Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cabby44 on November 03, 2002, 08:48:48 AM
-
So, you think the Death Penalty is "inhumane"??
THIS is "inhumane":
The whole article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,68804,00.html
"Frank Jarvis Atwood is a killer. He is also a guest columnist. It is a combination that has caused great offense in Tucson, Ariz., and one that raises an important issue to people in all parts of the country.
In 1984, an eight-year-old girl named Vicki Lynne Hoskinson disappeared while riding her bike; she had been sent by her parents to mail a letter and never came home again.
In 1987, Frank Jarvis Atwood was convicted of the murder after a three-month trial that was televised locally from the opening arguments to the pronouncement of the death sentence.
The sentence, however, has not yet been carried out, and Atwood remains, as he has been for a decade and a half, a resident of death row.
Recently, however, Atwood branched out, writing a column for the Arizona Daily Star in which he expressed his opposition to the death penalty. He insisted that, because of the expenses involved in filing appeals and pleading for stays of execution, life imprisonment is cheaper for the American taxpayer than the electric chair. And then he said: "While there will always be some individuals who insist on seeing those convicted of murder suffer as much as possible, this attitude serves only to reduce society to the level of those it seeks to punish. The far superior course is to hold to the high moral ground."
Readers were outraged. Says Penny Waldron: "This is absolutely unforgivable. I would cancel my subscription if my husband would allow me. What he did was unspeakable."
Says Gustaf Van Acker: "I feel so bad for the family. . . . It brings up the hurt all over again."
Paul Pedersen said it was "a slap in the community’s face to publish this. It shows that the editorial staff is totally out of touch with the community [/i] ."
Imagine if YOUR 8 year old daughter was heinously murdered by this animal and then(after 10 years of foot-dragging by the "Justice System" refusing to carry-out the Will Of The People)he was allowed to "explain" in a effin' NEWSPAPER COLUMN why HIS life was MORE IMPORTANT than your innocent little girl's???
The "editors" of the "Star" and the prison officials and other members of the "Justice"(a word that has lost all meaning in today's American system of Jurisprudence)are "out of the touch with the community" all right. They should also be summarily "out of touch" with their jobs AND have their tulips publicly-kicked for allowing this piece of toejam to publish his atrocious "column". As for Atwood, he should have a date with a rope post haste.
As i have said time and time again, the Government and the "Justice" System are FAILING in their SWORN DUTY to PROTECT and DEFEND the lives and liberty of the INNOCENT members of society because of policies advocated by Legal, Criminal, and Judicial "activists" who represent only a small minority of the public SHOVING their stupid Liberal Agenda down our collective throats.
To allow convicted killers the opportunity to HURT and HUMILIATE their innocent victim's families again and again(by either letting killers out of jail as "re-habilitated" or allowing them to exist for DECADES on Death Row filing appeal after appeal) is an ATROCITY that defies all common decency. Carry-out the Will of the People or be carried-out of your jobs. This roadkill MUST STOP.
Liberals' Attack on Death Penalty Backfires...
In light of the sure-to-be-a-circus-sideshow trial of the "DC Snipers", the gross incompetence of the INS in failing to deport one of the sniper suspects as required by Federal Statute, the recent release of the bi-partisan "Hart-Rudman Report" on America's continuing vulnerablity to terrorist attack and failure to put in place and make a priority Homeland Security, and the continued pressure to abrogate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms , we have to wonder if the protection of the American people from murder and mayhem as mandated in the Constitution of the United States has been ignored(if not intentionally crippled)by our elected officials and the bloated, bumbling Government bureauocracy.
As a well-known Liberal agitator once said:
"No Justice, No Peace".........
From Carl Limbacher:
Thursday, Oct. 24, 2002
"Bleeding-heart liberals' latest attack on the death penalty has blown up in their faces.
"For nearly two weeks, the details of Illinois' most gruesome murders have been replayed for the public in a marathon set of clemency hearings that death penalty opponents now believe may have backfired and hurt their cause," the Associated Press reported.
Lame-duck, scandal-plagued Republican Gov. George Ryan apparently thought he'd redeem himself by issuing blanket clemency and freeing all criminals on death row. But things got off to a bad start when horror stories told by victims' families dominated the hearings, and people became outraged that murderers tried to claim they were too stupid to have to pay for their crimes.
"The pain and passion of these families is deafening," fretted Larry Marshall, a Northwestern University law professor who has led the attack on Illinois' death penalty. "It's so overwhelming that people are forgetting all the problems that got us here."
Chicago's two major newspapers have even urged Ryan to stop the hearings. "Halt the anguish, Gov. Ryan," implored an editorial in the Chicago Tribune. "Ryan's hearings cruel and unusual," headlined an editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times.
The public grew furious when the hearings revealed just why those poor little criminals occasionally end up on death row:
A couple shot and killed a woman, cut her nearly full-term baby from her womb, and killed two of her other children.
A man tortured his mute, severely retarded stepdaughter for five years until she died.
Two brothers beat a sleeping couple to death with baseball bats. The husband was struck with such force that parts of his skull "looked like a crushed eggshell."
A man murdered a couple after telling them to have their last kiss.
A man took eight women to remote locations and stripped, bound and murdered them.
