Author Topic: The Death Penalty, for it or against it (Read 3238 times)

Wolf14 · « **Reply #90 on:** April 20, 2005, 02:57:40 PM »

For it of course. Sooner the better in some cases.

Toad · « **Reply #91 on:** April 20, 2005, 03:08:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So you are pro-choice as long as you have the money?

I want to be perfectly clear here.

I am opposed to abortion in most cases. There are a few circumstances that call for an exception.

So I personally am not pro-abortion. The "pro-choice" moniker is just a cop out phrase to make people feel better about killing human embryos.

I find it hypocritical to the extreme when some folks say that convicted murderers can't be executed on the most infinitesimally minute chance they may be innocent and then turn around and condone/enthusiastically support the killing of human embryos when there is total uncertainty with regards to when the embryo becomes a "human being."

Seems about as hypocritical as one could be.

Now, am I willing to let a woman decide for herself whether she wants an abortion or not?

Yes, I am. It is her decision and my personal belief is that she will be called upon to explain it by a higher power than myself.

In this area, I go with Matthew 7:1-2:

Quote

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”

In short, it's not my place or job to judge a woman that decides to abort a human fetus. She has to live it and, in my belief system, eventually answer for it.

I do not see why this should be subsidized by the taxpayers, however. This is a personal life choice, not a governmental directive or suggestion.

If a woman wants a divorce, let her decide to get one. I see no reason for government subsidy of this decision in any way shape or form.

bustr · « **Reply #92 on:** April 20, 2005, 03:11:17 PM »

oboe,

Human beings are the only animal on this planet that knowlingly commits suicide. Remove our mind from the matter and life is the very fact that as long as our cells are given nutrients they will perform only one goal, LIVE. They are pre programmed to live to the last desperate moment with everything theyve got. Just like I assume you would if you fell through thin ice and tried to find air pockets or a hole to get by..................

Suicide is the persons mind/conciesness attempting to escape from something it is unwilling to withstand. If you sedate that mind and push a feeding tube into that person, thier cells will carry on without them.

It's funny that a woman will premeditatly choose to kill a lump of her own cells that are alive called a fetuse. But ask her to cut off a finger, she'll fight like the devil it'self to keep the finger. After all it's just a few cells.........

Toad · « **Reply #93 on:** April 20, 2005, 03:17:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
I'm against the war in Iraq. Should the troops there have to fund themselves because I disagree with it?

Well, let's see Oboe.

It's pretty clear taxpayer dollars are being used to support an invasion you are against.

It's pretty clear that taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize abortion, which I am against.

I'm paying my taxes, although I speak out against something I view as wrong and I speak out against the obvious hypocracy of some of the postions posted in this thread on captial punishment/abortion.

Are you paying your taxes? Are you speaking out against the war you are against?

I don't know about you, but my final recourse is the ballot box. I take my stand there.

How about you?

oboe · « **Reply #94 on:** April 20, 2005, 04:43:54 PM »

Toad,

Yes, I pay my taxes. Yes, I speak out against the war, occasionally. And yes, I vote.

If you are willing to let a woman decide for herself whether to have an abortion, then you are pro-choice. And being personally opposed to abortion in most cases makes you generally anti-abortion. So you are pro-choice and against abortion. I don't see anything wrong with that - its probably the view held by a majority of Americans.

Bustr,

I'm not so sure if humans are the only species - I've often wondered about whales who beach themselves. How do we know what they are thinking? Soldiers sometimes make the choice to die when they sacrifice themselves to save their comrades - but that wouldn't be called suicide. But I agree, the nature of 'mindless' life is to keep living. But its not a choice - it's just its nature.

Laz,

What about that conception by rape you mentioned? Why would an abortion be OK in that instance? Why would the fetus be any less innocent or deserving to live just because it was fathered by a man the woman didn't want? Or, what if we are talking about a non-lazy woman, in a committed relationship, whose birth control failed? What do we do then? There's no indication of moral bankruptcy, so is abortion OK?

To me there are just too many different situations to try to hand out rulings on when its OK and when its not.

Toad · « **Reply #95 on:** April 20, 2005, 04:48:23 PM »

I believe the present connotation of "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion".

I am most certainly not "pro-abortion".

My willingness to let a woman make her own decision is based on the verse from Matthew. All of my inner being is against a choice that results in the death of a human embryo but my overriding intellect tells me not to judge lest I be judged.

midnight Target · « **Reply #96 on:** April 20, 2005, 05:03:46 PM »

And 'Pro-life' = 'Anti-choice'

oboe · « **Reply #97 on:** April 20, 2005, 05:05:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I believe the present connotation of "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion".

I am most certainly not "pro-abortion".

My willingness to let a woman make her own decision is based on the verse from Matthew. All of my inner being is against a choice that results in the death of a human embryo but my overriding intellect tells me not to judge lest I be judged.

