IMDTY

Your this..... No....... Your that........ It's tiring, trivial, and mundane. Lowest form of discourse. If that's your thing. Have at it. I tried to have a civil conversation, or as much as one can have on this topic.

(11-09-2011 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  IMDTY

Your this..... No....... Your that........ It's tiring, trivial, and mundane. Lowest form of discourse. If that's your thing. Have at it. I tried to have a civil conversation, or as much as one can have on this topic.

Mach,

Not trying to be rude, I hoipe you see that... But seriously defense of Abortion law almost always hinges on 'hard cases' to defend a bad law..

Bull,

I don't think you're being rude at all. I also believe that's what I am defending, the hard cases that get swept up in the rhetoric.

(11-09-2011 02:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bull,

I don't think you're being rude at all. I also believe that's what I am defending, the hard cases that get swept up in the rhetoric.

You write laws to core 95% of the cases, you hire judges to take care of the other 5%..

I don't think anyone here will say "Well if a woman has cancer she should be forced to carry to term"... Nor would any Judge.

(11-09-2011 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  IMDTY

Your this..... No....... Your that........ It's tiring, trivial, and mundane. Lowest form of discourse. If that's your thing. Have at it. I tried to have a civil conversation, or as much as one can have on this topic.

Can't take your own medicine I see. At least you admit by your lack of a response that you can't respond to my agruments with an intelligent retort. You're boring and intellectually lazy.

(11-09-2011 02:21 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  IMDTY

Your this..... No....... Your that........ It's tiring, trivial, and mundane. Lowest form of discourse. If that's your thing. Have at it. I tried to have a civil conversation, or as much as one can have on this topic.

Can't take your own medicine I see. At least you admit by your lack of a response that you can't respond to my agruments with an intelligent retort. You're boring and intellectually lazy.

That's Mach. He regularly name calls, goads, chides, demeans, insults... and then gets on his high horse and demands the mods stop others from doing the same. I can take all the above just fine - I do it myself. It's his do as I say, not as I do, whining like a ***** that has made him lots of enemies here. Heck, he insists on calling you IMDTY. He's assuredly not calling you darling. My guess would be dick. But he strives for the highest level of discourse.

(11-09-2011 09:02 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  In your infinite medical expertise when would you say life begins? At what stage is it considered murder? And I expect you to render your opinion and not cut and paste from the traditional pro-abortion websites. How long must a child survive before its illegal to throw it in the dumpster? How do you feel about new borns being murdered? How is that different? Neither have any cognitive function. Please explain why you're against life.

How quaint for somebody who is "pro-life" to be against in vitro fertilization for people who WANT babies but can't have them. Because make no mistake, this Mississippi provision would have made in vitro illegal. Are you going to complete the hypocrisy by also being one of those "pro-life"ers for the death penalty too?

For me, it becomes a human life when the brain begins forming. I think, therefore I am. This is approximately 6-7 weeks after fertilization. Long enough for any responsible* people to notice a little visitor is missing.

* Expecting in advance somebody to say herp derp derp how can they be responsible if they got pregnant when they didn't want to be. Protip: condoms break, birth control aint 100%, and even vasectomies aren't 100%.

(11-09-2011 08:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  How quaint for somebody who is "pro-life" to be against in vitro fertilization for people who WANT babies but can't have them. Because make no mistake, this Mississippi provision would have made in vitro illegal. Are you going to complete the hypocrisy by also being one of those "pro-life"ers for the death penalty too?

For me, it becomes a human life when the brain begins forming. I think, therefore I am. This is approximately 6-7 weeks after fertilization. Long enough for any responsible* people to notice a little visitor is missing.

* Expecting in advance somebody to say herp derp derp how can they be responsible if they got pregnant when they didn't want to be. Protip: condoms break, birth control aint 100%, and even vasectomies aren't 100%.

LOL

I am not against invitro but, for the sake of argument, would it be bad if folks who could not have kids... well... adopted? As the son of someone who was adopted I can tell you it works out pretty well most times.

Secondly there is *no* hypocrisy between due process to execute a convicted murderer and *no* process to kill a child thats not committed a crime. You might disagree on the 'personhood' of an unborn child but you disagreeing with me does *not* make me a hypocrite.