"I can't imagine the public has heard such a parade of horrors combined into such a short time period in American history," observed John Gorman, a spokesman for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
AP reported Wednesday: "Family members have transformed the hearing rooms into photo galleries of the dead. They have pointed to the infants in the audience who would never know their grandfathers, the sons and daughters who grew up without parents."
"You could not sit in that room without feeling human and without feeling how vulnerable it is to be human," said Arvin Boddie, a board member who was booted by the left-wing thought police after criticizing the hearings and defense shysters. "
Again. Stop the Insanity........
C.
-
I figure if your gullible enough to eat the tripe that the so called "conservative" politicians feed you you will buy anything.
That POS is still alive because the law has been perverted by the greed of attorneys.
You want to change the system?
So do I....and change will only come when we kick both the political potatos out of office.
Before you rant anymore about liberal or conservative topics I suggest you check the Washington voting records of both, you won't find any difference between the two.
-
^How Liberal of you.
45+ years of Liberal-Left subversion of the Law and Law Enforcement, hand-wringing "prison reform", the ACLU, Liberal trashing of the educational system with a "Politically Correct"(i.e. revisionist anti-American "history") and its Left-leaning, "moral relativist" cirriculum, packing the judicial ranks with soft-on-crime Liberal Judges, and you deflect responsibility with the usual Liberal-Leftist "excuse/whine" of: "they all do it".
Why do you think Tom Dashole and his demogogue cronies so desperately block GWB's Judicial appointments on such spurious grounds? The answer: NOTHING is more important to the Liberal-Left than the "right" to kill un-born children. Abortion uber-alles. A frickin' TREE is more important to the Bozo's who comprise the Liberal-Left than the life of an INNOCENT human being.................
BTW, you can keep your "bridge to the 21st Century". It looks more like a "bridge to the 1930's" to me. And I ain't buying it.........
C.
-
No shortage of Pancuronium Bromide or Potassium Chloride in Texas. I feel sure we'd be happy to ship a few pounds to Arizona.
-
Okay... what does the government have to do with a private newspaper publishing the opinion of a convicted murderer?
The capital punishment policies of Texas and Arizona are the products of the elected officials in those states. Don't like the law? Elect someone that will change it.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Why do you think Tom Dashole and his demogogue cronies so desperately block GWB's Judicial appointments on such spurious grounds? The answer: NOTHING is more important to the Liberal-Left than the "right" to kill un-born children. Abortion uber-alles. A frickin' TREE is more important to the Bozo's who comprise the Liberal-Left than the life of an INNOCENT human being
Simple.
The Republicans did it to Clinton's nominees. Now it is time for revenge.
Turnabout is fairplay in politics. Maybe if the Republicans hadn't forced so many vacancies in federal courts by not bringing Clinton's nominees to the table we wouldn't be in the situation were're in.
But wait, that can't be it, it has to be all the Liberal's fault.:rolleyes:
So much for Conservative's being inclined to take responsibility for their actions.
-
So, Karnak. Other than making a lame excuse(and an excuse is all it is) for the Democrats, you LIKE the Criminal "Justice" System as it is?? You are happy with the current severe shortage of Federal Judges(which hurts EVERYBODY, Leftie and Conservative, plaintiff and defendant, alike) and the Judges-with-Liberal-Agendas that we DO have who make "law" by judicial-fiat??
Yeah, forget "justice". It's all about keeping those Liberal Judges in power and the Conservative judges out that matters most, isn't it. To hell with doing the "right thing", it's maintaining that Roe v. Wade "constitutionality-based-on-phantom-language" uber alles agenda that REALLY matters. That's the so-called "litmus test" of judicial nominees that the Leftie Democrats use. Nothing more. nothing less............
C.
-
Atwoods tirade against the death penalty would be one thing if he wasn't in fact sentenced to die and is using every machination of the appeal process to delay or subvert it. His guilt isn't an issue here, just his use of the system to live longer. The other main issue is that not once has this POS ever shown a shred of remorse over the murder of a child. This POS ( I can't think of him as a "person", I was working close to the point where he killed that little girl.) is only sorry he was caught. There is no rational reason for him to continue living as long as his victim remains dead.
This POS had a lengthy and extensiver trial. He had legal representation. He had the comforts of 3 meals a day, shelter and no concerns to maintain his own welfare. His victim had no trial, committed no act deserving of death, was not represented or given a chance to defend herself. Yet this POS made himself judge, jury and executioner all because he wanted to enjoy himself with her. What possible reason is there to maintain this POS' life? He has no redeeming values and lives only to prey on other helples victims.
The anger at the newspaper was twofold. One they published the trash this POS wrote in it's entirety. Two they published it in a manner designed to give it the most exposure complete with bold face headline, all to sell papers. The Arizona Daily "red" Star is about as mercenary as they come as long as it supports their left wing agenda. The damn thing is virtually nothing more than the National Enquirer and has no competition to force them to be journalists instead of tabloid trash purveyors. They like to claim the Citizen (evening paper) is a competitor but they are both housed in the same building, bill from the same facility, share ALL adds and use the same policies for accepting adds. They also quote each other liberaly to fill copy space. Frankly I'm ashamed of my hometown "news"paper.
That's it
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Simple.
The Republicans did it to Clinton's nominees. Now it is time for revenge.
Turnabout is fairplay in politics. Maybe if the Republicans hadn't forced so many vacancies in federal courts by not bringing Clinton's nominees to the table we wouldn't be in the situation were're in.
