Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BBQ_Bob on April 18, 2005, 01:44:55 AM
-
Allen Lee Davis was convicted of killing a pregnant Jacksonville woman and her two young daughters on May 11, 1982. Davis was convicted of murdering Nancy Weiler, a Westinghouse executive's wife in Jacksonville who was three months pregnant when she was killed in 1982. Mrs. Weiler was "beaten almost beyond recognition," with a .357, hit over 25 times in the face and head. Her 9-year-old daughter Kristina was tied up and shot twice in the face, and her 5-year-old daughter Katherine was shot as she was trying to run away and then her skull was beaten in with the gun. The Davis execution drew attention after he had a nose bleed in the elctric chair, and a Florida Supreme Court justice published as part of his dissent in another case Department of Corrections photos of Davis immediately following the execution with a shirt covered in blood. Davis was on parole for armed robbery at the time of the murders.
I came across these photos of a murderer named Allen Lee Davis http://awful.rotten.com/chair/davis.html I read what his crime was and I personally think he got what he deserved. What do you think?
(disclaimer, shows an execution)
-
We need to kill more of these people who hurt kids, and drop the cruel and unusual thing when we do it.
-
The internet is a sick sick place sometimes!
If we'd had the deathpenalty these inoccent men would be dead!
(http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jjphoto/six.jpg)
The Birmingham six.
( the middle guy is the brief )
And they are just some!
-
On a lighter note, i beat the rap on a speeding ticket basing my defense on the fact that my ground speed indicator was screwed up
-
I am for the death penalty, especially if it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone did it. Although due process must be followed.
As for how to do it:
I say hangings are the way to go. Build a galloes right in the center of death row, and make sure the inmates have unrestricted view of it.
Cheapest way would be for the condemend inmate to go into the backyard cemetary beyond the prison, dig his own grave, then have the executioner have the condemend inmate stand over his grave, then shoot him in the base of the skull with a .22. Inmate falls into hole, and they bury his butt. Case closed.
-
Sorry but too many times for comfort has due process been followed convictions "beyond any reasonable doubt" have followed only to have been found unsound by new forensic developments or new evidence to have come to light.
Undoubtably the guy in the origional post is a sick and evil man. Who should be locked away for life in very uncomfortable conditions. But If the death penalty existed over here too many innocent people would have died unneccasarily. ( my spelling stinks! )
Besides death is sometimes the easy way out. For many I would suggest its more of a punishment to have to live with what you have done.
So no death penalty thanks.
-
DEATH.
and more death. I'd like to see quick executions for those convicted of capital crimes where there was significant supporting DNA evidence.
-
On principal I am all for it. Some people are so evil and commit crimes so bad that should never be allowed to interact with other good humans again. They do not deserve to be rehabilitated. The best way to remove these worthless humans is to kill them. That was they will never harm again.
I include child molesters, rapists and murderers in this group.
Another point of interest is all the new tech that is used to get guys off death row as innocent, can and will be used to put future people on death row with even more weight of evidence.
In reality I am against it. Right now it is a waste of money in most states. The court costs and all the appeals waste huge amounts of money. In Cali Death row just means you die of old age waiting for it. They need to streamline the system and make it work before I can stand behind it again.
-
Yes, only in extreme cases of horrific acts and where either absolute proof (DNA, Camera/Video) or a confession does exist.
-
I have three problems with the death penalty:
- Unequal/inadequate legal representation available to those accused. The number of guys on death row who have been exonerated is too many to ignore - while OJ Simpson skates on a crime as horrible as any. It boils down to who got the rotten draw on a PD.
- What GtoRA2 said. Terrible and costly process.
(This is the one I struggle with)
- I couldn't personally pull the lever/push the plunger, so how can I ask someone to do it my behalf? Don't get me wrong, I'd kill without hessitation to eliminate an immediate threat to myself or someone else. And I don't think I'd have any trouble executing someone after the fact if I knew first hand that the person killed someone I was close to. But in the general sense, I couldn't personally execute a stranger convicted by someone else for a crime I didn't have first-hand knowledge of. So I have a hard time expecting someone else to do it in my name.
-
You forget that there are many people who would oppositely get pleasure in fulfilling your order samiam.
The current system with death sentences needs a revamp anyway. Didn't they recently discover that at least 10% of the people currently in death row are statistically innocent?
-
who discovered that 10% of death row guys are innocent? If that is true then we need to review the evidence... Once that jhappens we need to put however many are guilty out of their misery with a leathal injection asap.
lazs
-
I favor the death penalty in cases where there is absolutely no question about the accused's guilt.
I don't quite follow SkyDancer's logic though - I mean it seems a terrible breach of justice to me whether we kill an innocent man or lock him up for the majority of his life. Personally, I think I'd rather be killed than spend my life in a prison cell.
I guess I'm in favor of justice that is swift, sure, and reasonably inexpensive (Meaning no government funded study programs for inmates, no cable TV, no workout rooms, etc).
-
agin it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hellya Tweets. It would be much more humane to inject her with whatever. We just lack the scrotalbearings to do it.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
You forget that there are many people who would oppositely get pleasure in fulfilling your order samiam.
I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to do many untoward deeds.
I'm just saying I coudn't order anyone to do something I'm not prepared to do myself. And pushing the plunger on someone strapped to a table, who is no longer a threat to society and who I don't feel personal vengence for is beyond my own ethos. Therefore, I have to bow out of expecting anybody else to do the same on my behalf.
If I had first-hand knowledge of the crime and knew in my soul that the world would be a better place without the scumbag, I'd gladly push the plunger myself - but I still couldn't ask someone else to do it in my name.
So, while I definitely believe there are crimes where the penalty of death is perfectly justified, I don't believe there is a good way of carying it out short of stopping the bad guy dead in his tracks during the crime.
Vigillantism after the fact is a personal choice that I might make if someone I loved were the victim. But I know this would be an unlawfull personal choice and I couldn't advocate it as any sort of solution (I don't trust you all do be as discriminating in your vigilantism as I would be in mine).
Therefore, my hard decision is that I'm against the death penalty.
-
I think anyone convicted of a capital offense should just be put aboard one of our sneakiest submarines. The offender should then taken ashore on the beaches of a non-death penalty nation by a SEAL team. This should be done in the dead of night with maximum stealth. The offender should be left, without papers or ID; the SEALs and sub would leave as sneakily as they came. Any queries directed to the US by that nation should be answered with "We've never heard of him/her" by the State Department.
That's my solution.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Now if someone on death row happened to be in a persistant vegitative state for 15 years I'd be in favor of it... so I guess you got me there sunshine.
-
Hmmm... good point MT.
Anyone that would do that kind of stuff has to be either vegetable or mineral. They sure ain't human.
-
So Toad are you now trying to saywe should have the death penalty too?
Thankfully your solution is totaly unrealistic. For someone so keen on taking the self righteous I know it all ground you just slipped up bad I'd say and posted the sort of junk you normaly complain about!
Oboe You say....
"I don't quite follow SkyDancer's logic though - I mean it seems a terrible breach of justice to me whether we kill an innocent man or lock him up for the majority of his life. Personally, I think I'd rather be killed than spend my life in a prison cell."
At least if you are alive in a prison cell you can fight your case and have a chanceto be released. If you are wrongly killed thats it game over. I'm pretty sure those guys wrongly convicted of the IRA bombings were glad there was no death penalty. They are now free and able to get on with what life they have left.
In esssence two wrongs don't make a right the death penalty just lowers those who sentence someone to it to the same level as the offender. It's not in the least a"christian"act!
-
it was one of those points when i rolled my eyes at bush on the teri shiavo case when he said that one should always stand on the side of life..having precided over a death chamber with a take out window.
i am opposed to the death penalty for the most part.
i do not think that one can justify taking a life while arguing that murder is wrong.
dont get me wrong though.
if you kill someone, it is far more punishing to make them live knowing that they will never have a moment to ever enjoy it again.
hell on earth is fine by me.
-
Be sure they're guilty and then execute them quickly and efficiently.
-
Where there is zero doubt as to the person is guilty or not I favor death.
But not this soft lethal injection type.
I'd rather it be public and the old fashioned way.
Ala "Braveheart"
And should the crime be against a child. It should be even slower.
Where there might be lingering questions. Say no witnesses. Ala Scott Peterson It should be life without parole.
Not that there is much in the way to question that case but without witnessess there can never be absolute zero doubt.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Be sure they're guilty and then execute them quickly and efficiently.
in an ideal world that would be great. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth etc...
the problem is that you cant always be sure that they did...and history has a way of showing you how well we have handled our little inquisitions in the past.
i am not saying that it is entirely wrong, just that it is not entirely right...so it really comes down to where you stand on the "never leave a man behind" thing.
ya know?
oh. for all of you who dont know this...
witches have the same boyancy properties as non witches.
thought i might point that out just in case.
:)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Oboe You say....
"I don't quite follow SkyDancer's logic though - I mean it seems a terrible breach of justice to me whether we kill an innocent man or lock him up for the majority of his life. Personally, I think I'd rather be killed than spend my life in a prison cell."
At least if you are alive in a prison cell you can fight your case and have a chanceto be released. If you are wrongly killed thats it game over. I'm pretty sure those guys wrongly convicted of the IRA bombings were glad there was no death penalty. They are now free and able to get on with what life they have left.
In esssence two wrongs don't make a right the death penalty just lowers those who sentence someone to it to the same level as the offender. It's not in the least a"christian"act!
True, and you got me dead to rights on the Christian thing. Lots of times my indignation at injutice gets the better of me.
But I do think the prison life should be completely minimal - only the barest essentials provided.
-
Against
-
I'm FOR...and for all you bleeding hearts that think the electric chair is to inhumane...why is it that a killer gets a better death than his victims....why is it criminals have more rights than the everyday person? When I heard that a while back a guy executed in the electric chair caught fire..I LAUGHED..not because I'm a sicko..but because that is a fitting end to that kind of scum...I'm no holy roller, but the central publication of my religon says "an eye for an eye"..Life in prison is just too good for some.
