The Death Penalty, for it or against it

[Toad]

Originally posted by Skydancer
I'm not likely to be a mother.

[/b]

And this excuses you from having an opinion on abortion? It's easy... do you think aborting human embryos is, in general, a good thing? Yes or No. Real simple. Go ahead.

I don't have to support that child for the rest of my life. It's not my body that is affected nor my emotional wellbeing.

[/b]

But you are intelligent enough to see that these considerations ONLY come into play AFTER, in ~75% of the cases, there has been a major failure of personal responsibility.

Don't want to discuss that, we should just pretend these are all "immaculate conceptions" I guess.

Add to her problems by giving her a kid to look after too? Oh how very noble and principled.

[/b]

The basic principle is personal responsibility. You support that one?

Add to her problems? There aren't enough kids to adopt in the US; there are booming businesses arranging adoptions from other countries. Please don't pretend that killing the human embryo is the only option.

not always their own fault,

[/b]

OK, I give you the same question as I posted up thread.

~75% of the women having abortions give these reasons:

1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9%

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%

Explain to me how ANY of those reasons would not be her fault? For example, if one wants to postpone childbearing, what should one do? Any ways you know of to avoid childbearing?

Yeah I believe they have a right to choose.

You'll note I hold the same position. They're free to choose; upon their heads.

However, I don't condone abortion. In the first place it's a failure of simple personal responsibility. Continually bailing people out of their mistakes is stupid, IMO. You're only going to get more of any behavior you subsidize. Secondly, there ARE other options.

[pellik]

I'm against it. HO shots should just be dropped like in AW.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
The overwhelming odds are that they were either stupid, lazy or too horny to properly use birth control.

/B]

Guess its a good thing not everyone agrees with you about a when a fetus becomes a human.  It's a choice for women. It gives them the ability to dictate when to bear a child. I as well as many other people (including the courts) don't see stopping the embryo from developing as murder.You can label it laziness,stupidity or horniness but I think that is demeaning of you to generalize all of them without knowing each particular situation. How easy we judge...

Do you know anyone who had a child from artificial insemination?
A lot of those women are implanted with multiple embyo's and then the extra one's that attached to her are taken out later. Now is that murder as well? Or should the woman be forced to have 6 kids? Or maybe you think that's just wrong.

[lazs2]

skyprancer... you didn't birth those killers on death row either yet you seem to have an opinion... If a baby is half a mans then maybe he should be in on the decision on abortion or.... if he hjas no say then he should hve no responsibility for any support for any of his spawn.   It is after all... only half the population you give the right to life and death to.

I see no difference between a viable human in a womb and an infant in a crib.   if neither deserves our protection as a society then fine just come out and admit it.   I would simply like to know at what age it is no longer fine for a mother to murder her children.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Guess its a good thing not everyone agrees with you about a when a fetus becomes a human.

[/b]

Here, let me help you. I have never said I know when a fetus becomes a person. What I have said is that no one knows. And that, whether you like it or not, is immutable truth.

No one knows. No one.

So these poor, poor girls who didn't realize what can and often does happen as a result of intercourse COULD be making the decision to kill a human being.

You have to admit that's true, there's no other option.

 It's a choice for women. It gives them the ability to dictate when to bear a child.

[/b]

Again, if you read what I've said, you'll find I have said it is a woman's choice.

However, everyone overlooks the fact that it could well be murder because (wait for it) NO ONE KNOWS.

If they truly want to "dictate when to bear a child", isn't birth control a far more intelligent plan than abortion?

You must have heard "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It applies in this case.

So your commisseration with their sad state is ill placed I think. Better for you to grieve with them for their initial loss of personal responsibility.

I as well as many other people (including the courts) don't see stopping the embryo from developing as murder.

[/b]

The Supreme Court itself (Blackmun)said it didn't know when an embryo became a person.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

[/b]

So their ruling was in effect a WAG.