But wait, that can't be it, it has to be all the Liberal's fault.:rolleyes:
So much for Conservative's being inclined to take responsibility for their actions.
Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork were Clinton appointees?? that's not how I remember it... :rolleyes:
-
Been to any book burnings or torch lit rallys lately?
Better to be called a liberal if your represenative of a conservative.
Before you rant anymore about liberal or conservative topics I suggest you check the Washington voting records of both, you won't find any difference between the two.
C'mon cabby, take the challenge.....or are you:
A: Too lazy to search for and read the relevant data.
B: Too stupid to understand the data.
C: Too scared....as you will be forced to recognize the fact you've been sold a "bridge in New York".
Personally I'm betting on C:
Here's a little food from Thomas Paine for your narrow "conservative" mind cabby....if your confused by the big words in the quote let me know and I'll translate it to hillbilly for you.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
-
Weazel:
How is catching and punishing common criminals, especially murderers of children, described as "oppression"?? Only a moron, "chicken-little" Leftie like yourself could draw such a comparison.
And no, weazel-boy, the "voting record" is not the same. Ever heard of a "Law and Order" Liberal???
Face it, Leftie. You Libs have your head in your bellybutton on crime, defense, economics, hell, just about any damn subject that matters at all to anybody. Stay back there in the 30's where you belong. And take your bankrupt, ludicrous, failed "ideas" and "policies" with you. The Left is a dinosaur that's too stupid to know it's dead.........
C.
-
Too scared to face the truth.....
After being lied to year after year how you can continue to believe in the republican "conservative" lie is beyond comprehension.
Face the facts....you've been duped, but you continue to gulp their swill down like it's champagne.
Who's the moron?
If you can't fathom how Paines quote is germane to the topic you need to get some of that new fangled book l'arning the city slickers use....
-
"The Left is a dinosaur that's too stupid to know it's dead......... "
And the Right is the fish of murder that is swimming in ever tightening circles...becoming more shark-like.
-
the way I see it, if GWB gets control of the Senate tomorrow, the country will be on track for a turn to the light and the right
If the left maintains its hold, stranglehold, the country will continue its spiral down the toilet
as for the article, if it were my dead kid, me and the editor would have a "talk"
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Leftie Democrats
Is it possible for you to post a single message without the term "Leftie" something or other in it? Just curious.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
What does the senate have to do with Arizona's capital punishment laws?
-
The true measure of our Justice System is not who we havent executed but who we have.
If theres the slightest doudt as to whether someone is innocent or that the death penalty has been applied in error then their can be no execution. What is more of a tragedy, executing an innocent man? Or having a guilty man serve 60 years instead of being executed?
The death penalty in America is no deterent. Our justice system isnt based on eye for an eye. It is in the interest of justice to make sure that those sentenced to be executed are guilty and have had an opportunity to put up a proper defense.
Our Justice is not a tool for the victims to seek out retribution. It serves as an instrument for society as a whole.
Theres no amount of money that can make up for executing the wrong person.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The true measure of our Justice System is not who we havent executed but who we have.
If theres the slightest doudt as to whether someone is innocent or that the death penalty has been applied in error then their can be no execution. What is more of a tragedy, executing an innocent man? Or having a guilty man serve 60 years instead of being executed?
The death penalty in America is no deterent. Our justice system isnt based on eye for an eye. It is in the interest of justice to make sure that those sentenced to be executed are guilty and have had an opportunity to put up a proper defense.
Our Justice is not a tool for the victims to seek out retribution. It serves as an instrument for society as a whole.
Theres no amount of money that can make up for executing the wrong person.
I don't think slightest doubt is court room jargon. Once a jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt (you'll be hard pressed to find a definition of this) that someone is guilty of murder and that person is then sentenced to die the judgment should be carried out expeditiously. 10 years for appeals seems like a travesty of justice to me.
-
Last week, Ray Milton Krone -- pegged for the 1991 stabbing death of a Phoenix waitress -- was finally let off death row. New DNA evidence proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Krone had not committed the crime. After three years on death row and a total of 10 years in prison, Krone became the 100th innocent death row inmate to be exonerated since 1973.
100 in 30 years. Maybe 10 years of appeals isn't enough?
-
Quote:
"100 in 30 years. Maybe 10 years of appeals isn't enough?"
Cite your scource............
C.
-
Here's a list I found after a 2 second search from Google.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Innocentlist.html
Average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration: 8 years
But I'm SURE it's RUN by a BUNCH of LEFTIE-LEFTISTS and CLINTON and his cadre of CRIMINALS who have raped our SOCIETY of its MORALS and taken our GUNS from us so he can sleep with our DAUGHTERS and let his LIBERAL-LEFTIE-LEFTIST buddies in prison for EATING BABIES run free while...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No shortage of Pancuronium Bromide or Potassium Chloride in Texas. I feel sure we'd be happy to ship a few pounds to Arizona.
40 points to AKIRON for knowing what the name of that stuff. 10 points for knowing how to spell it.. atleast I think he knows how to spell it :)
-
AKiron juries can only make descisions based on evidence presented. Look at the quote mt supplied. Juries arent always right. Prosecuters arent always working in the interest of justice.
Before a person is executed society has an obligation to ensure there is no doudt or question as to the guilt of the condemned and that the application of the death penalty is appropriate given the circumstances of the crime.