As far as equal representation..well there will never be a solution to that..but even bad lawyers can get somebody off...and I'm sure far more have walked away a free man than innocent people been put away or put to death...no system is infallable so there will be mistakes.
-
For
-
Oboe I'm in agreement. Life should mean life and the rights prisoners who have commited lesser crimes enjoy, should not be there for murderers.
I assume then ASTAC you only follow old testament teachings and that Jesus chap has nothing to say to you?
I'm not a practising christian but I do believe he had quite a few worthwhile things to say!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So Toad are you now trying to saywe should have the death penalty too?
Heaven's NO!
But I think you civilized folks are much more comfortable with having these guys amongst you and don't seem to mind paying to incarcerate these vegetables/minerals for life.
Obviously, they'd be far better off over at your place.
-
Toad you have your tounge firmly in your cheek today then?
;)
-
But I think you civilized folks are much more comfortable with having these guys amongst you and don't seem to mind paying to incarcerate these vegetables/minerals for life.
I don't think we're as worried because we've got far less psychopathic murders than you seem to have :D
-
For
But the individuals in here who think cruel and unusal death is somehow entertaining are pretty sickening. Seems to me that's something they share with the criminals they so despise.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Oboe I'm in agreement. Life should mean life and the rights prisoners who have commited lesser crimes enjoy, should not be there for murderers.
I assume then ASTAC you only follow old testament teachings and that Jesus chap has nothing to say to you?
I'm not a practising christian but I do believe he had quite a few worthwhile things to say!
I don't believe that what Jesus said canceled out and superceeds everything in the old testament..or there would be no need to print it anymore...I try to take some from both..some things you cannot just turn the other cheek for.
-
Maybe I'm wrong but I think he might disagree! Who knows.
However the basic principle is that if you go carry out the self same action ie killing, that you are condeming a person for then you lower yourself to that level. In order to legitimately pass sentence on someone else you ought to maintain a higher moral stance rather than lower yourself to the same level.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Maybe I'm wrong but I think he might disagree! Who knows.
However the basic principle is that if you go carry out the self same action ie killing, that you are condeming a person for then you lower yourself to that level. In order to legitimately pass sentence on someone else you ought to maintain a higher moral stance rather than lower yourself to the same level.
Thats why is left to STATE to take his "eye" in return for him taking yours. Leaving the higher moral stance to the whole of the people..ie the jury that convicts and makes it's recommendation for death.
-
Nope Death penalty is archaic outdated and moraly lowers the sentencer to that of the level of the sentenced.
Sorry but I can't budge on that one.
No to the death penalty.
-
Skydance STFU. You're like some fool that goes to the voting booth six times to cast repeated votes in the same election. STFU already, you stated your opinion.
-
I'm for it.
That said...
I believe the case should be rock solid before the death penalty is applied.
I believe Scott Peterson got screwed.
I believe that mental state is irrelevant.
I believe that the death penalty does not deter crime.
I believe that the death penalty does stop recidivism.
Oh... and to top all that off... I'm pro-choice.
-
The Death Penalty, for it or against it
I think it's a good remedy for some crimes but I also think our Judicial system is so badly run that there's a real chance an innocent person could be executed. So, logic requires that I be against it, and I am.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't think we're as worried because we've got far less psychopathic murders than you seem to have :D
Yes. I've always said we have a far more violent society than yours.
It's reflected in a myriad of ways, this is just one of them.
-
Steve get some manners!
Don't like it don't read it.
Simple.
-
death penalty? what penalty is this at all? its more a easy escape ticket,
i can imagine much better penaltys where you have to pay your whole
life, now i call this penalty.
-
The death penalty under the current US judicial system has no deterrent value. It's just too difficult to balance the rights of the accused while trying to maintain a speedy and effective process.
Way too many grey areas for such a black and white solution.
-
who says the death penalty is not a deterent? why do they fight it so much? why do they plead down or snitch off conspirators to avoid it?
Nothing is 100%... if it is 99% then I say keep it. the 1% that get's fried because he is "innocent" is probly never gonna be absolved so he will spend a life behind bars for all you anti death penalty guys to gawk at and torture anyway. I say put em all out of their misery...
most who don't favor the death penalty also favor both abortion and assisted suicide... Who knows how many great people have been aborted... how many mistakes does assisted suicide make?
but... in those cases.... is is ok to not be 100% certain? those lives are somehow.... different? liberals make me puke.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Who knows how many great people have been aborted... how many mistakes does assisted suicide make?
lazs
Who knows how many little Hitlers have been aborted?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...most who don't favor the death penalty also favor both abortion and assisted suicide... Who knows how many great people have been aborted... how many mistakes does assisted suicide make?
but... in those cases.... is is ok to not be 100% certain? those lives are somehow.... different? liberals make me puke.
lazs
Where'd you get that impression? My own impression along those lines is that most of those who are against abortion also favor the death penalty. For example, Pres. Bush.
I know of no one who favors abortion. I only know of those who are against abortion, and those who favor a woman's right to chose for herself.
-
hawker... I don't know... who knows how many little hitlers serial killers take out for us? by your logic we should just take out machine guns and randomly spray mall crowds once in a while in the hope of maybe killing a future hitler.
oboe we are saying the same thing. Most who favor the death penalty do so as a punishment for the guilty and as a form of deterent... they don't favor abortion or assisted suicide because they feel it is the killing of innocent and helpless.
"A womans right to chose for herself"? when does that end? if she gives the ok is it allright to kill her son on death row?
how is abortion and a womans right to choose for herself any different?
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
and those who favor a woman's right to chose for herself.
Help me out here Oboe; there's something I always wondered about.
In this abortion discussion, before sperm meets egg, there can obviously be no human life. Just as obviously, after the doc cuts the umbilical cord and slaps the newborn on the butt, there is human life.
Now just exactly where on the roughly nine month continuum going from a fertilized egg to the doctor's slap on the butt does the "divine spark" enter this life form? When exactly does the transition to "human being" occur?
Thanks in advance.
-
I can't answer your question, Toad, and hope I haven't given the impression I think of myself as a know-it-all, because I'm certainly not. Maybe its my writing style -- though I consciously try to salt my views with 'I think' and 'it seems to me' as often as I remember to.
My best attempt at an answer is to say its a gray area and that there are probably dozens of different answers depending on your background, religion, training, politics, etc. Why is it so important to define exactly when human life begins?
Personally I shy away from abortion discussions, because as a man, I just don't think its any of my business. I'm never going to be pregnant or face the pain or joy of birth. I wouldn't want a bunch of women arguing about and determining whether or not it was OK for me to get a vasectomy. I think it would be an interesting situation if all men would just shut up about it and see what a bunch of women decide.
Laz, abortion and the right to chose are different because if you have the right to chose - you have both options. Plenty of women with the right to chose an abortions would choose not to have them (as I assume all anti-abortion women are doing everyday - even though they are still legal, they choose not to have them) I'm not sure about any mother killing her son on death row - has that ever happened?
To me, the abortion issue is one where the conservative republicans and their politics of personal freedom and responsibility have completely dropped the ball, and suddenly favor government intrusion into people's lives. I always thought the Dems and Repubs positions on abortion should be exactly reversed, and then their positions would be more consistent with their overall positions on personal freedom vs govt controls.
It seems to me, anyway.
-
Very much in favor of the death penalty. The more cruel the procedure, the better.
-
against it
-
who says the death penalty is not a deterent?
Actually, I was taught in my CJ classes that public execution is the single biggest deterrent of capital crimes. Please do not ignore the importance of the word "public"
-
oboe.. I believe that toad asked you a very legit question on when abortion is murder... you said you didn't know yet...
you insist that abortion is simply a womans choice... the unborn human has no choice in your equation. You then blame conservatives for taking choice away?
seems that conservatives are protecting the most sacred of rights... the right to live.
my personal take is that once a fetus can survive without the mother then the mother has no right to murder it.
88 seems to think that all killing is murder... or at least the death penalty.. There are lots of cases where we as a people kill other people and it is sanctioned and we don't worry too much abourt the fine points of things like innocence or a possibility of a "mistake"
self defense, assisted suicide, war, abortion... all are seen to be viable use of deadly force and all are prone to high rates of killing innocent people to get the job done. None are "no longer needed" or archaic... they may be barbaric but.... we do em so.. by defenition... we are a barbaric people... let's stop pretending that the death penalty is special in our laundry list of people killing people.
lazs
-
Laz for President!
-
two GTO's (or hot rods of your choice) in every garage!
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
two GTO's (or hot rods of your choice) in every garage!
lazs
got my vote on the first one. now you may even have a campaign donation.
-
Definitely for it. I have a question though, How come there are crimes that can be committed where you would be justified to use deadly force against the criminal but they dont get the death penalty for the crime? Rape and kidnapping come to mind.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Why is it so important to define exactly when human life begins?
Because killing a human being is a crime called murder?
Here, let me help you understand my question more fully.
Would you be in favor of ending the life of a full term baby that was apparently normal in all respects when it was half way out of the birth canal?
I suspect your answer is "no". Because that is a fully formed human being and it would be murder. You agree?
Now, obviously at SOME point between conception and delivery the fetus becomes human. Has too, right?
So, what is that point? At what point is it ok to kill it because it is not human and then it is suddenly NOT OK because it is human.
Just where is that point on the timeline?
-
Laz,
I'm not sure where Toad was going with that question - I viewed it as a trap to get me to answer an impossible question.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but I see the right to make the choice between two options as different from either of the options themselves. So abortion is not a woman's choice, abortion is one of the options in her choice.
But yes, the unborn human has no choice in my equation. But does the unborn human even have an independent will to exercise a choice? Or are you assuming all unborn humans would choose life (in a sense, you are making the identical choice for every unborn, and really then , that isn't even a choice anymore, is it?). What I'm suggesting is that perhaps its the mother's place to make whatever choices need to be made for her unborn, not yours or the government's.
btw your position seems very sensible to me, but how far along is that date? 6th month? 5th month? And do you mean survive on its own or with the aid of extreme measures?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
two GTO's (or hot rods of your choice) in every garage!
lazs
Who do I kill to get you in office?:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
two GTO's (or hot rods of your choice) in every garage!
lazs
if i were american, youd have my vote...