The Brain begins forming in week two, from the spinal column up, and is generally considered functional by week 5, that would be about a week or two past the expected period.

(11-09-2011 09:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I am not against invitro but, for the sake of argument, would it be bad if folks who could not have kids... well... adopted?

Some women want to have the child birthing experience.

And for me to take you seriously on the adoption front... are you in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt?

(11-09-2011 09:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Secondly there is *no* hypocrisy between due process to execute a convicted murderer and *no* process to kill a child thats not committed a crime. You might disagree on the 'personhood' of an unborn child but you disagreeing with me does *not* make me a hypocrite.

Do you believe the conviction rate on death row is 100%? Because it isn't. People on death row are exonerated all the time. There are even cases where all the witnesses said they lied ... and the prosecutors later admitted they knowingly had the wrong person but had them sentenced to death successfully.

If you're gung ho for protecting innocent life, I don't see how you can be for the death penalty except in cases of direct (e.g. video) indisputable evidence.

(11-09-2011 08:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 09:02 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  In your infinite medical expertise when would you say life begins? At what stage is it considered murder? And I expect you to render your opinion and not cut and paste from the traditional pro-abortion websites. How long must a child survive before its illegal to throw it in the dumpster? How do you feel about new borns being murdered? How is that different? Neither have any cognitive function. Please explain why you're against life.

How quaint for somebody who is "pro-life" to be against in vitro fertilization for people who WANT babies but can't have them. Because make no mistake, this Mississippi provision would have made in vitro illegal. Are you going to complete the hypocrisy by also being one of those "pro-life"ers for the death penalty too?

For me, it becomes a human life when the brain begins forming. I think, therefore I am. This is approximately 6-7 weeks after fertilization. Long enough for any responsible* people to notice a little visitor is missing.

* Expecting in advance somebody to say herp derp derp how can they be responsible if they got pregnant when they didn't want to be. Protip: condoms break, birth control aint 100%, and even vasectomies aren't 100%.

After reading what I posted I don't see anywhere that I said I was against IVF? Where did that come from? I don't know what was in the bill in Mississippi (I realize that was the thread topic). I was making an agrument against abortion. And there is a difference in killing an adult found guilty of the MOST HEINOUS crimes and aborting the life of an innocent child when there is no risk to the mother or child. Surely you see the difference? Maybe not though...aren't you the one who thinks its ok to shoot heroin in your home because its the same as coffee? And to your last point. You acknowledge then that there is always some risk in getting pregnant when having even protected sex? Acknowledging this risk how can one justify not taking responsibility for ones actions?

(11-10-2011 02:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 09:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I am not against invitro but, for the sake of argument, would it be bad if folks who could not have kids... well... adopted?

Some women want to have the child birthing experience.

And for me to take you seriously on the adoption front... are you in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt?

Actually, yes I am. There isn't anything more than circumstantial evidence that gay parents don't make great parents. Adoption is a noble gesture and one that benefits both the adoptive parents and child.

(11-10-2011 02:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 09:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Secondly there is *no* hypocrisy between due process to execute a convicted murderer and *no* process to kill a child thats not committed a crime. You might disagree on the 'personhood' of an unborn child but you disagreeing with me does *not* make me a hypocrite.

Do you believe the conviction rate on death row is 100%? Because it isn't. People on death row are exonerated all the time. There are even cases where all the witnesses said they lied ... and the prosecutors later admitted they knowingly had the wrong person but had them sentenced to death successfully.

If you're gung ho for protecting innocent life, I don't see how you can be for the death penalty except in cases of direct (e.g. video) indisputable evidence.

Please cite references that this happens ALL THE TIME. I think I saw a stat somehwhere stating it happens maybe 1-2% of the time. If you find something different I would be glad to read it. Not being argumentative just wondering what the stats actually say.

(11-10-2011 08:48 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Please cite references that this happens ALL THE TIME. I think I saw a stat somehwhere stating it happens maybe 1-2% of the time. If you find something different I would be glad to read it. Not being argumentative just wondering what the stats actually say.

