Abortion is acceptable, but..

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Further said:
I was pro death penalty until I had to write a paper on the subject a while ago. In researching I just found that there are too many people convicted who later turn out to be innocent. If we could correct for that issue, I would be perfectly fine with the death penalty. I personally have no issues with people who commit heinous crimes being put to death, but I do have a problem with a severely flawed system being asked to determine who is and isn't guilty.

Still there are two other big problems with the death penalty, the racially biased sentencing and the excessive cost, but in both of those if the original problem I had were corrected I feel we could work on these other two problems. But until we can have proof positive that the guilty are in fact guilty, I would rather not execute a sentence that can't be retracted if more information is gained.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you will ever obtain that. Beyond a reasonable doubt by the trier of facts is about the closest you can get to that. the system is flawed, but unless we go to big brother tactics, how do you have proof positive that guilty verdicts are in fact guilty? Sounds like you want a beyond all doubt standard?
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Not sure how you will ever obtain that. Beyond a reasonable doubt by the trier of facts is about the closest you can get to that. the system is flawed, but unless we go to big brother tactics, how do you have proof positive that guilty verdicts are in fact guilty? Sounds like you want a beyond all doubt standard?
Click to expand...

Which I know is completely unreasonable, and the reason I am anti-death penalty. I think there is a decent chance that there will be new methods in the future that make it more and more unlikely that we nab the wrong person, and if that continues we may get to a point that it's basically beyond all doubt, but right now we are still turning over cases frequently. True fmri lie detectors are not quite there yet, but they are getting much closer. DNA evidence is already being used in many trials. If the death penalty can't be sought unless there are several different types of very specific criteria of evidence with high likelihood of being correct, then I could come around. The more we can rely on methods like that and not on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence the more comfortable I will be at accepting the death penalty. But right now, we just aren't there yet.
 
Last edited:
magnifier661 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing

And while you are trying to use another "straw man", lets take it to another level shall we? So when we were defending ourselves from attack from Germany, was it against the laws of the United States to bomb the city of Berlin?

Oh and P.S. Osama wasn't an American Citizen, so he has no "civil rights"
Click to expand...

nazi reference. :lol:

There's no targeted killing going on.
 
magnifier661 said:
You are the one talking about target killing Osama. Obviously your strawman was off.
Click to expand...

I made no strawman. I gave an example of a killing that is justified. MarAzul said none was, then changed his tune.

So abortion is justified for a similar reason. You'll figure it out one of these days.
 
Denny Crane said:
I made no strawman. I gave an example of a killing that is justified. MarAzul said none was, then changed his tune.

So abortion is justified for a similar reason. You'll figure it out one of these days.
Click to expand...

No you said we killed Obama without due process and it was wrong. I told you that it was right because it was a targeted assassination in defense. Then you went all weirdo and tried to cover the constitution when Obama would not fall in those rights, since he isn't American.
 
magnifier661 said:
No you said we killed Obama without due process and it was wrong. I told you that it was right because it was a targeted assassination in defense. Then you went all weirdo and tried to cover the constitution when Obama would not fall in those rights, since he isn't American.
Click to expand...

Abortion is self defense. Get it? Justified.

Obama is alive and well . I said the Navy Seals killed. Period.
 
Denny Crane said:
Abortion is self defense. Get it? Justified.

Obama is alive and well . I said the Navy Seals killed. Period.
Click to expand...

Weird wasn't it you that said in the constitution how all life has a right to live? Then used my target killings to justify self defense... You are a confused soul...

Obama, Osama, same difference....
 
magnifier661 said:
Weird wasn't it you that said in the constitution how all life has a right to live? Then used my target killings to justify self defense... You are a confused soul...

Obama, Osama, same difference....
Click to expand...

I said no such thing, nor wrote it.

The constitution provides for loss of life, liberty, or property with due process. Roe v Wade was due process.
 
Denny Crane said:
I made no strawman. I gave an example of a killing that is justified. MarAzul said none was, then changed his tune.

So abortion is justified for a similar reason. You'll figure it out one of these days.
Click to expand...

Naw, You need to re read what I said, you are confused.
 
Denny Crane said:
I said no such thing, nor wrote it.

The constitution provides for loss of life, liberty, or property with due process. Roe v Wade was due process.
Click to expand...

Due process is case by case for individuals. Roe vs Wade is some sort of class action rule to condemn unwanted innocents infants and deprive them of the right to life as endowed by the creator. Even Caesar has no right to ignore that right by a class action such as Roe vs Wade.
 
MarAzul said:
Due process is case by case for individuals. Roe vs Wade is some sort of class action rule to condemn unwanted innocents infants and deprive them of the right to life as endowed by the creator. Even Caesar has no right to ignore that right by a class action such as Roe vs Wade.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. Class action is due process.

Abortion is self defense. It is justified.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
I was listening to NPR today. They were talking pro abortion.
Click to expand...