-
so oboe... it would simply be "pro choice" to kill my neighbor so long as I had the choice to either kill him or not to kill him? I should not be denied my right to choose?
or... if I starve a leaching whiny baby to death who is living off of me.... is that a "choice"?
The two Hot rods in every garage thing.... I even know how to pay for it.
lazs
-
Toad,
Not being a doctor, scientist, or religious scholar, my own somewhat informed view is that human life begins at conception.
I wouldn't know what other kind of life to call a human embryo.
That does not imply though, that I think this human embryo should have full rights and protections as an independent person under the law. The embryo is completely dependent on the health and good will of the mother, as well as other factors (for example, has implantation even occured)?
How far do you want to go in protecting these unborn? We know alcohol and cigarette smoking is detrimental to their health -should we charge pregnant women who have a drink or smoke a cigarette with reckless child endangerment? What if she didn't realize she was pregnant? Charge her with Negligence as well?
How far should we go with this? Should we lock up repeat offenders until her child is born, and then take it away from her and then turn it over child protective services?
-
oboe... isn't an infant dependant on it's parents for all it needs to live?
lazs
-
Hmmm... what if the sperm meets the egg in a petri dish? Is this not conception? Does this embryo have any rights?
-
oboe,
Life by it's nature always chooses to live.
Once the cells in the egg begin dividing, the cells are pro life with absolutely no choice in the matter. Choice defines premeditation. There for the mother is choosing to kill life, even if it's the life of those dividing cells. I think it would be more appropriate if the mother had to press the switch herself that destroys the cells and sign an affedavit to her action along with the father.
Just think about it. If I want to concealed carry and possibly shoot someone, I have to go through a grinder to get there. Why make the choice of destroying a baby easier for a woman?
But then again, amongst some mammelian predators, the female will premditatidly kill off some of her spawn if environmental conditions won't support the numbers she birthed.......at least we know we are predators........we just lack the {balls} to look ourselves between the legs and pull our own switch.......
-
How did I get into this discussion?
Laz, you indicated in a previous post that you are in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion if the fetus is early enough in its development that it wouldn't survive on its own. Did I misinterpret that?
AFAIK, you currently have the right to choose to kill your neighbor. You would be probably be guilty of a crime, but I think that is your choice to make (I can vouch for your mental competence so you will be held accountable for your actions.)
An infant is dependent on someone else for its needs to live, but it doesn't have to be its parents - not the same relationship as a fetus/mother.
-
Originally posted by oboe
That does not imply though, that I think this human embryo should have full rights and protections as an independent person under the law.
So when does this embryo achieve full rights and protections in your view?
After exiting the birth canal? 5 months? 8 months? 2 months?
Where do we draw this line?
-
Laz,
I think I get what you mean - the choice is contingent on both actions being legal. So really when people talk about being pro-choice, what they want is some form of abortion to remain legal.
Is that what you are saying?
Toad -
What does Roe v Wade say about it? Seems to me that decision drew the lines you are wondering about, but not positive. My view is that its really none of my business.
Bustr - you say Life by its nature always chooses Life. What about the ongoing debates about assisted suicide?
Sandy - talk to the owner of the petri dish.
-
Originally posted by oboe
What does Roe v Wade say about it? Seems to me that decision drew the lines you are wondering about, but not positive. My view is that its really none of my business.
I really don't care what Roe v Wade says about it, either way.
Fortunately, I've never been involved in an abortion decison in any way shape or form.
However, if I were to be involved, I would make my decision based on my moral views, not Roe v Wade.
Here's the crux of it. No one wants to execute a convicted murderer if there is the most infinitesimal chance he may be innocent.
OTOH, NO ONE... not Roe, not Wade, not the Supreme Court, not the Momma, not the Daddy, not the lawyers... .NO ONE knows when that little mass of dividing cells actually becomes a human being. Despite that total uncertainty, we do not hesitate to allow the fetus to be killed until it's third trimester.
Murderer with 99.9% chance of guilt... save him due to the .1% chance he is innocent.
Fetus less than 7 months of age? Possible human being? Kill at the whim of the mother.
Yeah... great system.
-
Originally posted by Toad
However, if I were to be involved, I would make my decision based on my moral views, not Roe v Wade.
Exactly!
And everyone else should have the same freedom of choice.
-
EDIT: I recognize a good closing argument when I see one.
Thanks MT
-
Originally posted by Steve
Actually, I was taught in my CJ classes that public execution is the single biggest deterrent of capital crimes. Please do not ignore the importance of the word "public"
Agreed and all for public execution.
And I maintain the death penalty is a deterrent.
I know of nobody who has ever been executed under the death penalty who has ever commited another crime afterwards.
Same cant be said for some killers, rapists, etc who havent been.
-
Yes maybe even make them Pay-per view events to help fund the government the democrats cliam the Bush tax cuts is starving:aok
I'd like to see an electricution or two...maybe some people will be deterred by it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly!
And everyone else should have the same freedom of choice.
Yep, and they should have the same freedom to pay for it themselves.
I don't think the government should be involved in the funding of it in any way, shape or form.
Agree?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Agreed and all for public execution.
And I maintain the death penalty is a deterrent.
I know of nobody who has ever been executed under the death penalty who has ever commited another crime afterwards.
Deterrance and anti-recidivism aren't the same thing.
-
Deterrance and anti-recidivism aren't the same thing.
More than one of my professors taught that public execution is the single most effective deterrent to capital crime. I think I'll side w/ their learned opinion than your opinion. unless of course you can tell me why you came to the conclusion that it isn't a deterrent, or is it just a hunch?
-
Read it again... I said deterrance and anti-recidivism are not the same thing. I have no doubt that capital punishment is 100% effective against recidivists.
-
I read what you wrote, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were making a point, my mistake.
-
Is capital punishment a deterrant?
Who knows? Good luck trying to prove it one way or the other. Has there been a truly objective and controlled study ever? Or is it just theory, conjecture, and statistical analysis performed by people that are already have a forgone conclusion in mind?
I know this much... the states that have capital punishment still have murders... so the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is somewhere between 0% and 99% (depending on the study). ;)
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I'd like to see an electricution or two...maybe some people will be deterred by it.
Actually I'd like to see public stoning
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I'd like to see public stoning
I think there are still some fine third world countries that enjoy the practice. You could plan a vacation around it. Take the whole family even. ;)
-
Executions per year
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm
Year Executions Police reported murders
1980 0
1981 1 ==== 22,520
1982 2 ==== 21,010
1983 5 ==== 19,310
1984 21 ==== 18,690
1985 18 ==== 18,980
1986 18 ==== 20,610
1987 25 ==== 20,100
1988 11 ==== 20,680
1989 16 ==== 21,500
1990 23 ==== 23,440
1991 14 ==== 24,700
1992 31 ==== 23,760
1993 38 ==== 24,530
1994 31 ==== 23,330
1995 56 ==== 21,610
1996 45 ==== 19,650
1997 74 ==== 18,210
1998 68 ==== 16,970
1999 98 ==== 15,530
2000 85
2001 66
2002 71
2003 65
2004 59
Police reported murders came from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf pg 99
couldnt find data on 2000-2004
You can definitely see since they stepped up executions in 1995ish the number of homicides has decreased. The reports I read seemed to indicate that murder is the only crime that severity of punishment seems to make a difference in. Other crime the contributing factor seemed to be the unemployment %
-
oboe... yes, I mean that there is allways choice... I am pro chice in everything... you can choose to murder or steal or lie or...not. a mother has no more right to kill a baby in her womb that could survive than she does to kill a 1 year old in the crib.
It is indeed a moral choice but if we (mothers) can kill a viable human being simply because it is in her then we have no morals.. we admit that killing out of convienience or mercy is ok.
If the mother were told that she could not abort but would have the baby removed prematurely... How many would do that? They simply want to wash their mistake away... even tho studies show that they feel guilt for the rest ofv their lives.
murderers have the same morals on killing.. they kill when it is convienent for them. They are a danger to society tho and need to be put down humanely... better luck in the next life.
toad and buster have explained it better than me... abortion is killing a human being. If we do it we need to at least admit that we are killing an innocent for either, convienence or... mercy.
when we kill criminals we are doing it in self defence.
lazs
-
I am for, the recidivism arguement is sufficeint for me alone.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep, and they should have the same freedom to pay for it themselves.
I don't think the government should be involved in the funding of it in any way, shape or form.
Agree?
So you are pro-choice as long as you have the money?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oboe... yes, I mean that there is allways choice... I am pro chice in everything... you can choose to murder or steal or lie or...not. a mother has no more right to kill a baby in her womb that could survive than she does to kill a 1 year old in the crib.
It is indeed a moral choice but if we (mothers) can kill a viable human being simply because it is in her then we have no morals.. we admit that killing out of convienience or mercy is ok.
If the mother were told that she could not abort but would have the baby removed prematurely... How many would do that? They simply want to wash their mistake away... even tho studies show that they feel guilt for the rest ofv their lives.
murderers have the same morals on killing.. they kill when it is convienent for them. They are a danger to society tho and need to be put down humanely... better luck in the next life.
toad and buster have explained it better than me... abortion is killing a human being. If we do it we need to at least admit that we are killing an innocent for either, convienence or... mercy.
when we kill criminals we are doing it in self defence.
lazs
Lazs,
I'm pretty sure your position on abortion is consistent with the Roe v Wade decision. That is, last trimester abortions can be prohibited because the fetus probably could survive outside the mother. But 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are not prohibited. I believe you are implying its not murder if the mother aborts the fetus before it is developed enough to survive on its own.
As far as life always choosing life, if that were true there would be no such thing as suicide, no?
Toad -
I'm against the war in Iraq. Should the troops there have to fund themselves because I disagree with it?
-
Against it;)
-
suicide is an aberation brought on by extreme pain and the menatly unstable state that puts you in... The pain, be it mental or pysical, is so great that it overcomes the natural desire to survive.
I really don't know where to draw the line on abortion... I have copped out and went with "viable outside the womb"....
