "to you an embryo is life". To me an embryo is certainly a living thing but it is not a human being.
Sadly there are many people in this world who were once embyro's who live lives full of some of the most unimaginable horrors known to man, children starving, women being raped routinely as an act of war, collateral damage in political wars. Enough to make the discussion on abortion and the sanctity of life much more complicated for me. -
@Holly: At the beginning of this thread you stated that you were only trying to understand the positions of those who differ from you. Yet all I see from your responses is a dismissive and judgemental attitude. (Example from your reply to Cooper: "That is your loss...") I engaged you above not to debate the correctness of my own or others' feelings on the matter, but because I thought you were interested in how others thought about these things. My mistake.
-
Mark, God wanted you to make that mistake.
-
@Mark
It was pretty clear from the first two response the original poster had no interest in debate or even the answers of others the purpose of her post was exhortation. -
A good reason to abort a foetus would be the thought it would grow up to be someone like the pope, whose most recent misogynist statements are awe inspiringly stupid, such as his claim that homosexuals would lead to the disappearance of the human race. If only! Putting aside his membership of the Hitler Youth and adult membership of the Nazi party, the man is a weirdo and a non-thinker. He just got the top job, and boy is he enjoying his power over the confused. Mother Theresa was anything but a mother, and built her power base out of the slum children in India, and it is alleged that she ran it with a rod of iron, using usually young, religiously inclined women to do the work while she strutted the world stage as if she had been elected. Usually behind the spin of these 'world figures' there's a seamy side of power seeking.
Obama's main appeal is as relief that the incoherent and murderous Bush is actually gone. Charismatic leaders can turn into monsters, and the looks of adoration [mostly female] I have seen in the crowds bring to mind the clusters of devout followers round Hitler. I'm sure he's a nice enough man, but he's a politician, always remember that, and power changes people, always for the worse. Some say that even seeking power of that magnitude indicates a psychopathic personality.
No, your three examples are no argument against abortion.
-
-
I can't figure out the other way. A lot of right wingers are anti-abortion but are complete supporters of the death penalty.-
Well xmarks, for me that is easier to understand, it goes on the concept that the ones earning a death penalty have brought that on themselves. Whereas the abortion is taking the life of an innocent.
-
-
@ stoneman
That is what a debate is(an argument). You guys are allowed to argue your points but I am not. I am supposed to sit here and be classified as a religious right winger whose opinion is wrong,all the while all of you
leftys are allowed to have your opinion no questions asked.
sorry my dear friend that isn't a debate. That is a whole bunch of leftys giving their opinion "no questions asked".-
No, a debate is a series of arguments (not arguments in the sense of the word you use, but meaning a set of statements consisting of premise, deductive (or inductive) reasoning, and conclusion) wherein both sides try to find errors or omissions in their opponents' facts or logic.
If your facts or logic aren't strong, and all you have to offer is opinion, you're not going to get very far.
-
-
My whole point to this thread is "WHY"?
Why do you believe that just because those cells
don't feel pain that "it" isn't human.
When those cells start splitting it is human.Those cells
that are dividing already have a genetic makup.
Abortion stops that life.-
Because it is not yet a human, that's why. It is a potential human.
-
Gotcha Anok. Period end of story.
Thanks for your opinion. -
Contraception stops that [potential] life, so let's be honest, you oppose that too? Seeing you list the pope and Theresa of Kulkatta you're obviously a catholic and therefore unused to debate - catholics are expected to believe without question doctrine from on high. So what you are doing is defending your faith, not indulging in debate. We are getting the rote catholic view on this.
Being a recovered catholic from a catholic upbringing which I had fully rejected by the age of twelve, I can spot these things.
And in case you want to try to rubbish me with the 'no kids' slur, I have four, and six grandchildren, and I love kids, that doesn't mean I want them proliferating even more than they are though. You can have too much of a good thing. If you could just drop this silly 'sacredness' thing you have about hominids, you would find it much easier to actually engage with opposite views and think more deeply about the matter.
But you can't budge someone 'of faith' with logic, that much I know only too well. -
Obviously a Catholic? I don't think that's obvious at all. Holly's positions in other threads are in direct contradiction of Catholic principles. Referencing a high profile religious leader hardly means that the person making the citation is a member of the same religion; Mother Theresa, in particular is cited by people worldwide, many of them not even Christian.
-
-
I think that you have to think about it not only biologically but philosophically. First answer the question what makes humans different than others in the animal kingdom? After all we kill animals all the time. The debate as to this has never been answered, everyone has their own views as they have stated.
Whether the fetus is declared a human person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. But more than anything most people who believe in choice believe in the choice for the person who has the already developed characteristic specific to a human being, the ability to reason and use logic and language.
Whether we think of the fetus as a person or not will have a significant influence on whether we think of abortion is ethical - I don't think a mass of cells is human, there-in lies my basis for thought, and there is much evidence to support it, you on the other hand believe that human life begins at conception and there is evidence, though much less, to support that as well, so there-in lies your basis for thought.
Neither you or I can prove our point absolutely as there is proof in either case which isn't in some way indoctrinated, though philosophy, unless it is based on religion, weighs on my side.
There are thousands of biology and philosophy publications, some authoritative and some not so much, with thousand of written pages by minds both insipid and brilliant. To think someone could come to a board and actually explain their belief and the history behind in a few short paragraphs is not reasonable, and you shouldn't expect it. I imagine people have come to their decision over time and some will change their opinion over time.-
What makes humans different than others in the animal kingdom? A human is an animal with a certain biological make-up and the ability to perform advanced abstract thought.
That's our big mysterious evolutionary advantage, in a nutshell. -
Gotcha cooper.
Thanks for your opinion.
-
-
I think some people should have mandatory abortions.
Joking aside, everything people attribute to the "soul" has been found by science to be brain chemistry. Love? Brain. Pain? Brain. Emotion? Brain. Pluralism? Psychological, so brain. Brain br-brain brain BRAIN.
Many theological arguments against abortion deal with the existence of a "soul," and there is much disagreement among the theologians about when the "soul" enters the body.
Because of the widespread disagreement on when the soul enters the body and the fact that every supposed "spiritual" phenomenon has been shown to be the result of a highly advanced brain, I'm going to conclude that even if souls exist, they cannot currently be used as leverage in this abortion debate.
So what criteria should we use for a rational basis for whether or not abortion should be allowed? How about the nervous system? Without a nervous system, it is impossible for a fetus to experience pain. Abortions before the fetus develops a nervous system cannot cause any suffering to a conscious being, and is therefore not murder. Abortions that take place after the nervous system develops (sometime through the second trimester, I believe) are now the gray area. The period of time before the nervous system develops is resolved by my logic.-
This is, of course, speaking from a purely logical point of view. Before Holly comes back with her onslaught of rhetorical questions like "How is that fair to the fetus?" I'd like to point out that logic precedes ethics, and debates should never cater to subjective concepts like fairness.
-
-
Gotcha voodoo
Thanks for your opinion.-
You're welcome. Did it all make sense to you? I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything. I just need to work on my clarity.
-
-
I won't come back with any of my opinions. I am sorry I started this thread in the first place. Yes people I have caught the hint finally. There is no debating a brick wall. It's pointless and a waste of time.
Have a great fulfilled pro-choice,anti death penalty,and having so much more logic than a housewife from MS W/ your little degrees and such.
I don't need a peice of paper to tell me I'm smart. Have fun doing your little blog catalog thing. I'm spent. I'm done.
HIP HIP HOORAY for u guys.
catcha on the other side.
HOllytheHousewife-
Debate is a two way street. That means you give and take.
-
Seriously. If you're not willing to defend or abandon your ideas, why express them?
-
A surrender to reason at last, and an admission it was a mistake as you aren't actually up to facing a challenge more vigorous than 'I think it's a cuddly baby, ooow poor lickle fetus, ooow. One good thing is you have found out that your simplistic reasoning is opposed by some smart people who know how to argue logically, but you label it a brick wall, so I'm unsure how much you actually learnt.
-
-
yea. That's what I thought to. Until people started saying I shouldn't give my opinion. I am just a far right,judgemental,religious right winger whose opinions don't matter to the one's on the left with their "smarts" and "science". Like I said I'm over it. Yall have fun.
-
[Until people started saying I shouldn't give my opinion.]
You should never have to state your opinion if the facts are on your side.
-
-
bc voodoo I'm sick of talking to people who think they are sooo much more
justified in there opinions than I am.-
bc voodoo I'm sick of talking to people who think they are sooo much more
justified in there opinions than I am.
Really....do you mean people who debate and explore their opinions, and back them up with facts, or people who repeat their opinion over and over again, insisting that they are right regardless of the evidence to the contrary?
-
-
I believe the facts are on my side.
-
Heh. Irony.
Your belief in what the facts are doesn't translate into a fact.
-
-
Here we go again. That is exactly my point. I'm spent man.
These are my facts.
Man meets woman. They have relations. Sperm meets egg. Instantaniously
life is begining. Those are my facts.
Those aren't your facts because you don't belive it is a life until "it"
has a brain or nervous system. Right?-
Nobody owns facts. If you can claim "my fact," then it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.
Facts are impartial, impersonal, cold, rational, and unfiltered. Opinions, even when strongly based on fact, are still opinions. Only cold, hard, unadulterated facts (science is a good source for these) and nonfallacious logic are allowed in the arena of debate.
Discussions are different than debates.
-
-
mmk. sorry voodoo these are "THE" FACTS:
Man meets woman. They have relations. Sperm meets egg. Life is begining.-
Those aren't facts, they're sentence fragments.
Here's a fact: When a sperm meets an egg, it doesn't always form a baby. I don't know the exact statistic, and I'm not going to make a wild guess. Do you pro-lifers mourn the fertilized eggs that don't even form far enough to become a miscarriage?
Life is sacred, isn't it? What about cancer cells?
-
-
Like I said earlier I'm not debating you guys on this issue anymore.
yall have made it clear you didn't want my imput because I didn't know any facts. So thanks again for your input. That is what yall wanna hear from me.-
Alleulia!
-
-
IF abortion is murder..
Then why isn't an alcoholic/drug dependant woman who has a misscarriage guilty of something like negligent manslaughter?-
Exactly.
Or what about mothers who smoke or eta poorly or refuse to take prenatal vitamins - aren't they guilty of child abuse?
-
-
-
again you are absolutely incorrect, what does abortion have to do with race relations? Jesus TT do you always have to assume, it's unbecoming. See below
-
-
Well, Holly convinced me. I'm getting an abortion!
-
Thanks everybody. wonderful facts and logic. Keep em coming.
This should be so much fun for yall. No one disagreeing w/ u.
Go ahead ms. Failure(I guess i need to check out ur profile).
I thought u were a dude. Anyway go ahead and have ur abortion,but
don't blame it on me. If you don't want ur baby I'll be glad to
adopt.-
Assuming RenalFailure is a woman: I don't think Renal would want to go through the trauma of childbirth, or several months of childbearing. It's Renal's choice, not yours.
-
Wow.. I just got this image of a pot and a kettle flash before my eyes.
-
-
yup! Her choice. NOT mine,NOT the baby.
-
Not yours, specifically.
-
@csi
huh?
-
-
ok voodoo,Whateverrrrrr.Thanks for your logic.
-
Whatever only has one "R." You are not clever.
-
-
Ummm Timetheif why is that any of your business. The web site isn't ready
yet. Um do u wanna stay on the subject?-
Take it to the shoutbox, people.
-
-
I agree voodoo.
I am sorry those R'S offended you so.
I retract the r's . Thanks for your facts on cancer cells and baby cells
being the same thing. Is that better for u.-
I didn't say they were the same thing. I said there were a lot of parallels, and noted that pro-lifers never protest radiology centers. You clearly aren't trying to participate in the discussion.
-
-
Well duhhh! No I already said people take offense to my opinions and start calling me names. They don't want a debate. Yall wanna have all of your little scientific theories and so called "facts" heard. That is what I am
doing. I am not gonna argue with yall any more. Go on and keep putting
your 2 cents in. This is a very good thread for all the pro-choice,anti-death penalty people. Keep giving me your logic and facts. I am not subjecting myself anymore to being called ( way too many names so I'm not gonna list them all.)-
Fine. Then this thread shall die.
-
@voodookobra
Where's that headstone graphic again? lol
-
-
Yes that's kinda the point I thought. People just kept commenting
for some reason and I just thanked them for their input.-
I am not gonna argue with yall any more
Promises, promises - or, lies, lies? -
Good. Let's all report the thread until the admins kill it with fire.
-
-
Timetheif, I see that you keep mentioning Project Grey World and that everyone is "collecting data" for this project. I wanted to clear something up very quickly:
Project Grey World has nothing to do with abortion, or the death penalty or for that matter any of the other topics you have previously accused me of collecting data for. It is about race relations, and equality. Only you could take something that is supposed to be so meaningful and try to turn it ugly.