The poor rarely get adequate representation, they dont have the means that the government has in proving their case. In the past few years dna has been used to clear several death row inmates and if I remember correctly it also pointed to one case where a man had been executed but may not have been guilty. These men had been on death row for years. Are you happy with sacrificing them so that
judgment......... [can be] carried out expeditiously
Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty we all owe it to justice to see that the death penalty is applied correctly. When it comes to executing some one theres no cost in time or money to great to ensure we are right.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
40 points to AKIRON for knowing what the name of that stuff. 10 points for knowing how to spell it.. atleast I think he knows how to spell it :)
hehe, I keep http://www.dictionary.com handy
-
Originally posted by Wotan
When it comes to executing some one theres no cost in time or money to great to ensure we are right.
You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer Wotan?
-
I imagine a few people would have a change of heart if they were innocent men waiting to die on death row.
-
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12923
and
Citing “Undue Risk” of Executing Innocents, Court Declares Federal Death Penalty Unconstitutional (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=10502&c=65)
and
This http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab006/dProtess.html
and
Might wanna read http://www.truthinjustice.org/deathrow.htm
-
Quote:
"But I'm SURE it's RUN by a BUNCH of LEFTIE-LEFTISTS and CLINTON and his cadre of CRIMINALS who have raped our SOCIETY of its MORALS and taken our GUNS from us so he can sleep with our DAUGHTERS and let his LIBERAL-LEFTIE-LEFTIST buddies in prison for EATING BABIES run free while..."
Well, i visited your link and read the hand-wringing over the "DC Snipers" and the case for their execution. Guess what. Your DPIC site is against it.
So, i reckon the paragraph i quoted above is essentially correct....
C.
-
You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer Wotan?
No I am an electrician at an electric generating plant.
What I meant by "we" is society, which isnt correct either. Each state has its own judiciary. Its up to the citizens of each state to decide whats exceptable to them. Provided it complies with the US Constution. A federal death penalty would be "we".
But theres room for mistakes. When "death" is to be applied then there can be no mistakes.
I am against the death penalty, as I am against abortion. I dont think the solutions are found in simply killing people. But I am a realist and understand that some people just "need" to be killed. In the cases where as a society we decide to "kill" then we need to be sure theres no other way.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I imagine a few people would have a change of heart if they were innocent men waiting to die on death row.
And I imagine you might have one also if it were your 8 year old daughter lying in her grave.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
"But I'm SURE it's RUN by a BUNCH of LEFTIE-LEFTISTS and CLINTON and his cadre of CRIMINALS who have raped our SOCIETY of its MORALS and taken our GUNS from us so he can sleep with our DAUGHTERS and let his LIBERAL-LEFTIE-LEFTIST buddies in prison for EATING BABIES run free while..."
Well, i visited your link and read the hand-wringing over the "DC Snipers" and the case for their execution. Guess what. Your DPIC site is against it.
So, i reckon the paragraph i quoted above is essentially correct....
C.
It doesn't matter whether the site is liberal or conservative Cabby. The number of death penalty convictions that have been overturned and found innocent is now at 102. A Number that has no political agenda.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And I imagine you might have one also if it were your 8 year old daughter lying in her grave.
I honestly don't believe I would want my government to kill him. Because, there is a chance that he would be innocent and I wouldn't want to be responsible for sending a innocent man to his death.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I honestly don't believe I would want my government to kill him. Because, there is a chance that he would be innocent and I wouldn't want to be responsible for sending a innocent man to his death.
Almost anything is possible including that perhaps no one on death row is guilty. Nevertheless, many states in the US appoint juries to decide guilt and based on that decision punishment is executed or at least it should be.
Of course I hope you never have to find out first hand how you would feel about the death penalty if one of your children were brutally murdered but I'll bet many have changed their minds when it happened to them.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll bet many have changed their minds when it happened to them.
I definately leave myself open to that possibility.
-
Our justice system doesnt rely on the emotions of the victims to determin justice. Nor should it. Most can understand why a victim may feel the way they do. But we arent going to look to then for justice.
In florida we had a case where a young black kid confessed to killing a tourist. He was also picked out in a line up by an eye witness.
He was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Guess what.........
He didnt do it. His confession was coerced and the eye witness was wrong.
Should he have been taken out and killed right after the jury of his peers found him guilty?
Theres too much room for error.
Remember that Demjanjuk guy? The Ukrainian Nazi that was supposedly "Ivan the Terrible". Numerous eye witness said he was the guy but it was proven he wasnt.
Things arent as clear cut, even when a jury rules. As terrible as an innocent man spending his life in prison its still a far cry better then being killed for a crime he didnt commit.
To say "well the jury ruled, off with head" overlooks the facts. Like mt said 102 death row inmates freed since 72. Thats over 3 per year.
-
Originally posted by narsus
Again, but it is ok to kill an unborn child. It just doesn't make sense.
Everyone who leans to the left here I will make you a deal. You guys support that an unborn child has the right to live and I will go against capital punishment.
Deal?
No. Sure the unborn children or fetuses that are not viable outside of the mother have a right to live, but those rights to not supercede the mother's right to self-determination of her body.
Capital punishment and abortion are two COMPLETELY different issues.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No. Sure the unborn children or fetuses that are not viable outside of the mother have a right to live, but those rights to not supercede the mother's right to self-determination of her body.