I feel that abortion that is not because of gross defects or rape is because the person is so moraly bankrupt that they screw even tho they are too lazy to form a relationship or use birth control...
Abortion out of convienience is probly just.... wrong.
Killing killers is correct... they need to be put out of their misery and we need to be protected from them.
lazs
-
For it of course. Sooner the better in some cases.
-
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:
“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.
-
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.........
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
And 'Pro-life' = 'Anti-choice'
-
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.
-
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"......................
-
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.
-
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)
-
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..............
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
For the death penalty
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by oboe
what women should or shouldn't be able to do with their pregnancies.
What they SHOULD be able to do is prevent them from ever occuring.
But that's not as easy as just aborting a human being.
I mean they'd have to take a pill or wear a patch or even keep their pants on fer cripes sake.
Coward coin? How about "Dumber than a rock" coin or maybe "too lazy to care coin"?
-
Ahem...
In this area, I go with Matthew 7:1-2:
-
I think the COWARD coin and its flipside were intended as labels for people on the periphery, not the woman herself.
But your contention that women who find themselves with unwanted/unintended pregnancies are dumb and/or lazy, and that having an abortion is easier than using contraception reminds me of why I generally keep my opinion on the issue to myself, and why I feel sort of ashamed/embarrassed when I hear or see most men arguing back and forth about it.
So I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion now.
-
Originally posted by oboe
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.
It is our proceedure that if there is a suspected swimmer attack against the ship, even while sitting in port, we will energize the active sonar. For someone submerged it would be very painful. However you are talking about someone very close to the ship. The whales that beached themselves were miles away from the operating area. Sonar sound loses strength very quickly. Hence the relatively short ranges of active sonar.
-
ok.. rape.. rape is different than playing birth control roulette with your partner... if you don't want babies get your tubes tied.. if you are not married and don't want babies... don't have sex or get your tubes tied or take your chances and then give the baby away. I can't imagine a healthy white baby not being adopted by eager couples.
the rape thing? I don't know.. it would seem that the next day the woman could take a so called "abortion pill" and be pretty blameless.
Maybe you should get one abortion allowed in your first trimester... you would also be sterilized at that point so that you wouldn't have any possibility of killing another or, that someone like that would actually raise a child.
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
But your contention that women who find themselves with unwanted/unintended pregnancies are dumb and/or lazy,
[/b]
Before you run away, since you're so ashamed of such an opinion, please explain it to embarassing old me.
You agree that the vast majority of abortions are not a result of rape or some health threat to the mother right?
Most are just "unwanted pregnancies".
OK.... what then is so bloody difficult about using contraception or keeping your pants on?
Is there some great mystery about avoiding an "unwanted" pregnancy that the modern women of today just can't fathom?
There is no secret as to how babies are made, particularly in this day and age.
So how do alll these women have unwanted pregnancies in a country where contraception is so very easily obtained?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem...
Ahem.
I don't think the Matthew means you can't make any judgements.
For example I'm sure we can judge that 2+2=4 without fear of hellfire. We can probably judge that one person is smarter than the other and thus hire the smarter one for a job.
I think the Bible talks of judging on the moral plane, for example, the decision of a woman to kill a human embryo. I surely wouldn't judge that decision; I'd leave it to God.
Now, on whether a person, man or woman, is dumber than a rock.... that's not a moral judgement.
-
If you don't want babies then don't screw or get your tubes tied.
lazs
-
Toad,
I think probably ashamed/embarrassed isn't exactly the right word to use, but I can't think of the word that describes it - its kind of along the lines of "put up or shut up" or "you have to be able to walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk" philosophy. It just seems to me most men have no business making rules about what a woman can or can't do in her pregnancy. To me it just feels like none of our business.
I am not ashamed of anyone's opinion, we have a right to them. Your pro-choice/anti-abortion stance seems very reasonable to me. But maybe "disgust" is the right word when I think of a young fanatical man blocking the way or harrassing a woman trying to get into health clinic. He doesn't even know why she's there. Maybe she has serious life threatening complications, who knows?
Honestly I don't know why the majority of abortions occur, or how many occur, etc.
I think I've just reached my limit in the discussion though - I said originally I don't feel comfortable spouting off my opinion on the issue, and if I continue its going to damage my credibility. Nothing against you, Laz, bustr, etc. I admire you guys and enjoy discussing things with you. But I'm going to bow out, now.
No hard feelings here or anything. OK?
-
From CDC data:
Total abortions
1996 1,222,000
1997 900,000
1998 884,000
1999 862,000
2000 857,000
It'd be fair to say it's nearly a million reported in most years.
OBOE: He doesn't even know why she's there. Maybe she has serious life threatening complications, who knows?
[/b]
But WE know why she's there, don't we? The research is available.
Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%
Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:
The AGI is Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is basically Planned Parenthood. So I don't think you can consider this study as biase by "anti-abortion" fanatics.
Now, let's look at those reasons:
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Easily done; contraception works, so does plain old abstinence in cases of "last resort". This indicates a failure of personal responsiblity to me. It is quite possible... because no one KNOWS for sure, that this failure will result in the early termination of a human being.
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Tie yer TUBES fer pete's sake! or, see the above commentary for the first reason.
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
See the two previous commentaries!
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
See the THREE previous commentaries.
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Do I really need to repeat myself yet again?
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
See above. Anyone detecting a "lack of personal responsibility" trend yet?
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
AT LAST!! A valid reason.
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Another valid reason.
Other: 2.1%
Who knows? Count these as valid, just for argument's sake.
So, what do we have? We have nearly a million abortions a year. Of those, 8.2% can be justified for valid reasons, if you take this study as reliable and representative.
The other 91.8% can be classed as a failure to act responsibly. In other words, most likely AVOIDABLE if one were to practice a bit of common sense.
You want to talk disgusting? THAT is disgusting.
-
Do you really want the government to decide what reasons are valid or not?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oboe... isn't an infant dependant on it's parents for all it needs to live?
lazs
No.
Originally posted by Toad
So when does this embryo achieve full rights and protections in your view?
After exiting the birth canal? 5 months? 8 months? 2 months?
Where do we draw this line?
Where do we draw the line at when conception actually occures? It's just as arbitrary, unless you have microscope watching what's happening in the fallopian tubes.
Is the morning after pill than a form of abortion? I guess it depends on the timing.
For what it's worth I'm against late term abortion except when the health of the mother is at risk. But I imagine with the morning after pill possibly being sold over the counter up here, and the male birth control pill, the number of abortions in Canada will drop.
...oh yeah, against capital punishment. I don't want 1 innocent man to die at the hands of the state. Because hey, it just might be me.
-
Thrawn said: ...oh yeah, against capital punishment. I don't want 1 innocent man to die at the hands of the state. Because hey, it just might be me.
That is the most honest statement on capitol punishment Ive ever heard....:)
When people want to ban things, guns, capitol punishment, drugs, wookies..whatever. Very rairely do they tell the truth. "It might hurt me, or I might commit that crime, or I might get unjustly accused, so I want a law to give me the best and most chance of survival........and I don't care what it will cost!
-
Contraception is not 100% full proof. There are still accidental pregnancies even when full precautions are taken.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Do you really want the government to decide what reasons are valid or not?
No. I never said I did.
In fact, I think I said government should pretty much stay out of it, didn't I?
However, it's clear that the vast, VAST majority of these abortions could be prevented by common, everyday personal responsibility.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Where do we draw the line at when conception actually occures? will drop.
Exactly.
We will oppose captial punishment of convicted murderers if there is a .000000000000001 % chance that they might be innocent. We must protect this person's right to life.
We will support abortion of human embryos although NO ONE has any idea whatsoever at what point in a pregnancy this embryo becomes a totally innocent person with a right to life equal to that of a convicted murderer.
Logical, eh?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Contraception is not 100% full proof. There are still accidental pregnancies even when full precautions are taken.
You are correct. An AGI survey found that 16.9% in one group of abortions was due to failure of contraception despite proper use.
So go ahead and add that to the previously listed "valid" reasons. 8.2 + 15.9 = 24.1%
Something of which we should all be very proud.
Only 75% of about a MILLION abortions per year are because someone is too stupid or too lazy or too horny to practice effective birth control.
Good a reason as any to wipe out ~700,000 human embryos per year, right?
Anyone of which could already possess that "divine spark" that makes a group of growing cells into a real person.
Be very proud.
-
most who favor abortion on demand are those who either think the policy will increase their chances of getting laid (unlikely in most of their cases) or.... are scared to death that they may be held responsible for their actions.
lazs
-
"We will support abortion of human embryos although NO ONE has any idea whatsoever at what point in a pregnancy this embryo becomes a totally innocent person with a right to life equal to that of a convicted murderer."
Toad, abortion and capital punishment can't be mapped on each other. The pregnant woman isn't a state and a state isn't an individual.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are correct. An AGI survey found that 16.9% in one group of abortions was due to failure of contraception despite proper use.
So go ahead and add that to the previously listed "valid" reasons. 8.2 + 15.9 = 24.1%
Something of which we should all be very proud.
Only 75% of about a MILLION abortions per year are because someone is too stupid or too lazy or too horny to practice effective birth control.
Good a reason as any to wipe out ~700,000 human embryos per year, right?
Anyone of which could already possess that "divine spark" that makes a group of growing cells into a real person.
Be very proud.
here is some more info from AGI
• 93% of women gave more than one reason. The average number of reasons given was 3.7.
Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of
pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period).
An estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks, when the fetus may be viable (AGI, 1997).
The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion.
Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.
Only 17% of abortions are done by married women
http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
[BToad, abortion and capital punishment can't be mapped on each other. [/B]
So sparing a life on the .0000000000001% chance that a murderer is innocent can't be compared as hypocritcal to taking a life when you are 100% unsure if the 100% innocent embryo has achieved "personhood"?
Well, some folks probably can't see the hypocricsy. I'm sure of that.
I'm also sure that it's all to obvious to others.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
• 93% of women gave more than one reason. The average number of reasons given was 3.7.
[/b]
True.
But of the 93% giving more than one reason, the valid ones were rarely mentioned. Risk to maternal health: 2.8% Risk to fetal health: 3.3% Other: 2.1%. Even factoring the failed birth control only brings it up to 24% total.