The courts also enforce the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

So there you have it. Roe V Wade let's a doctor abort a "child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place".

OTOH, if you kick a woman in the belly and cause her to abort and lose a child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place", you're going to be prosecuted for murder of the child.

Explain that one to me, since it's all so cut and dried in the courts.

You can label it laziness,stupidity or horniness but I think that is demeaning of you to generalize all of them without knowing each particular situation. How easy we judge...

[/b]

Look at the reasons given. ~75% of them are reasons that could have EASILY been avoided by contraception or abstinence.

I've asked you several times. I'll ask again:

Explain these reasons to me, showing that using common sense and readily available birth control would not have avoided the situation.


1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9%

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%


Go ahead... give plausible explanations as to why a woman who "wants no (more) children" didn't use birth control or abstience. Same for "cannot afford a baby".

You haven't been able to do it yet.

There are reasons that an abortion might be the right thing to do where contraception or abstinence would not have helped.

However, "wants to postpone childbearing" is NOT one of those.

Want to postpone childbearing. Here's the big secret: USE CONTRACEPTION or DON'T HAVE INTERCOURSE!

Like... DUH!

But you go ahead and show where contraception or abstinence would not have solved the situation before it got out of hand.

Bet you run from this question again.

A lot of those women are implanted with multiple embyo's and then the extra one's that attached to her are taken out later. Now is that murder as well?

[/b]


A higher power than you or I will decide if that is murder.

I personally would not allow that. See, there's a simple solution...implant ONE embryo. It's not like you can't implant another later. But we're in a rush in this society so.... hey... why not? It's only a POSSIBLE HUMAN LIFE.

It's not like we're sparing a convicted killer because there's a .00000000000000001 % chance he's innocent or anything.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Raider179
It's a choice for women. It gives them the ability to dictate when to bear a child.

 You mean "a second decision" right?

[Toad]

Tumor!

"Hey! I want a re-do!!"

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Toad
Tumor!

"Hey! I want a re-do!!"

Well, I'll never claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer but that one's a no-brainer.

I'm kind of a moderate on the subject.  Contraception?  Worked for me till after I was already married.  Wife was on the pill (which we both knew wasn't 100% effective) and the pill failed.  Then, the kid tested positive for something bad before he was born (that test where they draw anmeotic fluid).  That was the first time the option of abortion ever "really" crossed my mind...   He's a very healthy and happy 12yr old now.

So I think abortion should at times be an alternative, although not in cases of those who are lazy, irresponsible or for financial reason's.  Don't want to get pregnant (or get someone pregnant), don't have sex.  If you don't have the forethought to prevent a pregnancy, then buck up and take responsibility for it.  I know.. a simple-simon solution but hey, why complicate it.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad

I've asked you several times. I'll ask again:

Explain these reasons to me, showing that using common sense and readily available birth control would not have avoided the situation.


1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9%

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%

Go ahead... give plausible explanations as to why a woman who "wants no (more) children" didn't use birth control or abstience. Same for "cannot afford a baby".

You haven't been able to do it yet.

Bet you run from this question again.




[/B]

Straight from ROE V WADE

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Sounds cut and dry to me. I didnt say he said when it became a human thats what you said. I said they agree its not murder. But its not the first time you have taken my quotes and changed them to suit your argument.

1) Your attitude perveys that you believe at conception a fetus is a human being. You say no one knows when . Let me concede that point as it is undebatable. IMO its at viability.

2) Sorry if not wanting to be pregnant and have a baby isn't enough reason for you but thats what it breaks down to.


3) Here is your answer.

Maybe they were mistakes, moments of passion, lapses of judgement. Call it whatever you want, people make mistakes and its good that they get a chance to "fix" it. Like I said I don't believe an embryo is human until its viable so I have no problem with them aborting it.  Yes some might have been stupid, or lazy, or whatever you want to label them but people aren't perfect.