Capital punishment and abortion are two COMPLETELY different issues.
Now you've done it Pandora!
-
Originally posted by Wotan
To say "well the jury ruled, off with head" overlooks the facts. Like mt said 102 death row inmates freed since 72. Thats over 3 per year.
Off the top of my based on something I saw recently I'd say there are on average 15,000 muders a year committed in the US. Over 30 years that's approximately 450,000 murders. Wonder how many of those were brought to justice?
Sure, I wouldn't want to be the 1 in 4500 that may have been convicted wrongly but I'm willing to take that chance.
Yes, I took a lot of liberties with the numbers, sue me. :p
-
a better percentage would be to check how many were sentenced to death every year for 30 years.
This would show you the correct percentage of those sentenced to death who are not guilty (thats if we assume the 102 are all there were).
Not every murder conviction ends in a death sentence.
Even so are you happy if 1 innocent guy out of 450000 gets executed?
-
Originally posted by narsus
Again, but it is ok to kill an unborn child. It just doesn't make sense.
Everyone who leans to the left here I will make you a deal. You guys support that an unborn child has the right to live and I will go against capital punishment.
Deal?
not ok to kill unborn
ok to kill murder of innocent victims
the left, liberal, dems think its ok the kill one who can't defend him/herself but we can't kill someone who has had a shot at this world, blew it & took another life in the process
ya, we need more liberal judges, "justice" system
-
Eagler and narsus, you are bother forgetting that the woman has the right to determine what happens to HER body.
If they don't want to have the child while it is still not viable outside the uterus, what do you propose to do? Chain them up untill they deliver?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Eagler and narsus, you are bother forgetting that the woman has the right to determine what happens to HER body.
If they don't want to have the child while it is still not viable outside the uterus, what do you propose to do? Chain them up untill they deliver?
yep she had the RIGHT to keep the noodle out HER body
once ignition has fired the engine, it ain't her right to murder
just another step down the drain, one of many we've made in our "enlightened" society.
-
"Now I am not a huge zeolot in this debate, abortion when mothers life is threatened, rape, incest. (that is reasonable)"
Why is it reasonable to sentence the unborn child to death, because of the actions of a rapist? Is the child somehow to blame?
Why is reasonable to kill the unborn child to save the mother? Didn't the mother accept all the risks of childbirth when she decided to get pregnant? Is the child's life worth less than the mother's?
-
Interesting how guys can be so foot loose and fancy free with other women's bodies.
-
Originally posted by narsus
Thrawn "hey pot this is kettle your black"
How's that?
-
Quote:
"Our justice system doesnt rely on the emotions of the victims to determin justice. Nor should it. Most can understand why a victim may feel the way they do. But we arent going to look to then for justice."
That statement is totally in error. Ever heard of "Personal Injury" lawsuits?? And the testimony of the victim's and/or their survivor's suffering are part of the Judge's sentencing process........
Quote:
"No. Sure the unborn children or fetuses that are not viable outside of the mother have a right to live, but those rights to not supercede the mother's right to self-determination of her body."
That statement is obscene. It's an example of most extreme self-centeredness and callousness. Yes, "extreme" but what the Liberal-Left will have you believe is "normal" human behavior. It may indeed be "normal" for the society of the Spartans of ancient times or a pack of wolves in the Russian Steppes, but it is not "normal" for societies based on the principle that all life, especially innocent life, is precious.
But we know, of course, that with the Orwellian Left, that what they say is not what they mean.........
C.
-
Originally posted by narsus
killing children is messing with childrens bodies I would think, but hey silly me
Yeah I suppose, but you call them children I call them fetuses.
Would you call a zygote a child as well?
-
There goes Cabby and his obsession with the word "Left" again.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
There goes Cabby and his obsession with the word "Left" again.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Hmm, don't they count cadence in the military by saying, "left, left, left, right, left"?
I would be worried cabby...very worried.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Our justice system doesnt rely on the emotions of the victims to determin justice. Nor should it. Most can understand why a victim may feel the way they do. But we arent going to look to then for justice.
Not sure I agree with you here. We are all victims of every crime. Even if it's only our pocket book being robbed to support the prisons.
Everyone has emotions. Those emotions are a factor in how we decide to govern ourselves. There are no absolute universal laws, we emotional people make them and decide what is right and wrong.
-
Originally posted by narsus
Now I am not a huge zeolot in this debate, abortion when mothers life is threatened, rape, incest. (that is reasonable)
If someone doesn't want to have a child, DON'T HAVE SEX.
What !?! So you are opposed to abortion, see the fetus as a victim, yet you can condone the murder (your word) of a fetus because the mother was RAPED??? What is it about that perticular fetus that makes its life worth less than the life of a similar fetus? That its father was a rapist???
At least pro abortion people recognize there's a moment where life begins, either at conception or birth or somewhere in between, but even they recognize that once that state is reached it's murder to kill the child- even if the mother was raped. You are inconstient.
-
Ever heard of "Personal Injury" lawsuits?? And the testimony of the victim's and/or their survivor's suffering are part of the Judge's sentencing process........
Personal injury lawsuits are a civil matter.
The victim impact statement is a relatively a new creation. The judge and or jury arent bound to what the victim perscieves as justice. They are bound by sentencing guide lines in most cases. The victim impact statement is there to help the judge. The judge can take it into consideration as to what sentence he will hand out or ignore it all together.