Since the site you keep trying to introduce before the rest of the editors had posted is about tolerance, I would appreciate it if you and whomever you have issues with will work it out amongst yourselves without bringing collaborative projects or false assumptions into it. Thank you-
also there are 6 other BC users involved in it, not just Holly & I
-
I apologize for the false assumption. It came from this exchange 3 days ago:
"EndlesslySheSaid
indeed, very useful data collection"
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/what-is-your-most-controversial-post#comm... -
I apologize TT I thought you knew I was being facetious based on the smiley faces.
This project is a collaborative effort by eight bloggers who are trying to understand race relations by speaking frankly about them. Data collection for this project would be useless as it is all based on personal experience and the quest for understanding amongst races, religions and sexualities.
It is not ready yet, there are still a few posts we are waiting on, but when it is I am sure that you will see that this project is to move past biases and to see the POV's of the other editors. There will be no statistics or information collected otherwise it would compromise the integrity and good intentions of Project Grey World -
@endlesslyshesaid
I didn't twig to the fact that what you said was facetious based on the smiley face. I'm glad we cleared up the misunderstanding. Best wishes for your new team blog. -
thanks. Lol rule of thumb for me is whenever there is a smiley face, I am kidding or laughing
-
-
woo hoo! I haven't seen this much drama since like 1 grade.
I hate stooping down to other people's level,but sometimes
its got to be done. -
When I was editing all the data connecting race and poverty and abortion in the USA disappeared so now I'll have to post it in another comment box
-
U.S. Abortion Rates, Race and Poverty
I respectfully submit that there are strong connections demonstrated between abortion rates, inequality between races, inequality between classes, evidenced by poverty and lack of education in America.
The U.S. Abortion Rate continues long-term decline, falling to the lowest level since Roe vs Wade. The abortion rate is now at its lowest level since 1974. The number of abortions declined as well, to a total of 1.2 million in 2005.
Who has abortions?
50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25 years: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.
37% of abortions occur to black women, 34% to non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races.
About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.
The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women).
8% of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; non use is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.
Decline in abortion providers
The number of U.S. abortion providers declined by 2% from 2000 to 2005 (from 1,819 to 1,787). Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2005; 35% of women live in those counties.
Funding
Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.
Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order.
About 13% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds (virtually all from state governments).
Family Planning Clinics
Family planning clinics funded under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act have helped women prevent 20 million unintended pregnancies during the last 20 years. An estimated nine million of these pregnancies would have ended in abortion.
The data are the most current available. Most are from research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and/or published in its peer-reviewed journals. An additional source is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.guttmacher.org/-
I strongly believe that the best way to reduce abortion is to address unwanted pregnancies. The way to do that is through education.
Abstinence on it's own leads not only to more pregnancy but STD'S. When abstinence is taught along with a comprehensive sex education curriculum, and when parents also teach abstinence as their preference, then their child has a greater chance of not only staying clear of STD'S and unwanted pregnancy, but is also more likely to remain sexual inactive for a longer period of time.
Comprehensive means comprehensive. Comprehensive sex ed includes abstinence, but doesn't rely on it entirely.
Sex Education Policy
Currently, 35 states mandate either sex education or education about HIV/AIDS and other STIs, but their laws tend to be very general. Policies specifying the content of sex education are typically set at the local level.
Source: Guttmacher Institute, Sex and STD/HIV education, State Policies in Brief, November 2006, , accessed Nov. 28, 2006.
More than two out of three public school districts have a policy to teach sex education. The remaining one-third of districts leave policy decisions up to individual schools or teachers.
Source: Landry DJ et al, Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies, Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(6):280–286.
In America eighty-six percent of the public school districts that have a policy to teach sex education require that abstinence be promoted.
Some 35% require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception altogether or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness.
The other 51% have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens and permit discussion of contraception as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STIs.
More than half of the districts in the South with a policy to teach sex education have an abstinence-only policy, compared with one in five of such districts in the Northeast.
There is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education that teaches young people about both abstinence and contraception.
Source: Dailard C, 2002, op. cit. (see reference 26); and Dailard C, Sex education: politicians, parents, teachers and teens, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2001, 4(1):9–12. -
Yes. Psychologically speaking, the more taboo sex is, the more teenagers are going to want it.
-
Of course and what they need comprehensive sex education so they can become responsible for maintaining their own reproductive health.
Currently, the federal government champions the abstinence-only approach, giving around $170 - 190 million each year to states and community groups to teach kids to say no to sex. This funding precludes mention of birth control and condoms, unless it is to emphasize their failure rates. Worse still, federal guidelines now define sexual activity to include any behavior between two people that may be sexually stimulating, which could be interpreted as including even kissing or hand-holding.
Abstinence students still having sex - Study tracked 2,057 young people in government-funded programs - April. 16, 2007 According to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress, students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not.
Lead researcher Pamela K. Kohler, of the Center for AIDS and STD at the University of Washington in Seattle in reference to the study mandated by Congress: "It also solidly debunks the myth that teens who learn about birth control are more likely to have sex."
Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes, and they first had sex at about the same age as their control group counterparts — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/
Recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may actually deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs. Source PDF www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.pdf
Given unwanted pregnancy rates, STD's rates and HIV (AIDS) rates among American teens I believe that not providing them with information on contraception is irresponsible. The only way they can become responsible for their own reproductive health is through comprehensive sex education.
-
-
I thought this would be an interesting thread. It wasn't. All it was was the same old my beliefs and your beliefs are different lets fight.
So I'm going to say I don't believe in Abortion and I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't believe in abortion simply because I honestly after all I've read determine when "it" can be considered life. I don't believe in taking life. As for the death penalty the Legal system is too flawed for it to be fair.
Would I stand in the way of someone elses beliefs? Hell no! Just as I wouldn't want someone else to tell me what to believe or how I should live.-
I am right there with you 210.I thought it was gonna be a discussion to.
It turned into 1st grade name calling.
That is why I stopped responding. I think some of the people at bc
don't really want a discussion they wanna pounce on you like prey. -
Thanks for your contribution, Betty.
-
-
Yes, we can!
Sorry, wrong thread. -
ok BC members I am a woman and I have changed my mind.
I am gonna debate this issue. I am gonna debate it because it needs to
be. I don't care what yall call me anymore. I have been through so much more than let some little nerds hiding behind their keyboards calling me a
right wing fundy get me down. -
Like I said in the op. How do people justify Killing innocence and be against the death penalty????? It makes no sense.
-
That's not debating. That's an ad hominem argument. You're attacking our morals, not mentioning errors or omissions in our facts or logic.
-
-
come on sati. I see u up there. go ahead and give ur opinion.
-
Well holly its simple.
You have to remember that they don't define life the same way that you do. In order for the argument to actually exist, you would first have to agree on what is considered life, when life begins etc.
Until the argument is focused around the same premise from both sides, there is no way to come to any conclusion on it. -
My opinion is that abortion should remain safe and legal.
-
wp
-
-
Why csi? I mean really. I am trying to understand,but I can't compare cancer cells and the begining of human life as the same.
-
Well, Voodoo will have to stand by his own argument.
If you equate a fertilized fetus with a full human life, then you will have a very different view on the value of that fetus compared to someone who doesn't define life until the extreme other end which is a full term birth.
Now, from my perspective for instance. I determine "life" to start when the fetus can survive outside the womb, with current medical technology, that happens somewhere around the 22nd week. Before that (week 21) survival is statistically zero, in week 22 the rate is about 1/10 survive, in week 23 its 8/10 that survive.
For me, that means that abortion before week 22 is not killing since the fetus can't survive anyway. After that,i only support abortion in severe medical cases where the mothers life is threathened. And unless it is impossible, I would prefer to see the birth and adoption of the child to any other procedure.
My point of view is just one of many, and that is the problem. Other will have other definitions of what they consider life. Like i said before, that difference in determination is the real problem when trying to debate the issue.
-
-
Thanks for ur opinion sati,but why don't you think it is mass genocide?
-
It doesn't matter what I think. That decision should be left up to the mother.
-
-
cs, you are right, people have clearly given their own reasons. Everyone's is different, and that is just the way it it. No one has to justify their reasoning, though it appears some like to argue that their reasoning is more sound that is not what the op question was, and it is not possible to argue a point when people are not coming at it from the same level.
If someone doesn't believe a fetus is human than there is their reason, continually saying "why", "I don't understand" is purposeless and ends up provoking argument for argument's sake.-
wp
-
-
It is a real problem. I mean so many "point of veiws" You just stated "it"
isn't viable until the 22nd week.
My point is he/she is viable if you leave he/she alone.
My point is as soon as the sperm hits the egg life is created. Even though
it takes time for those cells to split and create what you see as human.
life has already started at the time the sperm meets the egg.
Get my point.-
Well that is your point, and your point of view, and you are entitled to it.
That is the problem, your point of view is different from mine, and therefore we can't debate the issue with the same premise.
Now, IF i were to agree with you, then i would have to agree with you on your premise on it being killing a life.
Just as if you were to agree with me on that it isn't life until it is viable outside the womb, then you couldn't argue that it is killing either.
Now, if we bring it one level further, the catholics are against contraception because they believe that even the act of making love should only be done with the intent of creating life, and as such condoms etc are wrong.
Are you supporting their view on this, or does your perception differ from theirs? -
a) Define 'life'.
b) Why is a fertilised egg 'life' and not the sperm?
c) Is an act which prevents fertilisation a destruction of 'life' or a preventative act?
d) What is really so different between preventing conception and removing fertilised cells? End result is one possible/potential human life didn't happen.
e) Why are you bothering with this issue, when real existing children are being butchered and maimed in Gaza as you type? When human life is wasted daily in vast numbers in wars, murders, fires, car accidents and state executions [so clearly has little value], but not in the numbers it is being created.
f) Why do people who argue this case have to manipulate it into 'you lefties', then deny they are right wing? Only in the US is this considered a left-right issue, elsewhere, people think for themselves and some on the right of the political spectrum are for abortion, and some on the left are against it. It's a personal thing, but you try to turn it into the same old boring you lefties slagging that confuses so many issues in the US.
Remember you lost the civil war, you can't go on fighting it.
-
-
No! believe me. I found out I was expecting again when My new born was 3 mos. old. My husband got the big V for my b-day. If the sperm never meets the egg then there isn't life.
-
So now, you are arguing from another standpoint than the Catholics, which again puts you in a position of not having the same point of view. Therefore, you can only argue that they are wrong if they agree with your definition of it.
You can never argue a problem as fact unless you define what that fact is first. And have everyone involved in agreeing that this is the fact. -
Holly, when you argue about your own beliefs and use your own experiences to explain them, you are on solid ground. When you then generalize from those beliefs and experiences in order to draw conclusions about how life should be for others, you move onto much shakier ground. See my longer comment below (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/death-penalty-abortion#comment_7...).
Likewise, CSI, when you tell Holly she is right or wrong in her own belief system as applied to herself, you are on very shaky ground indeed. -
And where did i say that she was wrong in her belief system?
If i did, that surely wasn't my intention. But i can't find it. So that means that your putting words in my mouth that arent there. Which puts you on no ground at all.
SO please .. show me where i said she was wrong? -
Let's move on. If you two want to continue arguing, please take it to another topic, or preferably email.
-
Now i don't know if your memory is faulty or if you just completely lack self critizism, but scrolling down to the last 1/3 of this topic, that comment just seems funny to me.
-
Our bickering is on-topic. Yours isn't. That's why I threw in "Another topic." QED.
-
-
What if you took the Obama approach and sought out points of common interest? For example, many people who support abortion do not find it to be a good thing. What if you thought about ways to reduce their number? How could that happen without infringing on women's rights? Go ahead, take a leap of imagination.
And what if there were areas of agreement on the death penalty? You'll note my objection has to do with the proven record of people being put to death wrongly. Can I assume that no death penalty supporter wants to see the innocent put to death? If so, what can be done to ensure this never happens?
These are just examples of the way we can tackle such problems without falling into the old ruts. Want a real life example? How do you think Rick Warren and Barack Obama were able to come together on the inauguration. They disagree about many things, but they also have common points of interest. This is what Obama was talking about with the Middle East too. I think it's a good idea. Or do you get personal satisfaction from mutual and ineffectual sniping? -
I guess so csi. Do you really think that is gonna happen though?
The facts as I know them are: sperm meets egg and human life begins.
you disagree w/that and so do alot of other people. -
Holly, I had originally answered your question in my first response. With regards to agreeing with one, and not the other, I feel very much the same for both. I wish neither occurred, because I wish neither were necessary. For example I wish that no woman's life was ever in danger from a pregnancy, no women was ever drug addicted or abusive (or fathers) etc... Just as I wish there were no homicidal murderers who became a total danger to society and a drag on public funds.
I do see a need for both, ergo I support both on conditional levels. However, I'm far more concerned with prevention of the root problems rather than banning the symptomatic responses. -
Mr.stoneman,
I don't understand. I was taught in 8th grade bilology that as soon as a sperm meets an egg life is created. I am not trying to sound condesending
in anyway. When that little miracle happens life starts. Cells start splitting at the rate u can't even calculate. That is a fact it isn't a belif. I promise just go ask any obgyn-
It's life, but so is a cancer cell. Every reproducing cell is alive, but not all are human. You can't stay as ambiguous as "life." You need to be more specific if you want to convince us that a fertilized egg is better than a cancer cell.