Look, you can't skew this or spin this. You've got 24% of the replies that are in any way valid reasons to abort. The fact that women often gave multiple answers doesn't change that.
The inescapable truth is that the overwhelming vast majority of reasons fall under the "stupid/lazy/horny" umbrella.
Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period).
Fetus at the End of 12 Weeks
Length about 3 inches.
Arms, hands, fingers, legs, toes are fully formed.
Nails start to develop; earlobes formed.
Eyes fully developed; tooth sockets and buds in the jaw bone form.
Heartbeat can be detected with special instruments.
Most organs and tissues are present
Couldn't possibly be a person yet, right? Are you 100% certain?
The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion.
The risk must be pretty low initially then. Otherwise there wouldn't be any of us left. How many mother's die in a normal childbirth? Got a percentage for that?
Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.
Wow... 270 total pregnancy related deaths?
The preliminary number of births in the United States was 4,019,280 in 2002.
That'd be .0000671% right? You think that is significant?
Only 17% of abortions are done by married women
Could it possibly be the married women are more responsible for their actions? Nah............
-
Hmmm... Toad, let me see if I understand this. You're pro-choice and yet you believe the vast majority of women are irresponsible WRT pregnancy.
Care to share a solution to this?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
. You're pro-choice and yet you believe the vast majority of women are irresponsible WRT pregnancy.
[/b]
No, I didn't say that.
I said it's obvious that the overwhelming number of abortions are performed for reasons that are best described as "lack of personal responsibility".
Hardly the "vast majority of women" at all.
After all, there's maybe a million abortions per year and there's over 140 million women of all ages in the 2000 Census.
Care to share a solution to this?
Do I have solution to 700,000+ abortions every year by too stupid/too lazy/too horny women?
No, I don't have a solution. I have a suggestion though.... like every thing else that's going down the crapper in the US, I think this situation would be improved if the government didn't try to rescue everyone from their own stupidity.
In short, don't subsidize a lack of personal responsibility.
Another suggestion would be to step back and evaluate one's own views.
If one cannot accept the death penalty and works against it because of the .0000000000000000001% chance a convicted murderer might be innocent.....
then shouldn't one be in favor of significantly reducing the number of abortions because of the total uncertainty of when a human embryo becomes a human being?
Reducing them is going to require and emphasis on personal responsibility for both men and women.
-
Originally posted by Toad
True.
But of the 93% giving more than one reason, the valid ones were rarely mentioned. Risk to maternal health: 2.8% Risk to fetal health: 3.3% Other: 2.1%. Even factoring the failed birth control only brings it up to 24% total.
Look, you can't skew this or spin this. You've got 24% of the replies that are in any way valid reasons to abort. The fact that women often gave multiple answers doesn't change that.
The inescapable truth is that the overwhelming vast majority of reasons fall under the "stupid/lazy/horny" umbrella.
Fetus at the End of 12 Weeks
Length about 3 inches.
Arms, hands, fingers, legs, toes are fully formed.
Nails start to develop; earlobes formed.
Eyes fully developed; tooth sockets and buds in the jaw bone form.
Heartbeat can be detected with special instruments.
Most organs and tissues are present
Couldn't possibly be a person yet, right? Are you 100% certain?
The risk must be pretty low initially then. Otherwise there wouldn't be any of us left. How many mother's die in a normal childbirth? Got a percentage for that?
Wow... 270 total pregnancy related deaths?
The preliminary number of births in the United States was 4,019,280 in 2002.
That'd be .0000671% right? You think that is significant?
Could it possibly be the married women are more responsible for their actions? Nah............ [/B]
1) To me, its the mother's choice ultimately whether to raise the baby or not. The father might have some say but it is her decision. I would never try to second guess someone who is in that position and I have known a few girls who have had them. To even suggest that they are murdering a baby is unfair and presumptous of you. You have no idea of what their life is like.
You have no idea the kind of household that child would have to grow up in. You don't no if the husband beats the mother or anything like that.
Did you see the stats on how half of all abortions are done by women below double the poverty line?
sorry but I subscribe to the viable camp. If it cant live without the mother's umbilical cord then its not a baby yet.
100% certain? you know what they say about the only things that are 100% certain in life right? death and taxes.
Not signifgant other than any given pregnancy is more dangerous to the mother than the abortion.
Is it that they are more responsible or is it because they have a good man that will help them raise the child? 83% occur on single/divorced/seperated women, that to me indicates a lot of these take place because of lack of a man to help and not from laziness,horniness, or stupidity as you put it.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You have no idea of what their life is like.
[/b]
You are too much man.
So their personal view of their own life circumstances is the only deciding factor?
So, do you also approve of killing a otherwise normal baby while it is being delivered if the Mom suddenly changes her mind due to "what her life is like?"
No, of course you don't. That's ridiculous, because at that point YOU personally consider the baby a "human being" and killing it would be murder.
But YOU personally have no idea of when an embryo becomes a human being. All you have is a guess, with nothing to support your position either way.
Rather than err on the side of safety, of life, and giving the fetus "the benefit of the doubt", you have some purely arbitrary point before which abortion is "OK" with you.
Again, you have NOTHING to base your opinion on except... it feels ok to you.
You have no idea the kind of household that child would have to grow up in. You don't no if the husband beats the mother or anything like that.
[/b]
No, I don't. Is it your position that any pregnancy in a family or relationship where the man has hit the woman should be aborted? Is that what you are saying?
Did you see the stats on how half of all abortions are done by women below double the poverty line?
[/b]
Did you know a trojan is less than a dollar?
Make excuse all you like. Birth control is cheap or free. Under the federal Family Planning Expansion Project (FPEP), Planned Parenthood offers birth control supplies to the poor.
It still all boils down to personal responsibility no matter how many lame excuse you throw out.
sorry but I subscribe to the viable camp. If it cant live without the mother's umbilical cord then its not a baby yet.
[/b]
That's fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion. Because that's all you have, a totally unscientific opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong. Coin toss. Heads you win, tails a human being dies. That's cool with you though, right?
Not signifgant other than any given pregnancy is more dangerous to the mother than the abortion.
[/b]
Is any given birth more dangerous to the fetus than an abortion?
83% occur on single/divorced/seperated women, that to me indicates a lot of these take place because of lack of a man to help and not from laziness,horniness, or stupidity as you put it.
Really? You're aware of how a woman gets pregnant, right? Are you saying single/divorced/separated women get pregnant because they lack a man to help?
Are you really saying that?
REALLY?
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
if its good enough for babys and brain dead crazy bulimics. Then it should be good enough for most criminals, especially the breaking on the wheel.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are too much man.
So their personal view of their own life circumstances is the only deciding factor?
So, do you also approve of killing a otherwise normal baby while it is being delivered if the Mom suddenly changes her mind due to "what her life is like?"
No, of course you don't. That's ridiculous, because at that point YOU personally consider the baby a "human being" and killing it would be murder.
But YOU personally have no idea of when an embryo becomes a human being. All you have is a guess, with nothing to support your position either way.
Rather than err on the side of safety, of life, and giving the fetus "the benefit of the doubt", you have some purely arbitrary point before which abortion is "OK" with you.
Again, you have NOTHING to base your opinion on except... it feels ok to you.
[/b]
No, I don't. Is it your position that any pregnancy in a family or relationship where the man has hit the woman should be aborted? Is that what you are saying?
[/b]
Did you know a trojan is less than a dollar?
Make excuse all you like. Birth control is cheap or free. Under the federal Family Planning Expansion Project (FPEP), Planned Parenthood offers birth control supplies to the poor.
It still all boils down to personal responsibility no matter how many lame excuse you throw out.
[/b]
That's fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion. Because that's all you have, a totally unscientific opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong. Coin toss. Heads you win, tails a human being dies. That's cool with you though, right?
[/b]
Is any given birth more dangerous to the fetus than an abortion?
Really? You're aware of how a woman gets pregnant, right? Are you saying single/divorced/separated women get pregnant because they lack a man to help?
Are you really saying that?
REALLY? [/B]
Yep, their life their fetus, their decision.
You say I base it on nothing but I do. I base it on that it cant survive without the mother until viability and even at that point it's tenuous whether they will survive or not. You might be right that it's a point but arbitrary its not. It's the selected point at which a fetus could have a chance at surviving outside of the womb.
It might be a guess but nothing is certain in this life.
Did you know 50% of all pregancies are unplanned. And I believe 86% of those said they used contraception. Contraception doesnt stop pregnancy its just helps prevent it.
Nope not saying every abusive relationship should have an abortion, I am saying that you don't know what goes on in that household so you have no clue whether bringing a child into it would be a good or bad idea.
So if my opinion is based on no scientific facts what pray tell is yours based on? nothing right just erring on the side of life? Damn thats an overused statement.
You know what I am saying about that. Those women might have carried that baby to term if the man hadnt disappeared. But thats ok I see you are putting most of the blame on the woman anyway.
"Do I have solution to 700,000+ abortions every year by too stupid/too lazy/too horny women? "
Don't get me wrong I understand what you are saying about personal responsibility but I dont see a solution with that route. Making it illegal does nothing. Giving out condoms does nothing. Free birth control does nothing. You know what I think might actually make a difference? Getting rid of Poverty. Don't know which would be harder to stop but I guarantee you the two are related.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Is it that they are more responsible or is it because they have a good man that will help them raise the child? 83% occur on single/divorced/seperated women, that to me indicates a lot of these take place because of lack of a man to help and not from laziness,horniness, or stupidity as you put it.
Nice way to cut my quote to take it out of context. lol
-
Raider,
If abortion could be made into a (hook the woman up and she or you can pull the lever and watch), would you pull the lever and watch the (whatever) be wiped out in graphic and glorious detail? While we are at it gents, all you guys in this thread want to answer by posting a yes or no? I'll make it easier, how many of you can break your cat or dogs neck to put it out of it's misery after it's spine is broken. Is that easier?