Theres no eye for an eye.
AKIron...........
I was referring to those immediatly connected with the crimes of the defendant. Yes society is the ultimate victim of all crimes. Thats why we need to make sure as a society we dont create more victims by executing the wrong people.
-
Wotan, you are absolutely wrong. There are degrees of murder, there is a judgement of pre-meditation, kidnapping, etc., of the ways and means of the act of murder, and the very heinousness of a particular killing which have enormous bearing on the punishment meted out. If the emotional impact of murder is "ignored"(a ludicrous, chilling proposition)in determining "justice" why even bother at all with trying, convicting, and punishing criminals??
And what exactly is wrong with an "eye for eye" if it is used to assign a "punishment that fits the crime" in the metaphorical sense?? If a slime-ball rapes, tortures, and murders a child he should be hanged forthwith if the perp is convicted with evidence "beyond a shadow of doubt". I admit it is the kind of justice a simpering, hand-wringing weenie with no moral compass would run from. But it is the kind of a justice a man with a backbone and a sense of responsibility to society would demand.
D.M.F. :
Truth hurt??? If the shoe fits...........
C.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
At least pro abortion people recognize there's a moment where life begins, either at conception or birth or somewhere in between, but even they recognize that once that state is reached it's murder to kill the child- even if the mother was raped. You are inconstient.
I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
I know a few people that are pro-choice though.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
I know a few people that are pro-choice though.
Typical leftie technique. If you are troubled but some issue as immoral, just rename it to something else, and immediately you feel better.
The opposite of "pro-life" is "against-life = pro-death". Obviously this does not sound good fro the left. Who would want to be "pro-death".
But,... all you have to do is to redefine the terms and turn it into a
"pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice" debate. It sounds much better now, doesn't it. Who would want to be against-choice.
Works on anything:
progressive and confiscatory income taxes => fair share
wasteful spending on social programs => investment in our future
tobacco taxes => we have to do it for the children
-
Cabby I am right and you are wrong.
The circumstance of the murder and the charges that follow aere determined by the prosecuter and a grand jury.
Its within the judges discretion in making his ruling to consider all aspects of the crime. The victim impact statements may or may not be apart of the judges ruling.
The victims have no say it what the defendent is charged with nor do they have a say as to what the sentence will be.
The reason we have judges juries prosecuters and defense attorneys is to see to it that justice in served as a society. We dont turn over the accussed to the victims.
Victims Rights are a new thing that has risen up over the past 20 years or so. Victim Impact Statements only have as much influence as the judge or jury allow.
Theres is no eye for an eye. In most capital murder cases the verdict (either by jury or by plea) is something other then the death penalty.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Typical leftie technique. If you are troubled but some issue as immoral, just rename it to something else, and immediately you feel better.
The opposite of "pro-life" is "against-life = pro-death". Obviously this does not sound good fro the left. Who would want to be "pro-death".
Yadda.. yadda yadda... You want to polarize the issue using your terms. We aren't playing.
WRONG. This is a personal decision. I believe it is a woman's right to do whatever she likes with her body... because it's HER body. It's not mine. It's not yours. Ultimate authority over one's body belongs to the person.
Hence... pro-choice... If you're a woman who is against abortion, you can exist in a pro-choice world.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
D.M.F. :
Truth hurt??? If the shoe fits...........
If the shoe fits? Stop being such a simpleton. You have no idea about my political affiliations or ideological leanings, and if you guessed you probably would guess incorrectly.
What I can't abide is this constant torrent of mouth-foaming "Lefty" this or "Lefty liberal" that or "Orwellian Left" or "Ultra-Liberal Left." Please. What's funny is that few of the liberals I see here rarely paint conservatives with such colorful and imbecilic phrases. And if they did, they'd sound just as stupid as you do.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion.
I know a few people that are pro-choice though.
call it what you want ...
you end up with the same thing in the trash can :(
-
Todd/Leviathn you Trotskyite traitor!
If you ever spoke the truth, you would choke on its unfamiliarity!
I can't believe someone who used to be so intelligent has become such a totally misguided, unpatriotic traitor to the motherland!
You evil attempt to undermine and destroy our perfect society has been noted and will be dealt with, I assure you! We will bury you! Literally!
(So, how'd I do? :D )
-
Quote:
"You have no idea about my political affiliations or ideological leanings, and if you guessed you probably would guess incorrectly. "
I'll make it as clear as i can for you, as i know "brilliant", discriminating people such as yourself have trouble understanding plain speech:
I don't give a hoot in hell what your "politcal affiliations" are. Didn't "guess" 'em either. Though your strong reaction is kind of a "red flag", you might say. But i gave it about as much thought as you gave any of your "insightful", and deeply-felt "opinions" i bothered to read here.
Oh, one other thing. I think the term "Orwellian Left" fits perfectly. If you don't like it, tough toejam. Clear enough??
C.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
I'll make it as clear as i can for you, as i know "brilliant", discriminating people such as yourself have trouble understanding plain speech:
[/B]
Plain speech? More like inane platitudes, as usual. I wonder if you've had an original thought in your life.
I don't give a hoot in hell what your "politcal affiliations" are. Didn't "guess" 'em either. Though your strong reaction is kind of a "red flag", you might say. But i gave it about as much thought as you gave any of your "insightful", and deeply-felt "opinions" i bothered to read here.