Remember that not all fertilized eggs develop to a fetus. Many of them get flushed out during those lovely few days of the month. -
@Holly, I am suggesting that you let go of trying to convince the other side to believe everything that you do. Forget it. Instead think about what concrete results you wish to achieve. Then see if the other side wishes to achieve some of those same results, even if they disagree on the premise from which you start. Look for common ground in practical matters, instead of trying to get them to accept your world view. That can lead to real results. That is the premise of discussion and compromise in all politics in a democracy. If you continue to demand people see things as you do, you get nowhere.
One example of some possible practical common ground. What if young women were not afraid to have babies because they knew the child would have health care? Now don't get distracted by the example and start talking socialism. I'm just saying, what if you could make the world a place where more pregnancies were brought to term? That's a concern that people on the pro-choice side might share with you.
-
-
ok Anok
I can't fault you on your belifs. I wish neither occured to. Like I said in the op. The death penalty is just too easy for some of this evil in the world. I say the john coueys of the world need a taste of their own medicine.(hence keep him barely alive until GOD ALMIGHTY decides what's best for those kind of people.)
Abortion: I say forget the mom's choice,let the baby have a choice.
I mean it's illegal to smoke crack. NO mother has a choice in going and getting an 8 ball yet it's not illegal to suck out human life.-
[I say the john coueys of the world need a taste of their own medicine.]
There's a law against cruel and unusual punishment.
[(hence keep him barely alive until GOD ALMIGHTY decides what's best for those kind of people.)]
The government, which is supposed to be secular, won't jump on that idea.
[I say forget the mom's choice]
I say forget the government's choice. -
OK, so here's a similar question to the one you posed in the OP.
Why is it OK or acceptable to support cruel and inhumane punishment for someone who has done something you consider to be vile...
but...
It's not acceptable to support the humane killing of a fetus that isn't wanted?
How are those beliefs reconcilable? -
@ stoneman
That is my whole reasoning for doing this thread. I am not forcing my views on anyone. I am asking why they don't see a baby as a human in the mother's
womb. They see cells. I am wondering why that is all they see. Those cells are alive and replicating at a pace that the human mind can't even fathom.
My whole point is: why do pro-choice people see babies as mere cells.
I see those cells as life. That is the real question. -
Ah, see where you're coming from on the death penalty, you want to torture, to extract every little bit of pain from the felon to make him feel sorry and regret he did it. That hold for the motorist who mows someone down by driving carelessly - on the mobile, eating , smoking, drinking, map reading - should they also be handed over to the relatives? And what if theose relatives are really sincere Christians who live by the edict thou shalt not kill and don't accept the Jewish eye for an eye, and wish to forgive? Are they allowed or must the driver be handed over to the state torturer [we know you have those, Obama is closing down one of their play areas].
Your death penalty opposition is based on 'they get off too lightly with a quick death', you are vindictive and would, if you were allowed, be cruel to someone you thought deserved it, yet you come here spouting this nonsense about the sanctity of life as if you are a devout Christian. You aren't. You may use that faith for your own justification, but I would suggest you are as far from a sincere Christian as suicide-Islamists are from Islam.
At least a quick death for a totally vile monster wouldn't taint society with the same sickness as your solution would.
-
-
@ voodoo
I can say whatever I want. Cancer cells ,Human Baby cells. Why can't you see the difference.-
[I can say whatever I want.]
But your words won't be effective just because you want them to be. I'm trying to help you out here.
[Cancer cells ,Human Baby cells. Why can't you see the difference.]
There is a difference, but you have not stated what it is yet. Until you do, I'm not going to acknowledge it or tell you what it is because I'm on the other side of the debate. There's a difference between being logically charitable and doing the work for you.
-
-
No voodoo what he did to that poor 9 year old was inhumane. I sure wish that law would've stopped him from raping her,makeing her smoke crack, and
then burrying her alive. I'm sure Jessica Lundsford didn't wanna die that way.-
[No voodoo what he did to that poor 9 year old was inhumane.]
Yes, but two wrongs do no make a right. Cruel and unusual punishment is illegal.
[I'm sure Jessica Lundsford didn't wanna die that way.]
That's a fairly safe warrant.
Holly, allow me to critique you for a moment: Your idea of a debate seems to appeal to ethos and pathos (morals and emotions). However, debates are supposed to be based on logos (logic, facts, and rational arguments).
If you want to have a debate, be more objective. Remove your emotional and moral investments in the subject. It might be difficult for some people, but it's necessary if we're going to make any progress. Don't be afraid of conceding a point, either.
-
-
voodoo
I don't know who told you what a debate was supposed to be about,but it doesn't take much logic to realize what that man did to her was wrong.
This is just my opinion,but death is too easy for those evil people.
It is not cruel and inhumane. You have to be a human with a concious
before it is considered cruel and inhumane.-
[it doesn't take much logic to realize what that man did to her was wrong.]
No, it doesn't any logic at all, in fact. That's an ETHICAL statement, not a LOGICAL one.
[This is just my opinion,but]
I'm not interested in opinions. You said:
[ok BC members I am a woman and I have changed my mind.
I am gonna debate this issue. I am gonna debate it because it needs to
be.]
So let's debate.
[I don't know who told you what a debate was supposed to be about,]
I can't recall who, but my Logic (PHI 2100) professor can back me up. doctorswanson.pageout.net/
[You have to be a human with a concious
before it is considered cruel and inhumane.]
Go ahead and act on that impulse. Torture the evildoers and see what our justice system does to you.
My irrational anger agrees with you. Personally, I think John Couey deserves to be castrated with a dull, rusty knife and submerged slowly into a vat of acid. However, I'm trying to be objective, impartial, and rational. Emotion has no place in debate. -
@ voodoo
Why do you think you can't debated with your emotions.Human beings have emotions. We are all human.I think anyway. -
Separate your emotions from your logic. I still have them, but I don't use them as a basis for reasoning. Logic is universal, but emotions differ from person to person. So do religious and ethical values, which is why President Obama supports using universal, secular language.
-
-
I wish I could,believe me. Those evil doers get off way to easy.
Like I said earlier I'm against the death penalty bc it's too easy.
Those evil doers should not be looked upon as human. They aren't. They
are pure evil.-
But evil according to whom?
FYI, I'm playing devil's advocate when I say this as I have often stated that I believe in taking care of one's own problems outside of the legal system (and been routinely nailed for that opinion)
However I still find myself confused with the condoning of torturous violence in one instance, but in the same breath purporting that a humane death (either death penalty or early term abortion) is murderous and evil.
If you allow or condone torturous treatment of another human doesn't that make you as bad as the person you're punishing, and thus worthy of the same fate? -
Dehumanize them and you're no better than they are.
-
-
Holly, should John Couey have been aborted? If you know someone will grow up to be a child rapist/murderer, would it be okay to abort that fetus?
-
Imagine a world in which Adolf Hitler was aborted.
-
I can't. If Hitler had been aborted, my grandparents might not have moved to the U.S, my parents probably never would have met, so I wouldn't be here right now.
-
So some good came from a LOT of bad. I guess things aren't black and white after all.
-
-
No sati and voodoo when both of those evil people were not born evil. When they were born their brains were not already plotting to kill millions of people or raping and murdering a little girl.
They were born and had the chance to become evil. That is why I say no to the death penalty and give them a dose of their own medicine. That's why I say no to abortion because you at least have to give that life a chance to live.-
What does it mean to be evil? Are people capable of being evil, or are only their actions evil?
-
Sociopaths are born without a conscience so chances are they're going to do some bad things. I say abort them before they're born!
-
Antisocial Personality Disorder (technical term for sociopathy) isn't black and white, though.
I fit all the requirements for being classified as a sociopath, except that I've never hurt anyone who didn't deserve it. (Self defense, not retribution.) -
I thought a sociopath was someone without a conscience. I don't think someone with APD necessarily fits that description.
But either way, maybe we should use Cheney's 1% doctrine. If there's a 1% chance they're sociopaths, abort them. -
Well, I've never really done anything that would cause me to feel guilt, so I wouldn't know.
-
-
I know what john couey did to that baby was evil. I know what hitler did to the jews was evil. So I gotta think that it takes an evil person to do evil things. You see all of this psyc talk is almost giving these people an excuse to do evil things. I don't think these type of people are "sick"
I think they are evil.-
[I know what john couey did to that baby was evil. I know what hitler did to the jews was evil.]
Yes, their ACTIONS can be CLASSIFIED as evil. But what does evil really mean?
[So I gotta think that it takes an evil person to do evil things.]
Argh! You were this close to a logically valid argument.
Let's try an exercise:
Premise: All Germans are blonde.
Inference: George is blonde.
Conclusion: Therefore, George is German.
Can you spot the error in the logic?
...
Don't look. Answer below.
...
...
...
...
...
It was stated nowhere that all blondes were German.
[You see all of this psyc talk is almost giving these people an excuse to do evil things.]
Bullshit.
[I don't think these type of people are "sick"
I think they are evil.]
Actions are evil. People are not. -
Evil people aren't necessarily born evil. Sometimes they're abused as children and become anti-social. Most abuse occurs in homes where there are money problems or the parents just aren't ready to have children. If abortion was illegal, that would lead to more people having children they're not capable of raising, which would lead to more abuse and more people like John Couey.
-
[If abortion was illegal, that would lead to more people having children they're not capable of raising, which would lead to more abuse and more people like John Couey.]
Strong, but I can't tell if it's cogent or not.
-
-
Don't get me wrong. I do believe there is mentall illness. I don't believe
that putting a scientific diagnosis on an evil person is the way to go.
I think you should call it what it is.-
[I don't believe
that putting a scientific diagnosis on an evil person is the way to go.
I think you should call it what it is.]
Yes. Let's stop with all the fancy shmancy diagnoses. Let's just call people evil and say plagues are caused by demons. (Sarcasm.)
-
-
We will just have to agree to disagree sati. There are so many factors involved when it comes to life. Why not give people a chance.
I mean where would you draw the line? If your mother could've found out what type of attitude you had and she didn't like it then I wouldn't be
sitting here debating w/you today. You would have had no choice in the matter since you were living inside of your mother's womb.-
But we were not developed enough to suffer as a result of an abortion. No harm done. Only through hindsight does it seem like people will suffer. Only through the unproven ASSUMPTION that there is a heaven, hell, and original sin does abortion seem immoral.
-
That's right. I would have never known the difference since I wouldn't have been born.
-
-
voodoo what the hell man? evil people do evil things.
Why is that so hard for u to understand?-
Nobody is 100% pure evil. NOBODY. Therefore, even though their actions THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT are evil, the person is NOT evil.
Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?
-
-
Wait let me get this straight. Your argument on abortion is if it don't hurt then it's ok.
-
It causes no harm (pain OR damage) to a conscious being and it does not deprive any conscious being of liberty. It is not evil, so ethical arguments do not apply.
-
-
we will have to agree to disagree. I believe John Couey is evil. I believe he should be released to j. lundsford's family. I believe he should not have the chance to smile one time until the day he dies.
-
[I believe John Couey is evil.]
But he is not objectively evil. Only his actions were.
Aren't you not supposed to judge someone in that manner? I'm not well-versed in the Bible, but I'm sure that was in there.
-
-
ok. That's your logic. It isn't mine. We will never agree. I believe in giving life a chance.
-
[That's your logic. It isn't mine. We will never agree.]
Because you refuse to consider the possibility that you're wrong. You think your beliefs define you, and that a criticism of your beliefs is an attack on you. It is this ego-complex that renders you unable to participate in a debate.
[I believe in giving life a chance.]
Why not give HIV a chance? HIV is alive, after all. Or, hell, how about Tuberculosis? TB cells are undoubtedly alive.
-
-
No it doesn't say that at all. It says eye for an eye. It also says thou shalt not kill. That is why I would like to give him what he deserves w/out killing him.
-
-
because mellanoma isn't a human being.
-
So only human life deserves a chance? What about cats and dogs? Should we slaughter them mercilessly?
-
-
The bible is the bible.
-
Romans 2:1, Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37
-
-
I don't think so. All though you really can't compare your dog to your mom though.
-
So you would agree that it is wrong to slaughter dogs and cats too, right?
-
-
What about those versus.
-
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.
Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
If you have a Catholic bible, the wording might be different.
-
-
What about eye for an eye?
-
Let's move on. You would agree that it is wrong to slaughter dogs and cats too, right?
-
-
I wouldn't want to but if it came down to saving my baby or my dog from a burning house it would definately be my baby.
-
This isn't an ethical dilemma. This is just senseless canicide and felicide.
-
-
huh? whatever dude you just gotta have the last word. This time I'm gonna let you have it because I have to go check my girls homework.
holla!-
Actually, I was going somewhere with that.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Regardless of my opinion of the value of a human over the life of a dog or cat, it is unethical to slaughter dogs or cats.
-
-
ok I can agree with that. Just like it's unethical to slaughter human babies.
Now I really do have to go my girls are gettin fussy.-
Fine, but I'm going to post a different query for you to answer when you get back. (No need to rush it.)
There are two men. One man killed a sheep, the other killed a wolf. With only this information, which one is guilty of a crime?