All of you are arguing theory and showing how honestly well educated you are for and against an action that you take for granted someone else will perform when the time comes. This is the crux of this issue. How many women themselves or their husbands\boyfreinds would pull the lever if they had to hook the girl up and look (it) in the eye to do the deed?
I don't trust a doctor(human being) who is willing to so easily perform this on women. I get to wondering if a person like that would find it just as easy to pull my plug if I was in a diminished state. Life is not a vacume, actions are not isolated in their ongoing affects.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I base it on that it cant survive without the mother until viability and even at that point it's tenuous whether they will survive or not.
[/b]
Good for you. You still have no idea if it has become a human being or not at that arbitrary point. No one knows. It's just a comfortable point for you personally where you feel it's OK to kill it.
Did you know 50% of all pregancies are unplanned. And I believe 86% of those said they used contraception.
[/b]
1. 50% are unplanned merely highlights the lack of personal responsibility. It weakens your case.
2. 86% use contraception? AGI study said 17% claim they used contraception correctly and still conceived. Big difference. This stat weakens your argument just as the first one does.
If you put a trojan on your head, it's highly unlikely to prevent conception.
Once again, the inability to use contraception CORRECTLY highlights the lack of personal responsiblity. Forgot to take the pill today? Better use a condom.
I am saying that you don't know what goes on in that household so you have no clue whether bringing a child into it would be a good or bad idea.
[/b]
As Laz pointed out, US couples are going to Russia to adopt children. My neighbor across the street adopted a Chechen girl.
If the US were to simplify adoption rules, I think we'd all be better off.
One thing is CERTAIN in my opinion, however. An aborted human being is killed without ever having a chance. A kid born into a dysfunctional home HAS a chance. A chance for adoption, a chance to triumph despite his disadvantages. Dead human embryos never get that chance.
just erring on the side of life?
[/b]
Yep, that's me. Erring on the side of life. There are a lot of overused statements; overuse doesn't make them less valid or untrue. Usually, it's the opposite.
I find those who would work to end capital punishment but work for more abortion rights to be the very definition of hypocrisy.
Those women might have carried that baby to term if the man hadnt disappeared.
[/b]
You've got no stats on this at all. It's another leap for an excuse that you can't substantiate. Out of the 700,000+ abortions, how many fall into this category?
Where are the AGI stats on "my man left me" responses?
But thats ok I see you are putting most of the blame on the woman anyway.
[/b]
Hardly; look up in the thread. I said we need more personal responsibility from both men and women. It never pays to subsidize something you want less of, however.
Don't get me wrong I understand what you are saying about personal responsibility but I dont see a solution with that route. Making it illegal does nothing. Giving out condoms does nothing. Free birth control does nothing. You know what I think might actually make a difference?
Making abortion easier DOES NOTHING but encourage more abortions. It's "the easy way out". It makes personal responsibility less important.
What's the message when "Don't worry, we'll get you an abortion. Everything will be fine; it's easy and fast."
What behavior will that approach encourage?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Good for you. You still have no idea if it has become a human being or not at that arbitrary point. No one knows. It's just a comfortable point for you personally where you feel it's OK to kill it.
[/b]
1. 50% are unplanned merely highlights the lack of personal responsibility. It weakens your case.
2. 86% use contraception? AGI study said 17% claim they used contraception correctly and still conceived. Big difference. This stat weakens your argument just as the first one does.
If you put a trojan on your head, it's highly unlikely to prevent conception.
Once again, the inability to use contraception CORRECTLY highlights the lack of personal responsiblity. Forgot to take the pill today? Better use a condom.
[/b]
As Laz pointed out, US couples are going to Russia to adopt children. My neighbor across the street adopted a Chechen girl.
If the US were to simplify adoption rules, I think we'd all be better off.
One thing is CERTAIN in my opinion, however. An aborted human being is killed without ever having a chance. A kid born into a dysfunctional home HAS a chance. A chance for adoption, a chance to triumph despite his disadvantages. Dead human embryos never get that chance.
[/b]
Yep, that's me. Erring on the side of life. There are a lot of overused statements; overuse doesn't make them less valid or untrue. Usually, it's the opposite.
I find those who would work to end capital punishment but work for more abortion rights to be the very definition of hypocrisy.
[/b]
You've got no stats on this at all. It's another leap for an excuse that you can't substantiate. Out of the 700,000+ abortions, how many fall into this category?
Where are the AGI stats on "my man left me" responses?
[/b]
Hardly; look up in the thread. I said we need more personal responsibility from both men and women. It never pays to subsidize something you want less of, however.
Making abortion easier DOES NOTHING but encourage more abortions. It's "the easy way out". It makes personal responsibility less important.
What's the message when "Don't worry, we'll get you an abortion. Everything will be fine; it's easy and fast."
What behavior will that approach encourage? [/B]
What exactly is "my case"?
oh ok so 17% that used contraception and still conceived? So you gonna add that into the 24%? thats what 41% now?
Your CERTAIN its your opinion? lol.
Come on Erring on the side of life was so Terri Shiavo.
You see it as killing something I see it as stopping something and therein lies our difference.
I am also for the death penalty so I dont fall into that hypocrasy thing. Actually don't think its used enough but thats for another time.
here is what I said
Those women might have carried that baby to term if the man hadnt disappeared.
Now notice the qualifier "MIGHT"... dont need stats or AGI
I did look in the thread this is what I saw.
"Do I have solution to 700,000+ abortions every year by too stupid/too lazy/too horny women? "
I think this is a gross overgeneralization.
But lets just agree to disagree. No way either of us will be convinced the other way. Appreciate the debate though
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I base it on that it cant survive without the mother until viability and even at that point it's tenuous whether they will survive or not. You might be right that it's a point but arbitrary its not. It's the selected point at which a fetus could have a chance at surviving outside of the womb.
Just my 2cts, but viability is different on a Wyoming sheep ranch from viability in the neo natal at Johns-Hopkins.
a law defining right from wrong should not depend on such things. It should depend on what is right and what is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
What exactly is "my case"?
[/b]
I'd say your case is that there is an excuse for each and every one. IMO.
oh ok so 17% that used contraception and still conceived? So you gonna add that into the 24%? thats what 41% now?
No, I'm not going to add it into the 24%. Know why? No you don't.
It's because I ALREADY did. If you'd read my posts you'd realize that. You quoted it once before but obviously you didn't read it.
Come on Erring on the side of life was so Terri Shiavo.
[/b]
Is that supposed to be a negative? I'd much rather err on the side of life WHEN THERE IS NO CERTAINTY. You have no certainty on when a human embryo becomes a person. Yet you casually sweep that aside. Why? In ~75% of the cases it comes down to convenience. Be proud.
You see it as killing something I see it as stopping something and therein lies our difference.
[/b]
Yes, I say you're killing a growing human embryo. As cells divide and multiply, your looking at "life" of some sort.
You say you're stopping something. What are you stopping if not life?
Now notice the qualifier "MIGHT"... dont need stats or AGI
[/b]
If wishes were horses then beggars MIGHT ride.
I think this is a gross overgeneralization.
[/b]
OK, then you explain these reasons for me. I think they all fall into "too lazy/too stupid/too horny". Show me some rational plausible reasons why the use of common birth control methods or even just waiting until they found a trojan (abstinence until properly prepared) wouldn't have avoided an abortion in woman giving 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%
Where would birth control or abstinence failed these people? None of these are reasons that could be construed as "unforseen" in any way.
For example, a woman MUST know whether she "wants no (more) children before she drops her drawers.
Please do explain.
-
"Too lazy or horny to take precautions"-95%
"Want to get pregnant so he will marry me"-5%
Excuses are excuses, no matter what they are. If you open your legs or stick your wee-wee in it, you are overtly accepting the fact that a child may be the result. As the judge will tell you, "ignorance is no excuse".
As for the Death Penalty, I am against it, only because of the process leading up to it's implementation.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'd say your case is that there is an excuse for each and every one. IMO.
No, I'm not going to add it into the 24%. Know why? No you don't.
It's because I ALREADY did. If you'd read my posts you'd realize that. You quoted it once before but obviously you didn't read it.
[/b]
Is that supposed to be a negative? I'd much rather err on the side of life WHEN THERE IS NO CERTAINTY. You have no certainty on when a human embryo becomes a person. Yet you casually sweep that aside. Why? In ~75% of the cases it comes down to convenience. Be proud.
[/b]
Yes, I say you're killing a growing human embryo. As cells divide and multiply, your looking at "life" of some sort.
You say you're stopping something. What are you stopping if not life?
[/b]
If wishes were horses then beggars MIGHT ride.
[/b]
OK, then you explain these reasons for me. I think they all fall into "too lazy/too stupid/too horny". Show me some rational plausible reasons why the use of common birth control methods or even just waiting until they found a trojan (abstinence until properly prepared) wouldn't have avoided an abortion in woman giving 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%
Where would birth control or abstinence failed these people? None of these are reasons that could be construed as "unforseen" in any way.
For example, a woman MUST know whether she "wants no (more) children before she drops her drawers.
Please do explain. [/B]
Like I said neither of us will convince the other.
just to finish out though
I do not feel there is an excuse for them all, I just believe in their right to choose when to bear a child to term. I feel it's no one else's business. you can say its murder or whatever but its just not what I believe. Like I said I know girls that have had them and they were by no means murderers. Hopefully no one you know will ever go through that or you might feel differently. Sometimes people do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
-
Regardless of your beliefs, they killed a human with forethought. That is murder. You can justify it how you like, or just accept it, but the taking of a human life through concious action is defined as murder.
The question of whether it is "justified" is debatable, but the fact of the action is not.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If you put a trojan on your head, it's highly unlikely to prevent conception.
[/B]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol :lol :D :lol :aok
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said I know girls that have had them and they were by no means murderers.
The overwhelming odds are that they were either stupid, lazy or too horny to properly use birth control.
That's the crux of the issue.
You want to discuss the "after the fact" aspect.
Bottom line is that if they hadn't been stupid/lazy/horny they never would have found themselves in that position in the first place.
But our society... like you.... says.."Poor, poor lass.... just get an abortion. No muss, no fuss. Go on with your life."
Now, is that response is likely to engender more or less abortion in you opinion?