[/B]
You should care what my political affiliations are, since you attacked me based on an obvious misperception about them. And, well, that just makes you look dumb(er). That you wouldn't care regardless doesn't surprise me.
My strong reaction has more to do with your obviously simple world view than it has to do with your political or ideological leanings. I know many brilliant and well-spoken conservatives who don't resort to painting those with whom they disagree with a broad and inappropriate brush. You remind me of Boroda in your incessant need to belittle the people rather than the ideas you oppose, Comrade Cabby.
Oh, one other thing. I think the term "Orwellian Left" fits perfectly. If you don't like it, tough toejam. Clear enough??
Oh, that's an argument winner right there. LOL! Do you know what Orwell's political affiliation was? Do you know what 1984 was about? How do you reconcile the two?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Eagler
call it what you want ...
you end up with the same thing in the trash can :(
Life is hard.
If it helps you sleep... consider it all part of God's plan.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Todd/Leviathn you Trotskyite traitor!
If you ever spoke the truth, you would choke on its unfamiliarity!
I can't believe someone who used to be so intelligent has become such a totally misguided, unpatriotic traitor to the motherland!
You evil attempt to undermine and destroy our perfect society has been noted and will be dealt with, I assure you! We will bury you! Literally!
(So, how'd I do? :D )
You did good, Toad, but you need to use more caps and explination points. And angry faces- you forgot the angry faces!! AGGGHHHH I HATE it when you forget the angry faces!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yadda.. yadda yadda... You want to polarize the issue using your terms. We aren't playing.
WRONG. This is a personal decision. I believe it is a woman's right to do whatever she likes with her body... because it's HER body. It's not mine. It's not yours. Ultimate authority over one's body belongs to the person.
Hence... pro-choice... If you're a woman who is against abortion, you can exist in a pro-choice world.
You just made my point. You were offered probably the most honest definition of the debate...
pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion
both sides know exactly what the final result of the abortion is. If you feel so strongly about your position, you should be able to admit that you are for abortion being legal (with its all consequences) and availabe to every woman for the asking.
Obviously you feel unconfortable with calling things by their names, thus the "pro-choice" and "fetus is not a human being" escape.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
I'll make it as clear as i can for you, as i know "brilliant", discriminating people such as yourself have trouble understanding plain speech:
I don't give a hoot in hell what your "politcal affiliations" are. Didn't "guess" 'em either. Though your strong reaction is kind of a "red flag", you might say. But i gave it about as much thought as you gave any of your "insightful", and deeply-felt "opinions" i bothered to read here.
Oh, one other thing. I think the term "Orwellian Left" fits perfectly. If you don't like it, tough toejam. Clear enough??
C.
Did anyone else picture Dr. Evil doing the LASER BEAM speech?
-
Originally posted by mietla
You just made my point. You were offered probably the most honest definition of the debate...
pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion
both sides know exactly what the final result of the abortion is. If you feel so strongly about your position, you should be able to admit that you are for abortion being legal (with its all consequences) and availabe to every woman for the asking.
Obviously you feel unconfortable with calling things by their names, thus the "pro-choice" and "fetus is not a human being" escape.
Like I said... I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion so the terms of your argument are not applicable.
I absolutely support a woman's right to choose abortion. This is not the same thing as saying I'm pro-abortion.
It means it's none of my business. It means that I don't want the government telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their own body.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You just made my point. You were offered probably the most honest definition of the debate...
pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion
*Sigh*
No it's not. Pro-abortion implies that someone is for abortions, just for the sake of abortion, and that's pretty stupid as that's not what the pro-choice people fight for. What pro-choice people fight for is the right of the woman to decide wether or not she want's an abortion.
To use your logic, pro-choice and anti-choice would be just as good. Because hey, we both no that libs want to give woman choice and conservatives want to take that away. Leave it to a conservative to try and change the labels when they don't suit him. :rolleyes:
-
If women were in charge, the Abortion issue would n't be an issue.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If women were in charge, the Abortion issue would n't be an issue.
What makes you think they're not? ;)
-
And on a more personal note. Where the hell do you guys get off trying to inforce your will on my wifes body?
Cripes, that's the problem with conservatives, always trying meddle in other peoples affairs.
You don't want government intervention unless it suits you. What hypocracy.
-
Shush... I don't think they know it yet... :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Pro-abortion implies that someone is for abortions, just for the sake of abortion, and that's pretty stupid as that's not what the pro-choice people fight for. What pro-choice people fight for is the right of the woman to decide wether or not she want's an abortion.
That is just a window dressing. I don't want to get into the abortion discussion itself. All I'm trying to do, is to point out that the pro-abortion forces want to make their position more palatable by redefining terms, shifting the focus of a debate and omitting a significant portion of their agenda.
You say, let a woman "choose". In reality, you want much more. You want abortion to be not only legal, but also:
- available to any woman at any time for any (or no) reason
- to be free (thus forcing abortion oponents to finance it)
- to be advertised/encouraged by the doctors
- to be available to minors without their parents consent (or even knowledge)
- made available and free for women in other countries (paid of course by the US taxpayer)
- available to the woman even AFTER pregnacy ends (late term abortion).
In short, the pro-abortion stance is to use it as a birth control.