-
-
why did they kill the wolf and sheep
-
If you really believed in an eye for an eye you would support the death penalty for murderers, and possibly even women who have abortions.
Since hat's what "an eye for an eye" means. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a life for a life. -
No I would not. I know what I believe. That is I don't believe in aborting babies. I don't belive in the death penalty bc These evil people would get off to easy. I believe in totally and completely making life miserable for the John Coueys of the world. Then when GOD is ready to take him out.
-
I didn't say what you do believe, I said that if you really believed in an "eye for an eye" in literal terms, you would support the death penalty for murderers - because killing someone who killed is taking a life for a life.
Since you don't believe in that, then you have opened yourself up to questions regarding the punishment system and your beliefs that should be explored.
-
-
That is the way your logic works. Mine doesn't. I believe in common sense.
-
[. . . your logic works. Mine doesn't.]
I, too, can be a quote-miner!
[I believe in common sense.]
I believe in questioning ideas that are regarded as "common sense," in my never-ending quest to obtain superior sense. -
Logic isn't something that can bend or change based on ones beliefs.
Logic.
a. a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
b. a conclusion reached by this process. Compare induction (def. 4).
-
-
[why did they kill the wolf and sheep]
Why, indeed? It simplifies the problem, but I explicitly stated "With only this information".-
ok voodoo I'm gonna bite the bullet. You gave me info on 1 man killing 1 sheep and another man killing a wolf. Now with that info I don't think the federal gov't or state gov't considers either one a crime.
-
Okay, let's try this one from a different angle.
One man killed a sheep, the other killed a wolf. With only this information, which one is more wrong? -
I don't know voodoo. Please tell me.
-
-
@ Anok
I am allowed to think anything I want to think?
science says: husband and wife get it on. sperm meets egg and human life begins.-
Of course, you are allowed to share any thought you think and opinions you hold. However, common sense dictates that opinions that are not based on fact, logic and reason lack credibility.
In a debate if you wish to win people over to your way of thinking then you must be able to present your position by grounding it in facts and by backing your position in a logical and reasonable manner. And, if you cannot or will not do that then you are not prepared to debate the issue.
(1) State your position as a single, concise case statement.
(2) Come up with at least three fact based, logical and well reasoned arguments in favor of your position.
(3) Come up with responses to the opposition arguments you will receive. -
Science doesn't say anything about husband and wife.
-
True
-
That's right, they could be brother and sister, in which case you wind up with a country music singer.
-
Opinions and logical deductions are two separate things.
You state that you believe in an eye for an eye. Logically speaking - an eye for an eye ideology means that you would take a life for a life.
Which would mean that you would support the death penalty for murderers.
Since you don't believe in taking a life for any reason, it is illogical to state that you believe in the kind of ideology that would support a life for a life, and eye for an eye etc...
-
-
Something else to ponder... If the parents of a country music singer got divorced, would they still legally be brother and sister?
-
Wow.. talk about bigotry.
-
Naaaa... I just hate contemporary country music.
-
-
@ sati,something to ponder. The jokes I tell on a thread about something so serious ain't funny!
-
This issue is so serious to you because you're afraid you won't get into heaven if you don't try to stop abortions. Personally, I'd rather try to stop the suffering of people who have already been born.
-
I'm not scared of not going to heaven if I don't stop abortions. I said I disagree with the mother making the choice for the unborn.
-
-
@ anok and tt.
I am a human. I don't have to base my arguments on a certain thing.
like I said earlier I base my opinions on emotions,feelings,and common sense. I understand and can appreciate that yall think that is stupid,or unscientific. I am not trying to knock your logic. All I am saying is human beings have emotions and feelings and opinions. It is not written in stone somewhere that all of my opinons,feelings,and emotions have to be based on scientific evidence.-
Who said anything about scientific evidence? Opinions and logic are two different things.
No one said you can't think whatever you want to think, we've only stated that your opinions should at least make sense (able to follow basic logical deduction) in order for it to gain support and understanding from others, and be propelled beyond personal opinion to valid argument.
For example:
Opinion:
I hate peanuts.
why?
Because I do.
Valid argument:
I refuse to eat peanuts.
Why?
Becasue I am allergic to them, and if I eat them I will die.
See the difference? -
Anok,
You know better than that.
I hate peanuts and i refuse to eat them because i think they taste like crap is just as viable an argument for not eating peanuts as having a dangerous medical condition.
Try to force celery in my mouth and see how valid opinion can be...
-
LOL - I was just making the difference of personal opinion and non personal valid argument very clear.
Personal taste is a valid argument, certainly, for one person in the matter of food. But it doesn't fly when a person tries to make that same argument in a larger field of debate.
Saying that you think celery tastes like crap is valid for you and only you. That doesn't actually mean that celery tastes like crap.
-
-
Anok, I believe I have a valid argument because: man and woman do their thing,sperm meets egg,human life begins. I don't understand why you think that isn't a valid argument.
-
I was referring to the eye for an eye argument.
-
[I believe I have a valid argument]
When is an argument "VALID"?
If you assume all premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, the arguments is valid.
When is an argument "SOUND"?
When all of the premises are true, the inference connects the premises to the conclusion, and the argument's logic is valid.
[I don't understand why you think that isn't a valid argument.]
Your argument is not a valid because it is not an argument at all.
Here's an example of an argument:
Premise: When two nonsterile adult humans of opposite genders have sex without the use of birth control, there is a (roughly 10% overall) chance that the female will become pregnant.
Inference: If the female gets pregnant, the fetus begins to develop a nervous system and can feel pain.
Conclusion: A late-term abortion causes suffering to the child.
-
-
like I said. I believe in punishing the scum of the earth (john Couey) give them a dose of their own medicine and when GOD is ready to finish the job he will.
-
To someone who doesn't believe in god, you sound like a real psyhopath.
-
And who will administer this punishment?
You?
And why is this considered a punishment, and not revenge?
Revenge grants personal gratification for the person or party seeking it.
Why is it not OK to torture someone for personal gratification when administering revenge in the same manner is also for personal gratification?
Wouldn't that make the administering of the revenge just as bad as the original act?
-
-
whatever u say voodoo
-
I would love to administer some punishment on John Couey,but I think he should be punished by the victims that jessica left behind. You know her dad and grandparents.
-
-
-
Kobra, consider the possibility that it isn't that she refuses but that she's unable.
-
I've tried to walk her through the steps of rational thinking and she refuses my help. Or is unable to follow it...
-
you people call yourselves rational. I don't think so.
-
-
No voodoo what is sickening is the way he kept that little girl in his closet for 3 days raping her over and over again while making her smoke crack. That is sickening
-
[That is hot.]
I'm glad we agree on something.
-
-
Whatever you say voodoo. You don't have to post on this thread if u don't want to.
-
u need help dude
-
Says the woman who condones a violation of the 8th Amendment.
-
-
ur off
-
lol u tk hm 2 da bar|?
Learn to type complete sentences! Also, complete words.
-
-
Now that I have heard all of yall's ration.voodoo,anok,tt,madame,and sati
you don't have to come back to this thread anymore. Yall are now totally off the subject again. I now would like to talk to other rational people.
I would like to see other people's opinion. This thread is not called bash
Holly for her human emotions and belifs. If you want that thread then go and start it. It will be a lot more fun not having me there.
here I'll go ahead and give u the title.
ATTN: ALL MEMBERS OF BC WE DON'T LIKE HOLLYtheHOUSEWIFE
WHAT DO U NOT LIKE ABOUT HER?
have fun people!
Holla-
Go cry, emo kid.
-
Well, I've asked you direct questions regarding the topic and your opinion on it.
I've yet to hear an answer. -
I dislike intellectual dishonesty, direct dishonesty, and the absence of logic.
In addition, if your previous representations are taken at face value, then I believe that you are sorely lacking in ethics and are proud of that fact, neither of which is a character trait I can respect.
-
-
what's an emo
-
and voodoo. Are you serious. Go cry kid. Now why in the hell would I cry over some little kid from florida who thinks he's the next einstein(Nott).
I promise I don't cry over words. This is just too funny. Get up from behind your little keyboard. I want to introduce you to somthing.
Are u up? Good. Now open your front door. Real World meet voodoo.
Voodoo meet real world. I bet u slammed the door huh! -
never mind I don't need to know that bad.
-
@hollythehousewife
As you believe that those who abort are murderers, and as you propose that the death penalty is too good for murderers then I have a question for you.
Question: If abortion was made illegal then what do you propose ought to be done with the women who have illegal abortions?-
TT, I'm confused by your question because abortion is generally not illegal--I'm not sure whether you're talking about a hypothetical world in which first-trimester elective abortions were illegal, or you're talking about abortions which are illegal now. Since the only abortion that is widely illegal in the U.S. today is non-essential late-term abortion of a potentially viable fetus, I have no trouble saying those women should be treated no differently than those who deliver the baby before killing it. If it is a fully formed child capable of living on its own, delivery is a technicality. If you're speaking hypothetically of abortions that are not currently illegal, the question is much more complex.
-
-
Polybore does not think that you can equate the death penalty and abortion. Trying to do so makes Polybore's head hurt and this is the best they can manage.
The death penalty results in the death of some really bad people and some innocent people.
Abortion results in the death of some people who might be really bad in later life and some people who might not be bad in later life.
Can not your argument be turned round? How can you support the death penalty but not abortion? -
@ polybore
I don't support either. I am trying to figure out why people do.
The argument has been the other way around for a long time. That is why I'm posing the question this way. -
@ tt
I don't know. I am talking about the here and now. I have said this countless times. I don't live my life by hypotheticals or a biology book.
I live my life day to day as a human being with emotions,feelings,oppinions,and common sense.
Abortion at this point isn't illegal. So if it ever was illegal (wich I doubt will ever be the case)We will cross that bridge when we get there.-
@hollythehousewife
(1) You do not believe in the death penalty. It's currently in effect in some states.
Question: If the death penalty was removed then what alternative would you propose?
(2) You do not believe in abortion which is currently legal.
Question: If abortion was made illegal then what would you propose ought to be done with the women who get illegal abortions?
(3) You have said: "I don't know. I am talking about the here and now. ... I don't live my life by hypotheticals or a biology book."
Question: If you were not prepared to either discuss or to debate these issues then why did you post this thread?
-
-
NO DEATH PENALTY
PROPOSAL:I would realease the John Coueys of the world to the surviving victims and say do what ever you want to except for killing him. I have already stated this.
ILLEGAL ABORTION
PROPOSAL: It is illegal for someone to go and score crack. What happens to that person? They are charged with a crime.
If abortion is illegal then the person who went to get an illegal abortion and the person administering the abortion,would be charged with a crime.
PREPARED TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THIS ISSUE
I am. That's why I posted it. DUH!!!!!!-
[PROPOSAL:I would realease the John Coueys of the world to the surviving victims and say do what ever you want to except for killing him. I have already stated this.]
The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The phrases employed are taken from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to be applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has not explicitly ruled on whether the Excessive Bail or Excessive Fines Clauses apply to the states.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[PROPOSAL: It is illegal for someone to go and score crack. What happens to that person? They are charged with a crime.
If abortion is illegal then the person who went to get an illegal abortion and the person administering the abortion,would be charged with a crime.]
What about miscarriages?
[PREPARED TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THIS ISSUE
I am. That's why I posted it. DUH!!!!!!]
Stop being so defensive. -
@hollythehousewife
PREPARED TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THIS ISSUE
I am. That's why I posted it. DUH!!!!!!
I disagree with you statement. It's my position that you have revealed over and over again in this thread that you do not know how to discuss or debate.
@voodookobra
I have concluded that any further attempt to discuss or debate is an exercise in futility. -
"What about miscarriages?" is an inane question that seems to arise again and again. The vast majority of criminal laws in the United States require INTENT. All require either an act or the omission of a required act. Not one of those elements is even arguably present in the case of a spontaneous miscarriage.
-
Just a side note, Tiffany, but miscarriages can be induced by non pharmaceutical means. They are not always successful, but I do know women who have been successful in causing miscarriages without the aid of surgery or pills.
In a world that made abortions illegal (and promotes an active stance against the killing of embryos or fetuses), and the knowledge that miscarriages can be forced without medicine - how would a forced miscarriage translate legally?
And, if it was found to be an illegal act, would that prompt investigations into miscarriages?
-
-
@ tt
That is your opinion. Your entitled.Don't post anymore on this thread. I would love it.
@ voodoo
It's all in the way you look at cruel and inhumane. They used to have public hangings on the court house lawn.
They used to tar and feather.
They used to burn people alive. For far less than what John Couey did.
They would do that is you missed a sunday in church or said a cuss word.
well duhh!!!!
not defensive,it's being a smart ass to the person who thinks she knows everything plus some.-
Entitled to her opionion but you wish she would cease posting?
-
TT didn't state her opinion, she asked you pointed questions.
Of which you still have not answered.
I for one, am still curious as to your stance and explanation of the "eye for an eye" philosophy? -
@mark
she said it is futile to debate with me. I said then don't debate.
@ anok
" I have concluded that any further attempt to discuss or debate is an exersice in futility"
That is an opinion. Not a pointed question.