-
well... this is getting good... the liberals seem to be saying that it is allright to abort the poor and the minority... the former because.... well.. they are poor and a baby will make em poorer but... just because they are poor they should still have a government protected right to screw their brains out and have the government clean up... the latter because... well... nobody wants minority babies so they deserve to die.
So... why is this not seen as government sponsored genocide against the poor and the colored?
as for the death penalty? would it be ok if women got to choose wether to have their children on death row executed?
a new born is not "viable" despite being cut loose from the umbilical... it still depends on it's parents. What if it cries too much or dirty diapers make a mother nausous? why should she have to go through that? simply let the lump of cells starve.... How can it be human if it can't even feed itself much less talk?
if 75% or so of abortions are for lazy or stupid reasons and we accept that amount of innocent killing for such reasons... doesn't 1% or so mistakes on executions to protect society seem like a very small trifle?
lazs
-
Not very trifling if you happen to be one of that 1% of innocent people who get the chop! Not that trifling for their families and relatives either.
Make the guilty realy suffer. Prison for life no nice facilities that the other offenders get and a reminder everyday about what they have done and the consequences. Death for the guilty is the easy way out and an irreprable injustice for the innocent!
As for the abortion thing I'm not a woman ( though I'm sure you'll disagree Lazs ;) :lol ) So I don't realy think its for me to make the decision. It's up to that half of the population to decide on that one, in my humble opinion.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
As for the abortion thing I'm not a woman ( though I'm sure you'll disagree Lazs ;) :lol ) So I don't realy think its for me to make the decision. It's up to that half of the population to decide on that one, in my humble opinion.
You're neither a convicted murderer on death row nor a judge passing sentence on said murderer yet you feel obligated to take a stand on that issue.
Need to dodge the abortion issue though, right? Can't take a position on when a human embryo becomes a person because that's someone else's decision.
You see it don't you? I don't have to say it?
-
I don't have a womb. I'm not likely to be a mother. 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.
But what if a girl is raped, In dire circumstances financialy, emotionaly, in her life in general. Add to her problems by giving her a kid to look after too? Oh how very noble and principled.
If you worked with some of the young women I do and saw the lifes they have to lead, not always their own fault, then maybe you'd respond the same as me? Maybe?
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.
-
For the death penalty:
Take, as an example, John Couey who buried the little Lunsford girl alive after raping her (note: the presumption of innocence is a legal conceit that is not accorded to the individual by the cops or the prosecutors nor by myself after he led them to the body).
If the facts of this case turn out to be consistant with the way they appear to be with the available information, execution of this individual is simple justice.
Originally posted by oboe
I always thought the Dems and Repubs positions on abortion should be exactly reversed, and then their positions would be more consistent with their overall positions on personal freedom vs govt controls.
Well there is that and also the fact that they are killing little Democrats.
-
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.
-
I'm against it. HO shots should just be dropped like in AW.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
:lol Tumor!
"Hey! I want a re-do!!"
-
Originally posted by Toad
:lol 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.................
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
"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?
-
Originally posted by Toad
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.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.
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. [/B]
Man what a pipe dream. That just say no thing worked really well with the war on drugs didnt it? Oh great so give them more money to have more kids. You don't want to use your taxes to support abortion I don't want to use mine to let some crackhead raise 10 kids.
-
torque... would you suggest that the parents be screened for genetic makeup to determine if they might have a worthwhile baby or not?
Or, are you saying that parents that are screwed up or stupid will allways have screwed up or stupid children with no slight chance the child will far exceed either of their abilities?
my take is that they murderer is fully formed and lost and needs to be put out of his misery.. The inocent baby is an unknown factor... a possible savior of all humankind. Maybe even the guy who invents an octane booster that will allow me to run 13 to 1 pistons on the street.
and.... I don't want to support a crackhead with 10 kids either.. I don't want to support anyone who has a kid out of wedlock... certainly not more than one. I am not a fan of the welfare system. I believe that the combo of welfare system and the option of abortion are what has caused the mess we are in in regards to 10 kids from a crack mother.
lazs
-
What if one of the crackheads 10 kids is the saviour of mankind...lol ;)
-
what if they are? We will know soon enough. If they were aborted we would never know.
Unless you are saying that it is impossible for ghetto kids to ever amount to anything? Maybe you are saying that if we don't give her money for her crack habit.... the kids will starve to death?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Besides Mr Toad you haven't addressed the issue of pregnancy arising from rape.
[/b]
I have. There's that category I mentioned named "Other".
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.
[/b]
So? Pregnance is NOT difficult to prevent. These reasons SHOULD make one even more careful.
Is using contraception being responsible and it fails. The reasons for unplanned pregnancy are myriad and not all the result of stupidness or laziness.
[/b]
Do you read the posts or just jump in and spew? Contraception failure when used correctly accounts for about ~17% of the abortions according to the AGI study. Coupled with the ~8% total of others reasons given, I mentioned upthread that there's apparently 25% AT MOST that have a justifiable reason.
That leaves ~75% attributable to what? Stupidity, Laziness or Horniness pretty well cover the 75%.
You might try reading the thread.
Realy what understanding of these peoples circumstances do you realy show? None other than to spout your own prejudice it seems.
[/b]
I understand this, which as obvious as it is has apparently escaped you.
MOST abortions result from a failure of personal responsibility at the most basic level.
I KNOW that no one in this thread knows for CERTAIN if abortion AT ANY STAGE of pregnancy results in the death of a human being. NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN. Yet this possiblity is discarded as unimportant while hypocritical people oppose the death penalty for a convicted criminal on the .00000000000001% chance that he/she may be innocent.
I understand that "caring" people like you think that abortion is an "eraser" for a minor error in personal judgement. I know that that attitude will result in an ever increasing number of abortions; there is no way that attitude can reduce the number of abortions.
Predjudice? Get the plank out of your eye.
As for linking the death penalty to abortion issues well I'm sorry but the two are seperate.
[/b]
What a laugable statement. IMO, that just shows you lie to yourself.
-
Ok so assuming your figures are correct. That still leaves 25% of people who have got pregnant in ways that are not attributable to your definition of laziness or stupidity. Are you saying that those 25% have no right to decide whether or not to continue with the unplanned pregnancy? Cmon. Your morals are not everyone elses. What makes you so sure you are correct, and what gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives? I don't think Abortion is an eraser. Women have to live with the consequences of their actions / mistakes for ever, and that is hard. I speak from personal experience of working with girls in this situation. I do believe that for some, abortion is the lesser of two evils and does give them a chance to get it right the next time rather than bring up an unloved unwanted child in a far from ideal situation. Abortion is a tough call for many young women but they ought to have the option rather than having that option taken away by people with high moralistic self righteous opinions who likely as not have never had to face the situation these women find themselves in.
And yeah I am a caring person, I earn my ( small ) keep trying to make a better world for people who haven't had my advantages in life and I'm damn proud of it.
Now as for the death penalty I don't advocate that. Not because I think its soft on the criminal but because I don't think 1] that the risk of killing even one innocent person is worth it and 2] I actualy think being made to live with what you have done in very uncomfortable circumstances and regularly reminded of it is a far tougher sentence than escaping via the gallows electric chair whatever. As I've already said Prison for murderers should be tougher than it currently is.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Man what a pipe dream. That just say no thing worked really well with the war on drugs didnt it?
[/b]
The "solutions" I posted are my personal view. They are totally unlike the "war on drugs" but you know that. For example, where did I suggest we arrest and jail abortions users?
You are reduced to red herrings as your best argumentative techique.
And the permissive attitude towards abortion that you and others display has led to what?
Oh great so give them more money to have more kids.
[/b]
That's not what I'm proposing. There are systems out there that are far more efficient in this regard that the current Federal Governement system. There are work-welfare states that provide child care and other policies that break the "bear children for money cycle.
Now, let's see YOUR solution. Is the best you've got "More Abortions!"
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Are you saying that those 25% have no right to decide whether or not to continue with the unplanned pregnancy?
[/b]
Without a doubt, you are one of the least diligent posters on this board.
No, that is not what I said. Go back and read my posts in this thread and you'll find I have answered this question more than once.
You are very close to being one of the few people on my ignore list. You obviously do not read the posts to which you attempt to respond. That is just unpardonable IMO, and leaves no basis for discussion.
The rest of your post reflects the same ignorance of what has been said in this thread. As a result, it's not worth a response.
-
Didn't I read this part straight? And I quote
"I mentioned upthread that there's apparently 25% AT MOST that have a justifiable reason."
I also think I got you right when I say you are an anti abortionist pro lifer whatever you call it! Gleaned fromn reading the gist of your posts.
So what about these 25% what should they do? Do you want to take away their right to decide?
By the way you realy do come accross sometimes as a pompous rear end!
Actualy I think you have jumped to a conclusion about me based on what others say and don't read my posts either. Or at best you respond in a highly selective manner quoting only the bits that suit your self righteous argument!
Right I'm off to shoot small birds and play with my non existant labrador like all englishmen do on your planet! sheesh the world according to Toad!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: (http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/League/OtherLeagues/Singular/Moreau/MrToad1-small.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I do believe that for some, abortion is the lesser of two evils and does give them a chance to get it right the next time rather than bring up an unloved unwanted child in a far from ideal situation... Now as for the death penalty I don't advocate that. Not because I think its soft on the criminal but because I don't think 1] that the risk of killing even one innocent person is worth it and 2] I actualy think being made to live with what you have done in very uncomfortable circumstances and regularly reminded of it is a far tougher sentence than escaping via the gallows electric chair whatever.
Don't you see the moral dissonance of those two positions? You want to give a 15-year-old the right to kill an unborn child (the very essence of innocence), while you advocate that we must not kill criminals to avoid the possibility of executing an innocent person.
Those are your words, and apparently your beliefs. Do you ever stop to try to figure out the single moral basis behind those beliefs? For a belief system to be valid, there must be a common moral thread--a basic law, if you will. Your position has none.