Estimates I remember reading in Reason were around 5%. Percentages are tricky beasts. Five percent doesn't sound like that many. Until you realize given the number of people on death row, that's hundreds maybe even THOUSANDS of people. And those are just the ones we know about. It's just a straight up fact that we have killed, are killing, and will kill scores of innocent people in this country. Ergo, you can't possibly expect me to take seriously a pro-lifer who is for the death penalty.

(11-10-2011 09:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-10-2011 08:48 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Please cite references that this happens ALL THE TIME. I think I saw a stat somehwhere stating it happens maybe 1-2% of the time. If you find something different I would be glad to read it. Not being argumentative just wondering what the stats actually say.

Estimates I remember reading in Reason were around 5%. Percentages are tricky beasts. Five percent doesn't sound like that many. Until you realize given the number of people on death row, that's hundreds maybe even THOUSANDS of people. And those are just the ones we know about. It's just a straight up fact that we have killed, are killing, and will kill scores of innocent people in this country. Ergo, you can't possibly expect me to take seriously a pro-lifer who is for the death penalty.

Interesting Sheet

I can't get the image to post so here is a link.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

And the death penalty takes years to carry out and who knows how many appeals. Its not like the sentence is handed down, they're carried out back and shot. There are mechanisms in place to help avoid executing innocent men/women. Full proof no but a FAR better system than abortion which involves murdering an INNOCENT child...IMO.

(11-10-2011 09:24 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  And the death penalty takes years to carry out and who knows how many appeals. Its not like the sentence is handed down, they're carried out back and shot. There are mechanisms in place to help avoid executing innocent men/women. Full proof no but a FAR better system than abortion which involves murdering an INNOCENT child...IMO.

Actually in Texas if three credible witnesses say you did it, you go straight to the front of the line. And we know from previous exonerations, witness aren't even close to 100%.

I don't see the gray if you call yourself a pro-lifer. If you are for defending innocent life, you flatly cannot be for the death penalty except in cases of direct indisputable (again, like video...) evidence.

Total Number of Death Row Inmates as of January 1, 2011: 3,251
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-ro...h-row-year

Quote:Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 1266 men, women, children, and mentally ill people have been shot, hanged, asphyxiated, lethally injected, and electrocuted by States and the federal government.

Quote:For every eight people executed in this country, one innocent person on death row has been identified and exonerated.

So somewhere around 160 have been exonerated since '76.
http://www.eji.org/eji/deathpenalty

I will never understand how someone can be fine with abortion and adamantly opposed to the death penalty.

(11-09-2011 08:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 09:02 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  In your infinite medical expertise when would you say life begins? At what stage is it considered murder? And I expect you to render your opinion and not cut and paste from the traditional pro-abortion websites. How long must a child survive before its illegal to throw it in the dumpster? How do you feel about new borns being murdered? How is that different? Neither have any cognitive function. Please explain why you're against life.

How quaint for somebody who is "pro-life" to be against in vitro fertilization for people who WANT babies but can't have them.

You're avoiding the real issue w/ opposition to IVF.

(11-10-2011 09:27 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I will never understand how someone can be fine with abortion and adamantly opposed to the death penalty.

Allow me to explain.

First ... it involves more than just one person here. What if the pregnancy would surely lead to the death of the mother if carried out? How does one be pro-life when both choices are death? The logical decision is the abortion, as the mother can conceive again.

Then there is the compassionate angle. There are genetic defects which will, with 100% certainty, guarantee early mortality, and often in rather unpleasant ways. I realize there may be some "never pull the plug on any spaghetti monster living off tubes" type people here ... but for me in cases of clear indisputable mortality, it is better to die with dignity and without pain than to prolong pointless agony and create a further draining experience.

Beyond that ... when do you define it as a human being? I flatly don't buy upon fertilization. Sorry, I've had too many Biology classes. The zygote has the POTENTIAL to be a human being, but isn't a human being upon fertilization. It is unclear when a zygote constitutes a human life. That's a decision everyone sort of has to make for themselves. What defines humanity to you? To me the essence of our humanity is cognition. Therefore, for me, it becomes human when the brain forms. (I think, therefore I am.)

It is however, by stark contrast, always crystal clear when somebody up for the death penalty constitutes a human life.