I see exactly what you are saying Toad but I just don't agree that getting rid of abortions or whatever program you are gonna institute to fix the problem is the solution. To me the only way to reduce the number of them is to get more people out of poverty.

So do you have a solution or you just blowing off steam?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Sounds cut and dry to me.

[/b]

Oh, the law itself is pretty clear on 1st, 2nd and 3rd term abortion.

However, Blackmun pointed out they have no clue when life actually begins. So they picked a place and drew a line.

While one may be within the law with a 1st term abortion, there is no way of knowing whether that person killed a human being.

But that's not important is it? What's important is avoiding the repercussions of one's act of personal irresponsibility.

THAT'S the goal, THAT'S the object of the exercise. Be proud.

 

I said they agree its not murder. But its not the first time you have taken my quotes and changed them to suit your argument.

[/b]

You miss the point; I am not suprised.

What you said was:

I as well as many other people (including the courts) don't see stopping the embryo from developing as murder.

[/b]

What I pointed out is that the very courts you use to support your argument are on both sides of this issue.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 allows a person killing an unborn child to be tried with "punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother".

In other words, if found guilty of killing an unborn person... and note there's NO "trimester qualifications"...... will be punished for murder.

These same courts allow a mother to kill an unborn child easily and without punishment in the 1st trimester.

Bit of a contradiction, don't you think? Or does that escape you as well?

1) Your attitude perveys that you believe at conception a fetus is a human being. You say no one knows when . Let me concede that point as it is undebatable. IMO its at viability.

[/b]

Actually, I said I don't know when life begins which means I don't know when life begins. I also said I prefer to err on the side of life. You laughed at that and mocked the Schiavo woman.

You OTOH, have decided without any substantiating evidence whatsover that a "person" begins at viability. Thus you err on the side of convenience. Be proud.

2) Sorry if not wanting to be pregnant and have a baby isn't enough reason for you but thats what it breaks down to.

[/b]

It's a GREAT reason for personal responsibility. It's a crappy excuse for having an abortion after being personally irresponsible.

Maybe they were mistakes, moments of passion, lapses of judgement. Call it whatever you want, people make mistakes and its good that they get a chance to "fix" it.

[/b]

But of course you agree that it'd be much better if they didn't make "mistakes."

And it's not like this is rocket science. There are multiple, easy, cheap methods of birth control available to all... even the poor.

If you make it easier to fix "mistakes", what will happen? If you subsidize something what happens? You get MORE of it. You think MORE abortions is the way to go?

Yes some might have been stupid, or lazy, or whatever you want to label them but people aren't perfect.

[/b]

You see a guy deliberately stick his hand in a meat grinder, do think he was stupid?

I just don't agree that getting rid of abortions or whatever program you are gonna institute to fix the problem is the solution.

[/b]

I don't and haven't suggested getting rid of abortions.

I do suggest that we as a society put them in a negative light instead of promoting them as the quick fix for personal irresponsibility.

The number ONE thing is to reinstate an attitude of personal responsibility in this country instead of making excuses for irresponsibility. This goes throughout our society, not just in the area of abortion. For example, I'd be in favor of mandatory jail time for drunk drivers and I don't mean "over the weekend".

Secondly, expand birth control availability. Make it free for the asking or nearly so. Certainly for those in the lower income groups. Expand sex ed in the schools with an emphasis on RESPONSIBILITY.

Promote full term carrying of the child.

Support this by expanding and simplyfying adoption. You realize there's a huge business in helping US couples adopt overseas? Why is that? Because adopting from within the US takes an extremely long time if one is successful at all.

Further support this by providing significant aid to mothers that choose to keep their child. Provide child care for the working ones. Provide more and better counseling and support groups.

So do you have a solution or you just blowing off steam?

I think I have better ideas than promoting/condoning abortion as a necessary quick fix for personal irresponsibility. That's all I've seen from you.