-
-
I answered all of tt's questions. I gave her all of my proposals.
-
No you did NOT answer my questions.
(1) You do not believe in the death penalty. It's currently in effect in some states.
Question: If the death penalty was removed then what alternative would you propose?
The only answer you provided is words to the effect of that you would give criminals like Couey to the survivors even though the law does not allow this.
(2) You do not believe in abortion which is currently legal.
Question: If abortion was made illegal then what would you propose ought to be done with the women who get illegal abortions?
(3) You have said: "I don't know. I am talking about the here and now. ... I don't live my life by hypotheticals or a biology book."
Question: If you were not prepared to either discuss or to debate these issues then why did you post this thread?
Discussion is dialog about hypotheticals.
-
-
Anok I have told you my philosophy over and over again. I believe in eye for and eye. rape for a rape. I am not gonna be the life for a life. I am gonna let God take care of that. That's it. I can believe what ever I want to.
-
Anok I have told you my philosophy over and over again. I believe in eye for and eye. rape for a rape. I am not gonna be the life for a life. I am gonna let God take care of that. That's it. I can believe what ever I want to.
Two wrongs never make a right.
(1) Who will take out the eye of the one who took out the first eye?
(2) Who will do the raping of the rapists?
Are you suggesting that the state be given the authority to remove body parts of citizens, and compel other citizens to commit rape? And do you really want to live in a country where the state compels eye removals and rapes?
(3) I am gonna let God take care of that.
Really? IMO if you really believed that then you wouldn't be espousing any opinions at all, and most certainly those that are in contradiction with the teachings attributed to Jesus because there is aboslutely no grounds for violence of any kind, even in self defense, found in the New Testament. -
So you believe in an eye for an eye, but only in cases you deem worthy?
You disagree with death penalties and abortions, but are agreeable to rape and torture?
Doesn't that make you as bad as the people who rape, torture and kill?
-
-
A foetus is a human being and abortion is murder...This is a simple truthful fact...
Over one million human beings per annum are murdered in the U.S.A. on the premise that an unborn foetus is not a human being... -
@ gerry
I couldn't agree with u more. The problem is the people that disagree.
They want there opinions heard and no one else's. -
@ tt
U asked if abortions were illegal,what would you do with the women who had Illegal abortions
ANSWER: CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME.
QUESTION: If the death penalty was removed what would you propose?
ANSWER: TURN OVER THE SCUM OF THE EARTH TO THE VICTIMS LEFT BEHIND AND NOT LET THEM ENJOY ANOTHER MINUTE ON THIS PLANET UNTIL GOD DECIDES WHAT HAPPEN TO HIM IN DEATH.
I am prepared to share my human views and human opinions and human emotions
to anyone that wants to listen.
I answered all of ur little questions. It isn't my fault if you don't like the answer.-
If abortion is criminalized, it would be designated as first-degree murder. Willful and premeditated. That's life in prison or the death penalty. But since Holly doesn't believe in either punishment, who does the Holly Justice Torture Act to women who get abortions/commit first degree murder?
-
What if the victim's families are Christian and practice what they preach, and opt to forgive the criminal, and he goes free to rape and torture someone else?
Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Does it sound fair to condone torture, in so much as encouraging others to torture out of revenge?
I thought we had surpassed such barbarianism.
-
-
do you mean the same christians that do believe in an eye for an eye?
I thought we had passed such barbarianism too ya know until those evil people come out of the wood work and rape torture little 9 yr olds.-
Christians who follow the teachings of Christ do not believe in an eye for an eye. Jesus, in the new testament did away with an eye for an eye and replaced it with "turn the other cheek".
God does not condone torture.
I thought we had passed such barbarianism too ya know until those evil people come out of the wood work and rape torture little 9 yr olds.
Yes, there are still sick individuals in this world. That does not mean we should all act like sick individuals. Particularly when we are not sick.
Barbarianism isn't when one person is off the deep end, it's when reasonable people act as if they are.
-
-
@ renal
there was a time it was illegal. No those women didn't get charged with first degree murder. Do your homework hunny!-
That depends on where, and when you're talking about. Pre 19th century different countries had different laws regarding abortions.
For example, many European countries considered induced abortions to be a homicide, eventually changing it to an "Offense against a person" which is a crime just under homicide.
The US's ban on abortions were originally framed in the same manner.
Amazingly enough, only a few countries in history have outright banned all abortions for any reason - most countries have allowed abortions for medical reasons, women's health, mental health, and in the case of incest or rape. -
So that means abortion isn't murder. Thanks for negating your own point.
-
-
He also replaced it with
The memory of the just is blessed!-
The "just" meaning those that follow his teachings.
-
-
sick is an excuse
-
So you're saying that a person who enjoys raping and torturing isn't sick? That any old person can work up the will and rape and torture?
That explains why you think sane people could administer rape and torture as a punishment....
-
-
No the "justified" I can't rember exactly where. It is in matthew I think.
-
Hmmm, well, the only reference to Just or righteous etc... in Matthew is in Matthew 5:1-11, also known as the beatitudes, and 5:21-48 specifically 38-42:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
This is also reflected in Luke 6:20-23
-
-
The Book of Mark contains only 7 percent unique material, whereas 93 percent of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke. The model for justification is Abraham (Abram who married his half-sister by the same father, Sarai, who is later called Sarah). In her menopausal years Sarah gave birth to a son Issac. And Abraham was so strongly influenced by the non-believers around him, who were sacrificing their children to their gods that he thought God wanted him to sacrifice his own son.
You have taken what's written in Matthew completely out of context and come up with a bizarre interpretation.
The correct interpretation goes like this: For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? It says that Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. In other words, his belief was his justification and not his works.
There is NO support whatsoever for violence, even in self defense found in the New Testament. All of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are peace making teachings.-
Ah, you must be referring to James 2:23-24.
23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
-
-
@renal
I never said abortion isn't murder. I said that is what the law stated when abortion was illegal. I didn't negate a damn thing-
So if abortion is murder, why wouldn't it be prosecuted as such? And why don't you support such prosecution?
-
-
@ tt
I didn't take anything out of context. I think maybe you did.-
I didn't take anything out of context. I think maybe you did.
No I did not. My interpretation is consistent with the with the wording of the text, and with bible scholars. Yours is not.
Think about the history of Abraham, as given in the Old Testament, and you can answer this. What happened, on two occasions, when he lied about his relationship with Sarah?
What happened, at Sarah's suggestion, when he bore a son through Hagar, her maid servant?
When Abraham depended on his own ingenuity and performance; when he trusted in himself, rather than God and took charge based on his own wisdom, he got into trouble and wound up guilty before God.
"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God."
Abraham was righteous by faith; an obedient faith, which is to say: he didn't depend upon himself, believed on God, and that faith alone was his justification. -
The new testament outright condemns an eye for an eye philosophy. So just, justifications, and righteousness have no place with it.
-
-
@ anok
I said evil people do evil things. Hence taking a 9 yr. old out of her bed in the middle of the night. The evil (not sick) John Couey then proceeded to rape "RAPE" an innocent "INNOCENT" 9yr. old who had her whole life a head of her to live. He also made her smoke crack. He also made her pee and deficate in a jar. He held her captive in a dark dark closet. When the police started figuring things out. He took that innocent pure child and made her climb into a garbage bag. Then he dug a grave for her. Oh wait he did let her keep her fav. stuffed animal so maybe that is a mitigating factor.NOTT! Then he threw her in that grave and piled dirt on top of her.
HMMMM yea. He sounds like a sick human to me.
NO! He sounds like an evil "EVIL" animal to me. Who not only deserves every punishment he gets on earth,but the wrath of GOD himself.-
Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord!
Hmmmm .... apparently you don't believe that.
You appear to want to live in a society where the state hands over criminals to the surviovors families (assuming they will comply) and we turn the clock back by millennium. -
So you replaced sick for evil.
Do you want to be evil?
-
-
Then why is the verse "The memory of the just is blessed" ?
-
I just did a bible search, there is no such phrase.
here, help yourself:
www.biblegateway.com/keyword/
I stand corrected, there is a phrase in the King James version:
Proverbs 10:6-8 (King James Version)
6Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.
7The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.
8The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.
But it still has nothing to do with what you are saying. -
In the NIV:
Proverbs 10:6-8 (New International Version)
6 Blessings crown the head of the righteous,
but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked. [a]
7 The memory of the righteous will be a blessing,
but the name of the wicked will rot.
8 The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool comes to ruin.
-
-
@ tt
I am not talking about abraham or the ot. I am talking about
the verse that says
"The memory of the just is blessed"
I know what I'm talking about. You don't-
Open your bible and locate the book, chapter and verse please,
and then share the book, chapter and verse with us. -
TT look up, I've posted it for everyone.
-
@Anok
Proverbs is in the Old Testament.
It's not in the book of Matthew.
She thought it was www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/death-penalty-abortion#comment_7... -
Yes, it's in the wrong book. it took us a while to find it, luckily I had the internet and could do a search.
-
-
Yes there is anok!
It is in the king James version.
I'll call my pastor tomorrow.
I have read it with my own eyes-
I edited in the KJV - the "just" translates into "righteous" in the NIV version.
It does not, under any circumstances justify or condone an eye for an eye ideology, nor does it condone or advocate torture as just behavior. -
OOPS! You forgot to tell us which book and which chapter and verse that your are referring to. Also are your referring to the King James Version or to the New King James version? Simply look on the title page and tell us which version and date you are using.
-
It's proverbs 10:6-8.
-
@Anok
I'm sorry for the in my responses.
My vision is really bad so I didn't see what you had posted above.
-
S'alright : )
-
-
Anok just did tt. duhhhh!!!!
It absoulutely has meaning to what i've been saying.-
Nope, it says the righteous/just will be blessed, and the violent will not.
Torturing someone is violent, and inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. If you tortured a person you would not be the just, you would be the wicked, the violent, your name would rot, and your mouth covered.
Just, and righteous means to act in the teachings of Christ.
-
-
No. What john couey did was not justified.
If he were released to mark lunsford and mark lunsford had his
way then when it came time for mark to meet his maker then he will
be justified in what he did.-
No, in fact the teachings of Christianity speak explicitly to the opposite.
Did you not read Matthew 5:38 and Luke 6?
If you went ahead and exacted revenge on a person for a wrong doing, you are just as wrong as they were.
Romans 12:18-20 (New International Version)
18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a]says the Lord.
Ezekiel 25:11-13
2 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'Because Edom took revenge on the house of Judah and became very guilty by doing so, 13 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stretch out my hand against Edom and kill its men and their animals. I will lay it waste, and from Teman to Dedan they will fall by the sword.
Leviticus 19:17-19 (New International Version)
17 " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
-
-
it isn't revenge
it's justice-
jusâ‹…tice
 
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.
Revenge
1. To inflict harm in return for, as an injury, insult, etc.; to exact satisfaction for, under a sense of injury; to avenge; -- followed either by the wrong received, or by the person or thing wronged, as the object, or by the reciprocal pronoun as direct object, and a preposition before the wrong done or the wrongdoer.
2. To inflict injury for, in a spiteful, wrong, or malignant spirit; to wreak vengeance for maliciously.
-
-
I think it's kind of funny how the atheist and anarchist quote something they don't even believe in.
I believe in god. I believe the memory of the just is blessed.-
What's even funnier is the Christian who doesn't understand the text or religion she claims to believe in.
-
All Old Testament prophecy is alleged to have been fulfilled by Jesus on the cross. It is alleged that his death on the cross for all mankind's sins (Couey's included) justifies his believers by faith alone to follow his peace making teachings. As a former Christian, who graduated from bible college I have had the advantage of understanding what it means to be a Christan. Sadly, you do not.
-
[I think it's kind of funny how the atheist and anarchist quote something they don't even believe in.]
Welcome to "debating."
-
-
Instead of or at least in addition to teaching our school children that general custer was a war hero and that cristopher columbus discovered America{perhaps hitler "discovered" Poland) we must educate our school children about sex education and abortion and they should be shown pictures and videos of aborted fetuses so that they know they are killing a human...
This is truly the only way to eliminate abortions...Educating our youth properly and honestly is our best course of action to eliminating abortions...-
[they should be shown pictures and videos of aborted fetuses so that they know they are killing a human...]
I don't agree with your methods (or your belief that a fetus is yet a human being), gerry. I think science can solve this without traumatizing kids.
With the use of hormones, "turn off" a girl's ability to get pregnant once she reaches puberty. Then, when she decides she wants to have a child, have a doctor "turn it back on." This would completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.
Note: I'm using quotes because I am not in any way a biologist, and therefore do not know what terminology would be used there. -
Gerry, your points about education are correct, but preventing unwanted pregnancies will require a great deal more than showing "abortion videos". Particularly in a day and age when kids are routinely desensitized to violence, anyway.
Proper sex education, proper academic education, proper family planning clinics and counseling, better adoption programs, economic bettering etc.. these need to happen first.
Showing a graphic video with the intent of scaring people hasn't worked since "reefer madness". -
Lol, Reefer Madness / Red Asphalt.. I ever heard about those jokes growing up in another country.