I can respect your position, but be honest and call things by their names.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
And on a more personal note. Where the hell do you guys get off trying to inforce your will on my wifes body?
The twist is that although a woman's body is clearly involved and significantly affected, it is not her life that ends.
Again, I understand your position, but don't hide behind the "choice" and/or "keep the government out of my life" facade.
-
never mind. I clicked Quote button instead of Edit.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Again, I understand your position, but don't hide behind the "choice" and/or "keep the government out of my life" facade.
It's not hiding. It's my belief that a woman's right to chose is more important then the non-viable fetus's.
Don't hide behind some BS, "It's about the children." facade. How many crack babies have you adopted recently?
-
Originally posted by mietla
That is just a window dressing. I don't want to get into the abortion discussion itself. All I'm trying to do, is to point out that the pro-abortion forces want to make their position more palatable by redefining terms, shifting the focus of a debate and omitting a significant portion of their agenda.
You say, let a woman "choose". In reality, you want much more. You want abortion to be not only legal, but also:
- available to any woman at any time for any (or no) reason
- to be free (thus forcing abortion oponents to finance it)
- to be advertised/encouraged by the doctors
- to be available to minors without their parents consent (or even knowledge)
- made available and free for women in other countries (paid of course by the US taxpayer)
- available to the woman even AFTER pregnacy ends (late term abortion).
In short, the pro-abortion stance is to use it as a birth control.
I can respect your position, but be honest and call things by their names.
Not only that, I'm for retroactive abortion.
The next time my son leaves his dirty socks on the sofa, he's done.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's not hiding. It's my belief that a woman's right to chose is more important then the non-viable fetus's.
You are scaling down. Obviously endangered life of a viable woman vs. life of un-viable fetus. It sure makes a clear-cut case.
Would you care to state your position on the rest of the agenda?
- available to any woman at any time for any (or no) reason
- to be free (thus forcing abortion oponents to finance it)
- to be advertised/encouraged by the doctors
- to be available to minors without their parents consent (or even knowledge)
- made available and free for women in other countries (paid of course by the US taxpayer)
- available to the woman even AFTER pregnacy ends (late term abortion).
Be honest! If you are not, you are risking winding up dangerously close to my position on the issue.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You are scaling down. Obviously endangered life of a viable woman vs. life of un-viable fetus.
It's what I stated all along.
- available to any woman at any time for any (or no) reason / Yes during the the first five months of pregnancy.
- to be free (thus forcing abortion oponents to finance it) / Sure, I'm used to paying for universal health care.
- to be advertised/encouraged by the doctors / No. Advised, yes.
- to be available to minors without their parents consent (or even knowledge) / Yes to without consent, I have to think about the knowledge issue some more.
- made available and free for women in other countries (paid of course by the US taxpayer) / I don't care if a US taxpayer has to pay for someones abortion. I wouldn't want to pay as a Canadian taxpayer though.
- available to the woman even AFTER pregnancy ends (late term abortion). Hells no to late term abortion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Don't hide behind some BS, "It's about the children." facade.
Nah, that a Hillary-esk gunk. It's about who can decide to terminate a human life (and what IS a human life) and for what reason.
Always?
Never?
Depends?
How do you justify it?
Is abortion different than a death penalty?
When does a human life begin?
They are all profound questions, and I do not pretend to have a "clear/right" answer. In fact, I know, I do not know the right answer. The "depends" (the least clear answer seems the safest to be honest).
You on the other hand seem to be very clear on that. Just let the person who benefits from killing choose.
Would you allow the family of a murder victim decide the murderer's fate by giving them the "right to choose"?
How many crack babies have you adopted recently?
As you expected... None.
BTW, you are not saying that but aborting these babies, we are doing them "a favor" but not sentencing them to a cruel and miserable life, do you?
You are changing a tune here. From a lofty "right to choose" you are switching to a pragmatic "is it worth it/who's going to pay for it". Be careful!
Who needs mentally ill?
Who really needs elderly people?
Who needs homeless?
-
BTW, don't misunderstand my previous post as an attempt to call you Nazi. Normally, I would never thought that my post can be misconstrued, but an those BBs you never know.
I'm not attacking you personally (leave alone calling you names). My point is that once we accept a pragmatic "who's going to pay for this" and "what is a definition of a human" as a criteria for who is allowed to live and who dies, we are on a very steep slippery slope.
-
Paranoia is such terrible afflication, isn't it Cabby?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Life is hard.
If it helps you sleep... consider it all part of God's plan.
huh?
murdering babies help you sleep?
-
Originally posted by mietla
BTW, don't misunderstand my previous post as an attempt to call you Nazi. Normally, I would never thought that my post can be misconstrued, but an those BBs you never know.
I'm not attacking you personally (leave alone calling you names). My point is that once we accept a pragmatic "who's going to pay for this" and "what is a definition of a human" as a criteria for who is allowed to live and who dies, we are on a very steep slippery slope.
What slope?
Leave the decision to the woman with the womb.
Oh... and the late term abortion thing... that's just a subject that gets thrown into the mix to polarize and politicize the argument. Most (if not all) late term abortions are done when the woman's life is at risk. The decision is not made lightly. It shouldn't be an issue at all.
-
I get it... you want to take your beliefs from the myopic viewpoint of your life and apply them to everyone else regardless of their experience or beliefs.
As if your perception of reality is the only one that matters...