[bustr]

Originally posted by Skydancer

Yeah I believe they have a right to choose. I also believe that as a youth worker I have a responsibility to educate them and support them to make the choice that is right for them. Not condem them out of hand because of some moral principle.

Lack of condemnation for and education in moral principles is how many young people wind up needing your services.

My sister ignored her moral principles, good upbringing, excellent education (graduated top of her class from the University of Maryland, cultural anthropology) and instead wound up on public assist, 3 children out of wedlock, a drug habit, and now on perminant disability due to the drug habit. Yeppers she made the right choice for herself..........

So is your youth support a government funded position? Do these children wind up with you because they dont know how to make a moral principled decision? Moral Principled people tend not to need youth services help. They make good decisions on their own. Letting them make the choice that is right for them is kinda lame. Like giving a man a fish to eat instead of teaching him how to catch fish.................

[GREENTENERAL]

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I beleive that violent criminals are an untapped natural resource that should be equipped and dropped in areas that that are deemed too hostile for the non violent types.  They may serve a purpose in those areas that they have talent.  To me, justice is about proper alighnment and good balance to the benifit of all those within a system, not some petty revenge.

As far as the abortion thing goes, I dont beleive that it is right (for me) but it is something that will never stop and has never stopped, and cannot be controlled, and it should never have been an issue because of this. It should not be a governmental concern. Until we figure out a way to keep track of people that have not been issued a SS# or equivelent, the government will never be able to control it. The same goes for the little war on drugs. I do not use or condone, but I pray that I never become the kind of arrogant bastard that will try to tell another man what he may or may not put into his own body, regardless of the effects that I may or may not know about.  If we are asked we may answer.  We may teach our children and those who ask to be taught. We may answer and teach by living as an example.

Please don't get me wrong, I am quite idealistic, and in my private little world I can imagine these things (that I deem as brutalities) as non existant.  Unfortanately that is not natural, and nature is violent, weather that violence is manifested in murder, the american dream, or something benificial to mankind, we will never be able to control it.  The very actions toward control are just another form of violence and affimation to the opposition.

[lazs2]

some murders just made a mistake.   They lost control and killed someone.   They will likely do it again even if they mean not to.

infants can cause a lot of problems for their parents and can't survive unless the mothers chooses.  holding a pillow over their mouths and nose and smothering then would be the mothers right to choose.

murders will allways take place no matter what the laws or if we punish the murderers or not.  

I think that we can all admit that mistakes like what allmost happened to tumor happen all the time... innocent wanted babies are murdered on bad medical advise... probly hundreds of times more often than a person is executed wrongly yet....

we feel that abortion is "worth it" and even one exeduted "innocent" (of that particular murder) is the greatest horror mankind has ever seen...  

strange world we live in...  either that or we are just talking about the hight of selfishness here.

and no.... abortion on demand probly doesn't increase your chances of getting laid or of getting off scott free if you do... it is only a minor loophole at best.

lazs

[Torque]

In certain cases the family should be able to choose the method of termination, regardless of how barbaric.

Well, if these women/men are stupid, lazy or whatever why insist that they breed more often?

[Skydancer]

"Well, if these women/men are stupid, lazy or whatever why insist that they breed more often?"

Good point torque.

Besides Mr Toad you haven't addressed the issue of pregnancy arising from rape. Nor do you seem to question the reason why a woman might want to postpone child birth. Maybe she is in an abusive relationship, has health issues. Is using contraception being responsible and it fails. The reasons for unplanned pregnancy are myriad and not all the result of stupidness or laziness.

So get off your high moral perch mate. Realy what understanding of these peoples circumstances do you realy show? None other than to spout your own prejudice it seems.

As for linking the death penalty to abortion issues well I'm sorry but the two are seperate.

You did this before Toad trying to argue that deaths caused by RTA were in the same vein as Gun related deaths. Sorry but it don't wash. Either argue your point on the issue in question or how about starting another thread?