-
No I have no single belief system I don't follow dogma, I don't believe in a one law fits all solution and I don't belive I have a god given moral superiority to those kids I work with. I believe each case should be taken on merit and the solutions are varied depending on people's circumstance and needs. For some an abortion might not be a good solution for others it might be the only viable solution.
As for linking Abortion to murder it depends on whether you consider a collection of cells an unborn child! Secondly and I'll ask again just in case someone answers. What if that 15 year old had been raped. ( I ask because I'm dealing with a young woman in just that situation, Are you? ) I don't think it is murder.
I don't think the death penalty is punishment I think it is an easy solution.
-
If you read the entire history of my posts on this BBS, you will find I do not make personal attacks. For example, I have never directly called someone an idiot. So write this one down.
There's a first time for everything.
You sir, are an Idiot.
You have placed yourself on my very short Ignore list.
You are unable to debate because you either have no reading comprehension at all or you simply fail to read what is posted.
To whit:
Skydancer: Didn't I read this part straight? And I quote
"I mentioned upthread that there's apparently 25% AT MOST that have a justifiable reason."...
.....So what about these 25% what should they do? Do you want to take away their right to decide?
[/b]
You are unable to understand the simplest of positions.
I will recap two of the posts I've made in this thread, although I seriously doubt you'll be able to comprehend my position this time since you didn't understand it the first time.
04-20-2005 03:08 PMToad:
I am opposed to abortion in most cases. There are a few circumstances that call for an exception.
04-20-2005 03:08 PM Toad: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.
As for what I quote from your posts, it's true I quote selectively. I take the MOST idiotic statements and refute them. However, I am not clipping anything that would make them appear something they are not. I just take the most obivious idiocy refute it.
The numerous minor idiocies I just don't have time to address. Sorry.
Here's an example of a minor idiocy that I don't have the time to illustrate for you in the hope that you might realize what a fool you make of yourself. It speaks for itself though. Although I will say that the interesting Englishmen I know all own Labradors. Obviously, you don't. QED.
Sky: I'm off to shoot small birds and play with my non existant labrador like all englishmen do on your planet!
[/b]
Well, fool, this is good-bye. You're on my ignore list. Your inability to form a cogent argument or post anything interesting whatsoever in your 700+ posts as Skydancer and how ever many in your banned Zulu7 account has put you over the top.
When you come back in your next shade account, do try to show just a bit of elementary intelligence and I'll give you another shot at it.
Toodle-pip.
-
:lol
Fine by me !
Oh yeah you can't hear me you pompous humourless wazzock!
:lol :lol :lol
-
ah.... so you weren't really losing the arguement (yet again).... you were just making another "joke".
lazs
-
Speaking of crime and abortion, anyone read “Freakonomics?”.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Coupled with the ~8% total of others reasons given, I mentioned upthread that there's apparently 25% AT MOST that have a justifiable reason.
B]
Again that is your opinion and is not and should not be stated as fact. I personally also feel that not having enough money is a very justfiable reason to not have a child.
I can already hear you talking about using birth control or whatever. so save us both the time.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now, let's see YOUR solution. Is the best you've got "More Abortions!"
My solution? hmmm where did I ever say there was a problem? I think its fine the way it is. I only said getting rid of poverty would help reduce the number of them.
-
Yes, I've noticed you have no problem with personal irresponsibility, particularly irresponsibility that leads to abortion.
You are right that we will never agree. The fact that you see no problem defines the difference between us.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I personally also feel that not having enough money is a very justfiable reason to not have a child.
But obviously not enough of a reason to require personal responsiblity.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are right that we will never agree. The fact that you see no problem defines the difference between us.
Yep said that on what page 2?
-
Originally posted by Toad
But obviously not enough of a reason to require personal responsiblity.
How do you require personal responsibility? Make them have the kid? oh yeah that will teach them. lol
-
How do you require pesonal responsibility? Lots of ways. How did your parents do it with you?
Your solution is basically "all the abortions you want!"
Lol right back at ya. You can't seriously believe this is good for our society.
I hope.
-
Lazs I was losing nothing.
Unlike I suspect Mr Toad, I actualy deal with kids in these situations all the time. Thats why I will not take the high moral anti abortionist stance. I may not actualy like the idea of abortion but I see the disastrous results of unwanted pregnancy and as I said have one young woman who is pregnant resulting from rape and that tends to open the mind on this issue. I do defend a womans right to choose. I also think if applicable the male partner should be part of the decision. What I don't do is tell those kids what to do. They have to do what's right for them.
Mr Toad wants to take that personal right to choose away because of his moral stance. I would have thought you of all people would have been against his line of argument!
Now I'm not going to take one high moral view and then link it to every situation. Each issue is different despite what Mr Toad says. It aint a one size fits all world.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Lazs I was losing nothing.
Unlike I suspect Mr Toad, I actualy deal with kids in these situations all the time. Thats why I will not take the high moral anti abortionist stance. I may not actualy like the idea of abortion but I see the disastrous results of unwanted pregnancy and as I said have one young woman who is pregnant resulting from rape and that tends to open the mind on this issue. I do defend a womans right to choose. I also think if applicable the male partner should be part of the decision. What I don't do is tell those kids what to do. They have to do what's right for them.
Mr Toad wants to take that personal right to choose away because of his moral stance. I would have thought you of all people would have been against his line of argument!
Now I'm not going to take one high moral view and then link it to every situation. Each issue is different despite what Mr Toad says. It aint a one size fits all world.
I totally agree, even though my own personal philosophy does not find abortion savory, I fear that eliminating that choice would have far greater consequence. Even if it were outlawed, the old coathanger, back-door doctors would come back into fashion. Abortion has always existed, and always will for as long as there are unwanted pregnancies. Even in ancient times abortion was common, and many cities had an area designated to to the disposal of the aborted.
Even animals that give birth in unfavorable circumstance choose to kill off the litter. Personally, I think that if those that are not in favor of choice on this issue ever get their way, those extra children should be sent to them, where they can be raised with higher moral standards than everyone else.
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
I fear that eliminating that choice would have far greater consequence.....
....Personally, I think that if those that are not in favor of choice
I most certainly have not advocated "eliminating that choice". If you have read what I posted that should be clear to you unless you have absolutely no reading comprehension at all.
In fact, I don't recall anyone in this thread calling for the elimination of "that choice".
-
Originally posted by Toad
I most certainly have not advocated "eliminating that choice". If you have read what I posted that should be clear to you unless you have absolutely no reading comprehension at all.
In fact, I don't recall anyone in this thread calling for the elimination of "that choice".
Sorry if that came off wrong. My agreement with skydancer was based upon his more general statement about anti-abortionists, not you, or your argument. I should have better clarified myself, knowing that my interjection was toward the bottom of an argument.
-
so skyprancer... for one rape victim to not have a baby... you would condem thousands of innocnent humans to death a year? and yet you are horrified that maybe one or two "innocent" people might get executed a year? It makes no sense whatsoever to me... it is orwelian.
I have nothing against abortion when it is early term but the reason has to be a lot better than convienience or not enough money at the present time. Rape or deformities caught early would be a good enough reason for me though still repugnant.
you can't keep from screwing? absolutely can't stop yourself and you find birth control is "confining" or it just happens to fail this time? then carry the kid and arrange an adoption.
The people who are mostly getting abortions are white women of normal income.
How many women died of back room abortions a year before legalized abortion as birth control? really... how many die of leagal abortions now a year? Are we really keeping the population of poor and unwanted babies down by abortion or are we increasing it? Do the same people to slovenly and hedonistic to not have babies then become responsible and abort or do they simply get lazy on that too until it is too late?
seems there are a lot more unwanted children and welfare mothers since birth conttrol by abortion took over.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The people who are mostly getting abortions are white women of normal income.
Nope
• The need for abortion spans the economic spectrum; however, lowincomewomen are overrepresented among abortion patients. Fiftysevenpercent of women having abortions in 2000 were poor or lowincome (living at less than twice the poverty level, or less than $28,300 for a family of 3), compared with 30% of women in the general population.
http://www.agi-usa.org
-
I nominate this thread for the most thoroughly hijacked thread of 2005.
The abortion subject should have been the subject of a second thread.
-
Actualy Maverik I'm inclined to agree there. Thats what happens when you try to draw some kind of tenuous link between two different subjects to try and support your argument!
I guess I've possibly been guilty of that too but nevertheless your statement is correct.
-
A few years ago, while I was still a student, my fiance and I moved into a small apartment. One evening while I was sitting at my drafting table, a man (high on pcp) decided to break into my living room through the front door. A struggle ensued for a good 15 minutes that ended when I finally crushed his head. There was blood everwhere, including the pen work that I had been working on for the past 3 months. The police had been called during the beginning of the struggle by my fiance, and it had taken over an hour for them to respond.
When all of the cop stuff and paper work was over, I got to speak at length with a local detective. I was shocked when he gave a lengthy description on this mans previous record. You would not beleive how much time and money was spent on this one man. I was really shocked to learn of the regularity of this phenomenon. I asked him how such a thing was possible and he told me that when a person is accused of a crime, his previouse record is not brought up in court.
Later, I was recieving death threats from my assailants loving family. So much so, that my fiance decided it was best that we split up, which was for the best, after her entire family decided that I was a violent, poor, piece of crap.
I do not live there anymore, but I live alone, and I no longer trust poeple as much as I should (in a healthy way). I am currently of the opinion that I do not give a damn what happens to criminals as long as they are not among other people. Weather they are executed or worked to death, I don't care. I do know that the system for dealing with them is very flawed and way too expensive.
Before that incident, my personal philosophy was to never cause pain to anyone, but during a time like that, personal philosophy goes right out the window. There is something in us that overrides all of that, and we will do whatever it takes to survive. It supercedes all rational thought. I guess this makes more sense to me now when I think about the fact the everone of us is the direct descendant of a long line of those that survived, not those that lay down and die.
When I was a kid, I lived on a small ranch. Every summer people would dump their unwanted pets out in the country and drive away. Those pets were not equipped to suvive by hunting alone, so they would get into large packs and take on the easiest prey. This was usually livestock. I was the one designated to take care of them with my rifle. I never had any animosity towards those dogs, they could not help what they were forced into, but coexistance was not an option.