-
Have you ever seen them? Hysterical
Right along with Easy Rider and The Wild One - movies that shocked the nation and served to issue a warning to loose men and women of the times. (Both are excellent movies, by the way). -
I've seen parts of red asphalt, (so cheesy it has to be a wisconsin production) never seen reefer madness.
Easy Rider naturally, not sure about The wild one. Might have, But i'll have to research it and see if i remember. -
AH, The Wild One with Marlon Brando as a 50's bike gang leader. Epic
The entire demonizing of marijuana was done with these horribly cheesy propaganda movies. You watch them today and you're like...uh....yeah.... -
Gerry's argument is circular. To implement his abortion education program, you would have to have everyone who influences or makes education policy embrace the anti-choice worldview. (And what about the anti-choice crowd's opposition to sex-education?)
-
@markstoneman
There are no circles in my logic or education plan...
Personally I fully agree with your position of maintaining the rights of females to a private Medically accredited abortion simply as a safegaurd to falling back into the dark ages of non-legal back yard abortion butchery that in many cases killed or butchered the female in addition to killing the infant...
Having said that I am sickened by the lack of concern for the one million innocent infants that are murdered per annum in the U.S.A. alone not to mention the rest of Planet Earth....
At the end of the day despite our differences we are all human beings...If we as human beings would simply practice sexual abstinence or use existing birth control methods such as condoms we would hardly have any abortions...
The fetuses being murdered are human beings that have been conceived...How can you ignore this fact ?
I sir cannot and will not ignore this fact... -
[Personally I fully agree with your position of maintaining the rights of females to a private Medically accredited abortion simply as a safegaurd to falling back into the dark ages of non-legal back yard abortion butchery that in many cases killed or butchered the female in addition to killing the infant...]
That's the pro-choice stance. Right there. Nothing further.
[Having said that I am sickened by the lack of concern for the one million innocent infants that are murdered per annum in the U.S.A. alone not to mention the rest of Planet Earth....]
Yes, it's a shame. And what about all the babies that are carried to term, but then promptly dumped on the state, and ironically denied the access to a stable family just because the adopting couple is homosexual? There are a lot of things to fix.
I've posted this before, but just in case you miss it:
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and will not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/
[At the end of the day despite our differences we are all human beings...If we as human beings would simply practice sexual abstinence or use existing birth control methods such as condoms we would hardly have any abortions...]
I've suggested something even more effective elsewhere in this thread. www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/death-penalty-abortion#comment_7...
[The fetuses being murdered are human beings that have been conceived...How can you ignore this fact ?]
I could argue over semantics right now, but we do agree in essence.
[I sir cannot and will not ignore this fact...]
Great! How's the college system in your area? We could always use more biologists.
-
-
justice for jessica ='s not letting john couey attempt to smile ever again.
Mark lundsford would be justified in his actions through GOD'S eyes.-
You should ask your pastor if it's OK to torture someone who did something bad.
Or if God would see that as OK. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer. (it's clearly written in the bible, in case you missed it).
I'll ask again, if torture is evil, and a person who does so is an evil person, then why would yuo want to do something that turns you into an evil person?
And how would one go about that transformation? I for one know that I couldn't inflict torture on someone. It's simply not something I could do and be able to live with. That's what separates me from the sick people who can torture.
Are you saying that you are sick or evil, by stating you could torture someone? -
Anok, no offense here. But i seriously doubt that you have any clue what you are capable of doing and not.
Until you are faced with the worst of circumstance, you quite simply never tap into that portion of your psyche. Neither the good things come out nor the bad until you are actually forced with the real decisions. -
Of course I know what I am capable of. Unless I undergo some kind of psychological transformation. In which case I am no longer who I am right now, nor will I ever return to that, and, would probably have some sort of serious mental problems. Which makes the point entirely moot.
I know what I can do under pressure, in times of danger, and how far I am able to go before I can no longer go any further. I know how I react in times of rage, and when I am clear headed. (Through experience, not speculation).
I could not - under any circumstances of being in my current state of mind - torture a human a being, and if I ever reached a point in my life where I could, I would no longer be a human being, but a monster. -
Holly, are you channeling God now? Who among us humans could ever claim to do that? This is one of the big problems I have with some fundamentalist religious stances.
-
It seems obvious that she, who claims to be a Christian, is channeling a strange god. There is no support found in the statements attributed to Jesus found in the New Testament that support violence of any kind, even in self defense. Yet the strange god being channeled purportedly supports torture in the name of justice.
Hmmm ... One wonders what will be next. Will a sock puppet army be drafted into service to rush in and support the channeler of the strange god? www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/obama-to-reverse-abortion-policy... -
@ Anok
What John Couey did was not bad. It was evil. He was not justified in doing what he did to that baby. Mark Lundsford (Jessica's daddy) would be JUSTIFIED. John Coey=monster
Mark lundsford=superhero.
You obviously don't have kids.
-
-
@ caveman
I don't channel GOD. I worship God. -
@ tt
HHMMM It seems to me that a person who doesn't even believe in GOD is trying to tell the christian that she doesn't believe in a God. I know what I believe in. You on the other hand don't believe in GOD,so you are not allowed to tell me what my GOD stands for if you won't even admit to his existence. -
hmmm.... okay then here goes. I am the other way around, I support the death penalty but not abortion. The other way around just does not make any sense to me. Religiously speaking, there are scriptures that support the death penalty, and authorize man to do this (I will of course not post them but should anyone want them get at me privately since it is not a public matter and I am in no mood to deal with cyber drama) . Economically speaking, killing prisoners is cheaper and more efficient.
Holly, I understand what you are getting at, perhaps more than most since I have actually been affected by a death penalty case, sadly though here is what this thread will accomplish:
*maybe 5 users will give you a genuine answer or perspective
*Many will attack you personally (as I am sure you've noticed)
*Slim to None will try to see where you are coming from
*The overall consensus on the topic of abortion (weather admitted or not) is that a fetus is only a baby when it's convenient. For example if you blow a 13wk pregnant womans brains out, then you will be charged with 2 counts of homicide regardless of weather or not she was going to the clinic tommorow. In that case, when there is a potential media frenzy, that fetus is a baby.
If the same woman does not get her brains blown out and has an abortion at 13wks, the baby is a fetus because its not convenient to protect it's rights when mommy (not caring about daddys rights) makes the decision to terminate.
*Arguing abortion or religion on forums doesn't work because very few people want to learn about others perspectives and believe what they believe or pretend to believe whatever makes them popular. That is probably why people are assuming that you are not really interested in hearing or understanding their POV's.
My advice, ignore the thread completely. As sad as it is, you are not going to get anything constructive at it besides a laugh or two.-
"Economically speaking, killing prisoners is cheaper and more efficient. "
Or not.
www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-woodford2-2008oct02,0,65089...
"California spends an additional $117 million each year pursuing the execution of those on death row. Just housing inmates on death row costs an additional $90,000 per prisoner per year above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population.
A statewide, bipartisan commission recently concluded that we must spend $100 million more each year to fix the many problems with capital punishment in California. Total price tag: in excess of $200 million-a-year more than simply condemning people to life without the possibility of parole."
www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/nyregion/06death.html?_r=1
"If New Jersey were to replace the death penalty today with a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and each of the 10 people on death row were resentenced accordingly, the cost to the state would be $15.1 million, according to Mary E. Forsberg, research director for New Jersey Policy Perspective. In contrast, she said, it could cost the state up to $845 million if court challenges in the same 10 cases were pursued under current laws." -
its state specific and depends one weather or not states count the cost of appeals in that total and how long they hold them.
-
Not to nit pick, but only 29 states have laws on the books declaring that murdering a pregnant women results in fetal homicide.
And even then, not all of the laws are the same. For example, Laci Peterson, a controversial case for sure. She was 8 months pregnant when he allegedly murdered her. Way beyond the date for a legal non emergency abortion, resulting in a double homicide charge. -
[*maybe 5 users will give you a genuine answer or perspective]
That would be you, me, Anok, timethief, Renal, Mark, MadameX, et al.
Way more than five.
[*The overall consensus on the topic of abortion (weather admitted or not) is that a fetus is only a baby when it's convenient.]
No, a fetus is not a baby all. A fetus is the transition period between embryo and baby. The unborn cannot survive outside of the mother's womb until around 7 months. I think timethief had an exact number somewhere else in this thread.
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and will not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/
-
-
-
Indeed I have never experienced anyone who could out do your vacuous blah, blah, blah, except perhaps your sock puppet, who is, of course, equally as articulate, intelligent, logical and as reasonable as you have proven to be.
-
-
@ endless
I couldn't have said it better myself.-
That's for sure.
-
Oh snap! Perfectly played, Madame.
-
see it just turns into an attack thing even when you try to play peace keeper. Well, as you know I am in a bad mood today so I say this to anyone who takes issue with me having an opinion and after saying this, I will not waste anymore time on this thread because as I said it is useless.
If you do not agree with me or anyone else koo koo katchoo to you, and god forbid one day one of your relatives is stabbed 93 times, nearly decapitated, breasts cut up, raped, burned, and face is mutilated so badly that a closed casket funeral is necessary leaving you and yours abandoned. God forbid that as you sit in that court room testifying, and that killer is laughing at you as the jurors take the opinion that the life of the murderer is more important than justice for that victim. That is what happened to my family so excuse the fuck out of me Renal if I disagree with you and your support of people who kill mothers, children and anyone else. Since you are such a big fan of these types, why not go on ahead and send him a letter:
Inmate Webb, Justin Randolph
1100 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16654-1112
" -
Most of us have either stated we support the death penalty, and/or some form of appropriate punishment.
However, Holly has stated that she supports torture, and that's what this debate is now about. -
I do not support the state ever having the legal authority to torture or kill citizens. I do support exploring whatever other alternatives they may be that result in protection of the public form violent offenders. However, the OP supports the ancient and barbaric practice of torture. Therefore we must agree to disagree.
Also aside from the reality that the state cannot hand over criminals to surviving family members of their victims I see another problem with that notion. It's this. Both sides of my family are filled with Christians, who are well aware of what it is to be a Christian. They will not bear arms ever. In fact we have distinguished family members who served time in prison rather than being drafted in WWI. And WWII those who served served only as medics they were all dishonorably discharged for rendering their weapons as both useless to themselves to to the other side. They would not accept torture anyone under any circumstances. In 3 instances my family members have forgiven those who have killed their family members. They are the real thing ie. they are peacemakers and followers of Jesus. -
Endlessly, so I attacked you by pointing out that your assertion that it's cheaper economically to kill criminals than to jail them is factually wrong? Is that what constitutes an attack now? And that also constitutes you calling me a supporter of murderers who cut off women's breasts and burn them? What part of crazy town did that come from?
Because you had a bad day...You're taking one down...You sing a sad song just to turn it around...
Or did I attack you by celebrating Madame smacking down Holly's lack of ability to express herself well? An attack on one is an attack on all! -
Renal- first of all, I was initially replying to your "dubunking of facts" then changed my reply when I had seen Holly had left a message, I was on the phone and didn't erase the entire thing before starting the new one. I didn't intentionally single you out but if you want to "win" a forum argument more power to you. What ever gets you off, sugar.
"Because you had a bad day...You're taking one down...You sing a sad song just to turn it around..." Daniel Powter lyrics? Okay....
"An attack on one is an attack on all!" WTF is this the cyber Bloods vs Crypts? Who is attacking? Am I "attacking all"? it looks to me like this entire thread is one big bullying party.
--------------------------------------------------
@ TT & Anok- almost every human being is capable of torture.
1971 www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/maverick-academic-philip-zimbard...
subsequent studies: www.newscientist.com/article/dn16312-shocking-study-reveals-people-still-wi...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: A majority, if not all, people are willing to torture.
Fact: Bullying is a form of psychological torture, so if you are so against it why is there so much bullying going on against fellow bloggers?
The myspace bully case:
internet message says "You are so stupid, you're never going to be anything"
This thread:
well just read it. See any similarities?
I love how you all make fun of people here, but tell me did you ever stop to think that maybe people who hold such strong opinions have been affected by violent crime? I happen to know a little bit about Holly and based on that knowledge, her reaction makes perfect sense.
Instead of considering that, everyone wants to talk about her education, question her faith, and act like a bunch of condescending pompous elitists.
Okay some people are fact driven, some people are emotionally driven. As if we all haven't figured that out by now. One is not better than the other. One is certainly more dangerous than the other, but not superior. I see people condemning cyber bullying on the main page but engaging in it on threads like this one and the opinion of southerners threads. Go look at Holly's shouts, see why she isn't backing down.
Oh and thanks for the emails insinuating that I am Holly's lesbian lover and my personal favorite that came from one of you less than 2 hours ago
"Your bitch mother got what she deserved, too bad she didn't abort when she had the chance"
That was so classy. Luckily I am not the type to care what complete strangers think of my family life.
In closing of my ridiculously long reply, no one is going to win this one, it is an age old battle. To continue this thread just shows a sadistic desire to shamelessly pester one another since there is no longer any productive dialogue. -
Actually, that article does not state that "all people are capable of torture".