That connotation is due to over zealous critics I think, trying to skew the issue. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Seems to me your position is perfectly reasonable.

bustr · « **Reply #98 on:** April 20, 2005, 06:20:59 PM »

oboe,

With the whales they are finding the beaching is more complex than suicide. It may be more related to navigational confusion in the part of their brain that senses the magnetic earth.

The soldier giving his life is still the "concious" making a decision to do so, overiding the preprogrmming of his cells. The life growing in the mother never gets that concious choice, it only can live. I think abortion would be better if the mother had to face to face with the life she is snuffing by proxy through a surroget.

I doubt all of the pro-choice gents on this site could line up a room full of just borns and whack em with a base ball bat. But it being out of sight and someone else pulling the trigger, they are willing to pass the responsibility as fast as the reliefh on a teenage boys face the morning his grilfreind goes "gee I just got my period"......................

oboe · « **Reply #99 on:** April 20, 2005, 07:55:01 PM »

Now that I think on it, hasn't Navy sonar been implicated in whale beachings? Seems to me an entire pod of whales was beached somewhere about the same time the Navy was conducting sonar exercises in the same area a few months ago.

I fully agree that most pro-choice gents would not be able to line up and kill newly born babies with baseball bats.

ASTAC · « **Reply #100 on:** April 20, 2005, 08:28:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Now that I think on it, hasn't Navy sonar been implicated in whale beachings? Seems to me an entire pod of whales was beached somewhere about the same time the Navy was conducting sonar exercises in the same area a few months ago.

Tree Hugger/animal-f'ers trying to tie the Navy to whale deaths:rolleyes:

Not seen any scientific evidence that proves or even gives a good argument to support that claim. Though having lived on a ship in a compartment below the waterline..I can tell ya, when we go active on the SQS-53C it would want to make you kill youself sometimes. Nothing like having been on watch for 30 of the past 36 hours..get some time off and can't sleep because they are pinging away (oh and it's not really a "ping" more of a musical sequence)

bustr · « **Reply #101 on:** April 20, 2005, 08:31:56 PM »

oboe,

Right on the whales in some cases.

My last comment was to illustrate the trend in our culture to turn over all personal responcibillity and moral consiquence to someone else and run when something is inconvenient. We have allowed death to become a McDonalds drive through thats cheaper than the .99 cent menu. I could stomach abortion more if there were emidiate and tangable public consiqueces to both parties who screwed up. Irrisponcibility, Amorality, addiction to sophistry and nialism can only survive in the shadow of anonimnity. In the old days we called them Cowards..............

Maverick · « **Reply #102 on:** April 20, 2005, 09:42:53 PM »

Oboe,

IFRC, the sonar was tested and found to not be the cause. It was just a convenient allegation to get the Navy to shut a facility down.

oboe · « **Reply #103 on:** April 20, 2005, 10:08:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Tree Hugger/animal-f'ers trying to tie the Navy to whale deaths:rolleyes:

Not seen any scientific evidence that proves or even gives a good argument to support that claim. Though having lived on a ship in a compartment below the waterline..I can tell ya, when we go active on the SQS-53C it would want to make you kill youself sometimes. Nothing like having been on watch for 30 of the past 36 hours..get some time off and can't sleep because they are pinging away (oh and it's not really a "ping" more of a musical sequence)

I haven't seen any studies either, but your experience just being on board makes me think its reasonable. How would you like be to be a sea creature with sensitive sensory organs and be in the water just in front the ship when its pinging away? You're on board an you say its enough to "want to make you kill yourself."
Somewhere I heard sonar pings were powerful enough to kill or disable a diver in the water. Is that true?

Interesting though.

bustr,

I understand the point you are trying to make. I guess my point is it's so easy for us men to sit here and pontificate what women should or shouldn't be able to do with their pregnancies. It doesn't cost us a thing - our bodies aren't going to wear out carrying the baby to term, we're not going to suffer pain of childbirth, and the costs and responsibilities of raising and caring for the child aren't going to be ours. We don't even know the woman but we sure can tell her what's right and wrong in her life, can't we? To me, it almost seems like the other side of that COWARD coin, doesn't it?

Recently here in Minnesota, a woman's boyfriend was arrested for the death of her 17 month old baby son. The boyfriend was the child's primary caregiver, and from the autopsy, it appeared that the child had been beaten nearly every day of his short life - there was evidence of broken bones, cigarette burns, the child had been hit on the back so hard, its lungs had been bruised. The mother had even witnessed the abuse (she described one incident she called the "brainbuster" - yet she still let the guy care for the little boy). I posted some of the story here in another death penalty thread. What a bewilderingly painful and tragic life that little boy must've had.

Sandman · « **Reply #104 on:** April 20, 2005, 11:16:42 PM »

The Navy was doing a study back in 2000 on the effect of sonar upon whales.

I've searched the Navy site and I can't find the results. Is the study complete?