It implies that people who have undergone traumatic and psychological changes may be capable of torture. As in, their psyche is now in tatters. That's not a normal human being, making the point moot.
I have been through traumatic experiences myself - many of them. Starting with molestation, rapes, sexual assaults, being talked, being attacked, receiving death threats.
Never once did the thought of torturing these people come across my mind.
Sorry to burst your bubble, I am not capable of torture. People who are are sick.
-
-
What John Couey did was not bad. It was evil. He was not justified in doing what he did to that baby. Mark Lundsford (Jessica's daddy) would be JUSTIFIED. John Coey=monster
Mark lundsford=superhero.
You obviously don't have kids.
Actually, I do have a child, but that doesn't mean that I can act like a monster.
Anyway, if Couey had stated, and convinced you that he was only torturing that little girl because she had tortured and killed his infant son, you'd be OK with it, right? I mean, he'd be administering justice Holly style, after all.-
To add on to Anok's post: What if Mark Lunsford doesn't do anything? What if he just lets Couey go? What if he decides two wrongs don't make a right? What then?
-
I keep asking that question, but the OP seems to be convinced that everyone is capable of torturous and barbaric behavior, rendering the question moot.
I guess someone else would have to hunt him down and do the dirty deeds themselves. But then, that would bring about new moral questions, such as third party justifications and such. -
Isn't wrath one of the seven deadly sins?
-
Well, in the final version of the deadly sins, anger was one of them. (there were originally more than 7, History channel did a great bit on the 7 deadly sins).
The sin of anger (or wrath) is also considered to be the fourth circle of Hell, in Dante's inferno. The level of Hell where it's inhabitants consistently rip each other limb for limb for an eternity.
Nice place.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Wrath_.28Latin.2C_ira.29
I know it's a WIki source, but it's not half bad:
Wrath (or anger or "Rage") may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. The transgressions borne of vengeance are among the most serious, including murder, assault, and in extreme cases, genocide. Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest (although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy, closely related to the sin of envy). Dante described vengeance as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite". In its original form, the sin of wrath also encompassed anger pointed internally rather than externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, albeit tragic, expression of wrath directed inwardly, a final rejection of God's gifts. -
like I said Anok. You obviously have no kids. UM it's a FACT John Couey doesn't have an infant son that was raped and buried alive by 9 yr old Jessica Lundsford.
It is a FACT that John Couey stole Jessica out of her home. It is a FACT that he brutally raped her. It is a FACT that he made her smoke crack.It is a FACT that he burried her alive.
Hellooooo we are talking real world not hypotheticals. -
Anok does, in fact, have a child. Thank God she is teaching him better values than some people choose to pass along to the next generation.
-
What, you haven't heard all the stories about Punky?
Seriously, what's with this "If you disagree with me you must not have kids" trend? -
Oh, I see - you don't like being forced to understand the greater ramifications of our actions.
As in, if holly passed this law, the Cuoey's of this world might either get off scott free, or they might be able to justify their actions if they can prove a similar offense was taken against them, and they were only administering justice.
Do you make it a habit of thinking before you do things? Do you think about long term repercussions? Like, would you leave a bottle of windex out on the counter where your baby might get into it an drink it? or do you say to yourself "fact, my baby hasn't drank windex, fact, my baby can't get on the counter fact, my baby is safe"? Or do you take the extra precaution just in case your baby is able to get up on the counter and wants to drink the pretty blue juice?
-
-
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and will not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/ -
I think maybe some of you should contact Mark Lundsford. I have heard him tell Heraldo a few times what he would do.
That is a FACT. Not a Hypothetical.-
Since you're a Christian, I'm going to throw this in your face: WRATH is one of the seven deadly sins, according to Christianity.
-
-
@ Endless
These people will never get where we are coming from. They are not victims
of violent crime. However they do think for some reason that my comments
make them want to get abortions.
Endless don't let them get ya down. Like I said earlier some of the folks at
BC hide behind their keyboards and monitors.
They believe a violent crime is forgetting to use the spellcheck or forgetting a comma.
We people in the real world(ya know the one's that don't hide behind keyboards and monitors) UMMM YEA!! They don't realize that people like us actually do make a difference in this world. While "they" are fixated on their degrees,debate,fact,logic,and 1 hell of an insecure complex.
Ya know what though endless. Don't you almost feel sorry for them. I mean
how lonely they must feel. I mean don't get me wrong. I think the innernet,degrees,books,and all other inadiment objects are wonderful resorces,but they can never make up for a real live human being.
is awesome,but it can never-
[Like I said earlier some of the folks at
BC hide behind their keyboards and monitors.]
Bullshit. I'm just as confrontational in real life whenever someone uses an unsound or uncogent argument, and I'm not afraid of violence (I assume that's what you're getting at). I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it's the same with timethief and Anok too. MadameX too, if you strike her the wrong way.
[They believe a violent crime is forgetting to use the spellcheck or forgetting a comma.]
That's a ridiculous claim, and I would be unsurprised if you actually believed it.
[We people in the real world(ya know the one's that don't hide behind keyboards and monitors) UMMM YEA!!]
No comment.
[They don't realize that people like us actually do make a difference in this world. While "they" are fixated on their degrees,debate,fact,logic,and 1 hell of an insecure complex.]
Keep telling yourself that. Maddox said it best in response to someone who hates nerds, but I feel it fits here too:
"You know what the best thing about knowing that the nerds you picked on will always be more successful, have hotter girlfriends, a home that doesn't have wheels, and a stock portfolio with numbers larger than you can count is? Doesn't matter, get me a coffee." maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1 -
Damn you and your facts and logic! They have no place in the real world where real people make a real difference, unlike all you unreal people with your "books" and "innernets" and "inadimate" objects. Get up from your computer monitors and leave your insecure complexes! You have nothing to lose but your mind!
-
If I raise myself to my own power, do I equal 1/sqrt(e^pi)?
EDIT: scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2008/08/sunday_function_4.php -
How ignorant can you be Holly?
Some of us may be victims of violent crime (me) some of us might not be.
Being a victim of violent crime doesn't mean we can act like monsters, either.
I didn't. Then again I have self control. -
Holly, I have very little trouble understanding where Endless is coming from--and I doubt that others do. She does a reasonably good job of articulating her points and does not seem to reverse herself or need to get louder (as represented by caps) rather than clearer.
Just for the record, I was the victim of a stalker who lay in wait for me all night with a butcher knife after cutting the power to my apartment. Two of my closest women friends have been violently raped--one was left to die with a plastic bag tied over her head, but managed to escape. A woman very close to me was beaten into unconscious, had bones broken and teeth ripped out of her mouth in a domestic violence incident back when that sort of thing wasn't really illegal. And I worked for years with victims of domestic violence professionally. The LAST thing I've learned from the aftermath of all that violence is that more violence would be a good solution.
-
-
"NERDS I PICK ON" Have u lost ur "EVER LOVIN"? I'm not the kid who said
I was down for a "handjob" from a housewife. I don't think you have all your
faculties about you. That's ok though,they have medicine for that.-
You're quite erratic today. I never said you picked on nerds, but you're implying that being intellectual is a bad thing that doesn't benefit anyone. Try saying that to the family of Maurice Hilleman: The microbiologist who developed the vaccines for chicken pox, hepatitis A and B, haemophilus influenza, measles, meningitis, mumps, pneumonia, and liver cancer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hilleman
He is frequently credited with saving more lives than any other scientist in the 20th century. What have YOU, a "real person," done for the world? -
@ madame
I think it would be a different story if the little girl in the pic w/ you
was ravaged,raped,made to smoke crack,live in a closet for 3 days,had to
deficate in a jar,all before being made to climb in a trash bag and put into
a hole in the ground.
The feeling is a lot different when it happens to someone you love. Take out Jessica's name and put your daughter's name in her place and see if
that feeling hasn't changed somewhat. -
Holly, that's exactly the point. It's easy to have that FEELING. A society dictated by our impulses would be a pretty ugly one. That's why we have a government of laws and not of men--precisely to prevent our basest emotional reactions from dictating the way our country is run and the chaos that would inevitably ensue.
It seems that you believe that your own emotional reactions are the highest "law"--I worked with a lot of habitual criminals who felt the same way, and who always had a justification for their behavior. Of course, they did a lot of harm...and then sometimes people felt the need to do harm back to them...and their society was a pretty ugly place. I'm surprised that's the society you want for your children, but if it is, I think that you may have chosen the wrong place to live.
-
-
exactly anal
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hilleman
He is frequently credited with saving more lives than any other scientist in the 20th century. What have YOU, a "real person," done for the world? -
Don't ya just love 1st grade?
-
Did she get that far? I'm beginning to wonder...
-
-
no voodoo I'm not eratic. "you know the best thing about knowing the nerds
you pick on will always be more successful"
Your implying that being christian is a bad thing. Try saying that to Jesus Christ who is responsible for modern medicine today. Hence baptist hospitals,st.frances,st.jude,methodist hospitals. Maybe you don't realize that Jesus Christ himself was the first healer.-
[Your implying that being christian is a bad thing.]
Nowhere have I implied that being christian is a bad thing. I've merely implied that being COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL is a bad thing. Ken Miller, whom I have referenced before, is a Roman Catholic biologist. He's not AT ALL IRRATIONAL, and I have the utmost respect for him. Because of his degree? Nope. Because he uses his freaking brain.
[Try saying that to Jesus Christ who is responsible for modern medicine today.]
Name one thing that Jesus contributed to medical science. When's the last time Jesus published a paper in a scientific journal detailing the uses of Dichloroacetic acid? Or anything at all, for that matter?
[Hence baptist hospitals,st.frances,st.jude,methodist hospitals.]
Who staffs these hospitals? Doctors, who have degrees. Epic footbullet.
[Maybe you don't realize that Jesus Christ himself was the first healer.]
Go preach somewhere else. You clearly cannot prove this claim. Even if you could, you wouldn't because you're too busy screaming passive-aggressively at anyone who doesn't agree with your wrathful bloodlust. -
So before Jesus no one healed anyone? No medicine existed anywhere?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates -
This summer on FOX: Doctor Jesus, M.D.
-
House and Jesus slam into each other, producing two photons and two neutrinos!
-
-
Are you asking what I have done for the world?
I have done alot. I am an unselfish and proud housewife from ms.
I haven't found the cure for cancer,but I have given a hug when it
was needed,given advice when it was asked,helped a few people save
their homes from foreclosure,been a damn good mama,a pretty good wife,
tried to follow the golden rule etc....
That is what I have done. I don't care if that doesn't live up to
"voodoo kobra's" or "anal failure's" subjective of what a human
should do while living on planet earth,but that isn't important
to me. I care more about what my girls think of me. I care more of
what my husband thinks of me,and so far I haven't had many complaints.-
[Are you asking what I have done for the world?
I have done alot. I am an unselfish and proud housewife from ms.]
Yet you are so quick to judge us as people who don't do anything outside of this forum. Why is that?
[I haven't found the cure for cancer,but I have given a hug when it
was needed,given advice when it was asked,helped a few people save
their homes from foreclosure,been a damn good mama,a pretty good wife,
tried to follow the golden rule etc....]
Ego-stroking.
[That is what I have done. I don't care if that doesn't live up to
"voodoo kobra's" or "anal failure's" subjective of what a human
should do while living on planet earth,but that isn't important
to me.]
Yet you see it fitting to claim to know that we're not "real people" who don't do "real things"?
[I care more about what my girls think of me. I care more of
what my husband thinks of me,and so far I haven't had many complaints.]
That isn't always a good thing. Getting complaints means that your family is open, honest, and unafraid to tell you when you're erring.
The sword cuts both ways, Holly. Don't be inconsistent.
-
-
No I actually made it to 11th grade. You know before I had to hold down 3 jobs and pay bills and a carnote at age 16.
Yup! Some people can't live off mommy and daddy while going and wasting their parents money on some peice of paper that they think proves they have
some kink of common sense or intelect.
I am living and enjoying my life sitting on my front porch swing with my neighbors sippin a bud light laughing at people with names like voodoo,anal,timethief,and anok.-
Yeah, we clearly know who's got the better deal. And the fact that you THINK it's you is annoying.
Go ahead, keep mocking the educated. Maybe I'll stop by in 10 years to show you how much the knowledge that accompanies that little piece of paper can accomplish.
Let me give you a little preview: I have roughly 15 patents I plan on filing, one of which will help people cope with having electronics interface with their nervous system (psychologically, at least). -
Now it becomes clear... Holly's full of spite at people who finished high school and/or went to college. There's your insecurity complex. I think we've made progress today.
-
Who paid for the Bud Light, Holly? Last you told us, you could barely afford to feed your kids ramen noodles.
-
Ouch
-
Someone give Madame a trophy for SmackDown Excellence in a Thread.
-
-
No voodoo,you don't be inconsistant. The sword does cut both ways.
You and your little computer friends are the ones that have judged.
Namecalling,telling people they're dumb because they disagree with
your science book. Yall have been the judge. It bothers yall because
I don't take offense to it. I could care less about what some dude
with some weird name thinks of me. I do care about someone out there
reading this and seeing that not everyone in the world is out to tear
them down. There is actually people out there like me that care about
real things. You know not where a comma goes.-
Argh! My stupid browser ate my response.
-
[No voodoo,you don't be inconsistant.]
Where have I been inconsistent? I challenge you to demonstrate an amount of inconsistency on my part ANYWHERE NEAR what you have demonstrated.
[The sword does cut both ways.]
It cuts a tough material slower.
[You and your little computer friends are the ones that have judged.]
Are you immune to irony?
[Namecalling,telling people they're dumb because they disagree with
your science book.]
Which science book? There are hundreds.
[I do care about someone out there
reading this and seeing that not everyone in the world is out to tear
them down.]
Conflict strengthens people, and rational criticism is the only means we have to separate good ideas from bad ones. It isn't about tearing you down, it's about making sense. Your arguments only make sense to people who act on their emotions, not their logic. Debate is a logical arena, not an emotional one. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
-
-
Good voodoo you do that. As long as your happy right. I'm happy right where
I'm at. That means I'm happy living in my little house in the burbs w/ my husband and girls. That is what makes my world go round. The problem with
that is the people with their degrees think that is sooooo beneath them.
You do whatever floats your boat. I will do the same.
Nighty night voodoo.-
[I will do the same.]
It'd be great if you would let this thread die like Jessica Lunsford. -
@voodoo
"rational criticism" "I'm up for a handjob", "HollytheHousewife has convinced me to have an abortion" "let this thread die like Jessica"
doesn't sound rational to me,but that's just my "opinion". -
You're taking rhetoric and satire literally. People like you are the reason tshirthell.com is closing down.
-
-
Perhaps HollytheHousewife is on to something...
Instead of wasting money on the legal system and prison industry we could make money publicly executing at least the monsters who inhabit our prisons such as manson,the greyhound bus cannibal/decapitator,picton,couey etc...
The UFC or WWE or Don King or fox tv would get high ratings and revenue if they could televise live public beheadings or gladiator death matches or feed the serial killers to crocodiles etc...-
We could also do what Carlin suggested: The all-day suicide channel!
-
Oh no, she doesn't want executions Gerry. She wants balls out torture.
Just think, we could have our own torture channel right here in the US! AL Quada would be proud. -
@ gerry
I kinda like that Idead! The only thing is lets snatch em out of the arena
before they get to beaten up so we can watch em do it again the next day.
I like how you said monsters. I say evil people. Most everyone one else here
calls them "sick",mental ilness,pcho paths.
Your like me you call them as you see them. MONSTERS. Animals. That is what
the people are that don't have a "JUSTIFIED" reason for raping,ravageing,mutilating innocent 9 yr. olds. -
-
-
UM it's a FACT John Couey doesn't have an infant son that was raped and buried alive by 9 yr old Jessica Lundsford.
It is a FACT that John Couey stole Jessica out of her home. It is a FACT that he brutally raped her. It is a FACT that he made her smoke crack.It is a FACT that he burried her alive.
Oh, and in any case, you missed my point entirely. If this man could justify his torturing the little girl, would you be OK with it?
Would torturing a child be OK in your book, if that torture was "justified" by the fact that the child did something heinous?
Exactly how far are you willing to take the idea of torturing someone as a form of punishment?-
Let's take Couey out of the equation because Holly has limited ability for abstract thought.
-
-
No Anok. I didn't miss your point. You missed mine. The next time a monster like John Couey has a just reason for raping and murdering a nine
yr. old ,then we can talk about that situation.-
Hypotheticals, Holly.
Let's say the little girl's father raped Couey first. By your logic, is he justified then? -
Why not talk about it now? Why wait? What you propose ("justified" torture) opens up so many possibilities.
Is it OK to torture a child who has done something to you or your loved one that you deem heinous?
What about someone who is mentally ill/handicapped?
What happens if the family releases the "evil person" instead of torturing them?
What happens if it turns out that the accusations were false? Was the torture still justified, or does the torturer need to be tortured for unjustly torturing an innocent person?
What happens if a former victim tortures their torturer and decides they like to torture, and they go out and torture others just for the hell of it?
What if one person's justification isn't good enough for you? Do they still get to torture, or is it just your call?
-
-
I'm not talking about torturing children. I am talking about torturing
the monsters that torture children.-
What if the monster is the child?
What, you've never heard of cases where siblings or neighborhood children tortured other children?
Do you live under a rock? -
wrong place
-
-
voodoo
I'm not dealing in hypotheticals. I am talking about true life.
when mark rapes somebody we can talk about what needs to be done
to mark.-
Holly, you can't avoid the argument by trying to dodge likely hypotheticals.
The basis of our law system is on "what if" and "what then". What happens if this happens? What kind of precedent does this ruling set? What doors does this law open or close?
What happens if we try one child as an adult? What happens if we convict a mentally handicapped person? What happens if we legalize torture?
-
-
@ madame
I think it would be a different story if the little girl in the pic w/ you
was ravaged,raped,made to smoke crack,live in a closet for 3 days,had to
deficate in a jar,all before being made to climb in a trash bag and put into
a hole in the ground.
The feeling is a lot different when it happens to someone you love. Take out Jessica's name and put your daughter's name in her place and see if
that feeling hasn't changed somewhat.
My two youngest brothers were abused and tortured like that for over 7 years, Holly. By their biological mother. Forced to ingest poisons, then refused medical care. Chemical burns, physical abuse, being locked away in a closet, starvation, sexual abuse, psychological abuse - you name, they endured it.
As babies.
Neither they nor I feel any urge to take the mother (who is not in prison) and torture her until she dies. And if anyone had a right to feel that way, my brothers would have that right. Their biological father would have that right. But they don't.
None of us do.
If you are experiencing the need to torture others - or exact revenge, or whatever, perhaps talking to a therapist would be in your best interest. -
You just proved my point. Your brothers would be justified in feeling that
way if they wanted to.-
But they don't And have no inclination to, and find it insulting that anyone should think that they are as monstrous as the woman who abused them.
It doesn't prove your point at all, it contradicts it. All this talk about "well you don't know, well you've never experienced..."
Bullshit. I do know, they know - we've all been through traumatic experiences. Not one of us feels the urge to torture.
Not ONE.
-
-
Holly, do you want to live in a country where the government turns over rapists and murderers to the families to be tortured for an indefinite period of time so long as they don't kill them? Move to South Korea.
-
She could join Al Quada, too. They're all about that form of justice.
-
-
@voodoo
don't you mean N.Korea? No way I love my country,besides you can still get my kind of justice in the good ol USA. It's called a box of honeybuns,figure it out.
@ Anok
No those are the type of people that I would be justified in punishing.
Hence Nick Berg innocent american civilian being beheaded. Go ask his parents what they would like to do to the monsters who beheaded him.
While your at it go and ask the 3,000 victims what they would like to
see happen to those 19 highjackers.
Ya gotta love voodoo and anoks logic.
No I think I'm gonna stick to my common sense.-
It's not OUR logic, we're asking you questions based on YOUR logic.
-
Hmm, well the terrorists feel that their actions are completely justified.
Just as you feel your actions would be completely justified.
The terrorists twist their religious beliefs in order to further justify their actions.
Just as you twist and use your religion to justify your actions and beliefs.
The funny thing about justifications are that they are relative. What is justifiable to you is not at all justifiable to others. And what is considered justifiable to others isn't at all justifiable in your eyes.
That's why we don't hand criminals over to angry mobs.
-
-
Wait a minute. I gotta call time out a minute.
Voodoo,You said your browser was eating your comments last night.
Well mine is to. I reset my cookies and it is still happening.
If it's not too much to ask. How do you fix it?-
Sometimes it's just BC acting up. If it happens on other forums, it may be your browser, though.
-
thx
-
-
That's fine if you don't. I didn't say that. I said they would be justified if they did anok.
-
They are justified in feeling angry - yes. They would not be justified in torturing her. They have neither the desire nor the capacity to do so.
Please note I said "if anyone had the right they would but they don't. As in, they do not have the right to torture. They have the right to feel anger, resentment, even. They have the right to cut her out of their life completely, and they have the right to peruse legal reparations from her.
But stating that they should torture her is stating that they should turn into the very thing they hate most. And what good would that accomplish?
-
-
@Holly the Housewife
I haven't been involved in this thread until now, but I wonder whether you would say someone who inflicts pain on other people just for the sake of inflicting pain is evil?
It seems like you're feeling like you have to defend yourself a lot here, but can you see that if Americans start torturing people (regardless of what they've done) then our country becomes just as bad as the 'monsters'?
In my opinion, there is no justice in that. Returning evil for evil is not right. -
@ anok
Al Quita,that needs a thread of it's own. What my point is Nick Berg didn't do anything at all to those people who cut his head off. He had never even met them.-
Well, according to them, he obviously did do something to warrant it. In fact, to them all Americans are deserving of torture. That's how they justify their actions, and they believe it more than anything in this world.
Justifications are funny things. They are also dangerous things.
-
-
I'm sorry mid-west. That is the way I feel. I said earlier they used to have public hangins if you missed to many sundays in church. I am in no
way saying that is right. What I am saying is,if we started turning
those monsters over to the families it wouldn't only be justice is would
also be a great diturant. I bet the viloent crime on innocent children would go down to.-
I guess I don't feel that adding more violence into the world will make it any better of a place to live. I'm not saying we have to tiptoe around criminals, but "an eye for an eye" is just wrong.
There are times in this life that awful things happen, and it can be hard to take. But I would hate to give the government or individual people at the height of anger the right to take any revenge they want.
All that will lead to is the Hatfields & McCoys.
-
-
I don't understand that. Nick had never met them. Just like jessica never
met John.-
The fact that you don't understand their justifications doesn't mean that they don't feel justified in their actions.
That's how justification works. And that's why proposing some sort of justifiable vigilantism is a bad idea - because everyone feels justified about doing something, whether others agree or understand it or not.
They feel justified in what they do - others disagree, so they retaliate, feeling justified in their retaliation. The other side disagrees that those actions were justified, and so they retaliate in turn.
And then what you have is a mass cycle of "justifiable" violence.
-
-
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I am not shooting anyone down for their belifs.
-
Madame
My hubby paid for the bud light. Nope good times have returned to the housewife's household. My hubby got his miles back. We got our return
back and we are back on top. Ya see GOD has a way of working things out.
The crawfish boil that we are planning next weekend is gonna be the
holla at 2008 that we have wanted all year long.
@ anok don't say ouch. I really do think it's funny that people like madame
have nothing better to do than point out a couple of hard weeks after christmas.
I think it hurt her more than it did me and my girls.-
On top, hm? I'm glad to hear it. Must feel good to have that couple of months living expenses in the bank to tide you over in an emergency again after all the tough times.
-
I'm still shocked that you had a couple of hard weeks after Christmas.
I mean, with an income of $900 per week and no mortgage to pay until February (and a small mortgage at that, plus all the money saved up from not paying anything during the foreclosure for the past year) - you shouldn't have had any troubles at all.
My husband and I make half that, pay three times as much, and still don't have that problem.
-
-
Yes it does madame! It feels grrrrr8! I'm prepared to go in halfsies for
you punctuation,annuciation,and composition trophey that renal wants to give
you. You are so very deserving. -
Anok not that this is any of your business but,I opened my doors to my brother his girlfriend,her 2 yr. old plus my ex-step dad. Also my brother's girlfriend was pregnant. I also had my hot water heater and washing machine
go out the week before christmas.
I am not gonna explain myself to you,madame,timethief,renal failure,pointless banter,riverstx,voodoo, the cript keeper girl anymore.
I have made it. I am gonna continue doing what I do and give a damn about what your clique thinks about me.-
So that means that you couldn't afford anything?
Did they fail to pitch in?
I mean, after a year of saving money....
-
-
Yea. My bro is laid off. His girlfriend was on bedrest.My ex-step father was trying to commit suicide every time I took my eye off him. The economy
was slow at the end of the year which meant he didn't make that 900 a week,
we didn't have stable transportation. My cousin is letting us use his truck
and pay the note,but he needs the truck sometimes. So know the last few months have been hard,but the light at the end of the tunnel has come and I think we just might be ok.
Even if were not though we all love one another and we will figure things out.-
I dunno - I still don't understand it.
My husband and I have been surviving on $400 per week give or take for almost three years now. (It was $500 per week when I had the at home day care) With our rent at $1200 per month, plus utility bills, we still managed to always make ends meet.
And we still had Christmas, and food, and everything we needed. If we made $900 per week, or hell, even $600 per week we'd be doing damn good.
*shakes head*.
-
-
So anok
u wanna throw in on madame's trophy?-
I don't know what that means?
-
-
Ok Anok the week of christmas my husband had one run. His check was a whopping 55 dollars. We had already gotten most of our christmas thank
the lord. The check before that one was desent. It was 750 or somewhere
around that. The problem was my hot water heater went out,and my washing machine started flooding the kitchen the very next day.
I had 5 adults,3 kids,plus tab was pregnant. No one working except for ted.
I did clean 1 house,and a sometime vehicle.
we made it through. We didn't only make it through but we made it through
with some really funny stories to tell.