I'm calling bullshit on this right here until you produce the exact program. Which you won't.

DaLincolnJones said:
Later in the day they were anti death penalty.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Now it's just obviously a troll. Like you could last listening to NPR for most of a day. Or even twice.

This reminds me of when I'd just left grad school and one of our old professors who'd just become chair of the department emailed me asking if I'd seen an email specifically about the department circulating nationwide. I said no at the time, but a week later a secretary at the place I was then working circulated it on the grounds that she thought that it was "inspiring". Oh, and in fact, here it is. It was such obvious bullshit (for one thing, the only guy who taught in a lecture hall that fit the description was an ordained minister) but it was worrying parents and he was getting a lot of shit about it. (He said that he told them "any faculty member of mine would have said "best two out of three"!" but that didn't seem to reassure them.) So he tracked it to its source. After a lot of hemming and hawing the guy admitted that it wasn't true. "But" he said "it has RELIGIOUS truth!" Maybe that's what your story about NPR has.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I'm calling bullshit on this right here until you produce the exact program. Which you won't.



Oh, okay. Now it's just obviously a troll. Like you could last listening to NPR for most of a day. Or even twice.

This reminds me of when I'd just left grad school and one of our old professors who'd just become chair of the department emailed me asking if I'd seen an email specifically about the department circulating nationwide. I said no at the time, but a week later a secretary at the place I was then working circulated it on the grounds that she thought that it was "inspiring". Oh, and in fact, here it is. It was such obvious bullshit (for one thing, the only guy who taught in a lecture hall that fit the description was an ordained minister) but it was worrying parents and he was getting a lot of shit about it. (He said that he told them "any faculty member of mine would have said "best two out of three"!" but that didn't seem to reassure them.) So he tracked it to its source. After a lot of hemming and hawing the guy admitted that it wasn't true. "But" he said "it has RELIGIOUS truth!" Maybe that's what your story about NPR has.
Click to expand...

Do you think NPR was offering a program suggesting abortion of children is misguided?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I'm calling bullshit on this right here until you produce the exact program. Which you won't.



Oh, okay. Now it's just obviously a troll. Like you could last listening to NPR for most of a day. Or even twice.

This reminds me of when I'd just left grad school and one of our old professors who'd just become chair of the department emailed me asking if I'd seen an email specifically about the department circulating nationwide. I said no at the time, but a week later a secretary at the place I was then working circulated it on the grounds that she thought that it was "inspiring". Oh, and in fact, here it is. It was such obvious bullshit (for one thing, the only guy who taught in a lecture hall that fit the description was an ordained minister) but it was worrying parents and he was getting a lot of shit about it. (He said that he told them "any faculty member of mine would have said "best two out of three"!" but that didn't seem to reassure them.) So he tracked it to its source. After a lot of hemming and hawing the guy admitted that it wasn't true. "But" he said "it has RELIGIOUS truth!" Maybe that's what your story about NPR has.
Click to expand...

First off, you have zero importance to me, but I do not respond well to being called a liar. 103.1 is the only station I listen to, so fuck you and your smug tone. The first program I made reference to was explained somewhere in this mess, but for your simple ass mind I will again refer to the program. They were talking about how unfair the new laws in Texas were in regards to abortion clinics, how some of the regulation, like requiring that the Attending physician have admitting privileges to a hospital within thirty miles was unreasonable etc. As far as providing a link, you have enough information to find it your self.

The second program I made reference to was on the same day, and as stated. It was the first in a series of several on the death penalty and haw cruel it was. The second the next day covered the different drugs used for lethal injection, and shortages of the originally approved drugs. How the replacement drugs were in the opinion of the author of the piece, an painful evil way to murder someone..based on speculation the he thought that the person suffered because they did not fall asleep as fast...

Both stories had the tone as I have stated. My question was in earnest, well thought out and fairly asked, not a troll question.

And again, fuck you and your smug attitude, I am no liar and I resent like hell you accusing me of being one. I do not respond to any one on here in any manor that I would not speak to them in person. I extend that honor to you, any time you would like to call me a liar.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
I was listening to NPR today. They were talking pro abortion. Later in the day they were anti death penalty. I am so confused. So its fine to kill innocent un born children, but convicted killers are off limits?

Can someone explain this mind set to me?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying different people on different programs have opinions that you consider incompatible with each other?

Do you think NPR should somehow police the opinions offered on their all their shows to make sure they fit your idea of consistency?

Not seeing the beef here.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying different people on different programs have opinions that you consider incompatible with each other?

Do you think NPR should somehow police the opinions offered on their all their shows to make sure they fit your idea of consistency?

Not seeing the beef here.

barfo
Click to expand...

Fair question I suppose..I tend to listen the most during drive time, and they do tend to recycle the same few hosts during these times. I am not entirely sure that it was a different host. Even so, these guys for the most part are in lockstep as far as social attitudes.

Really, no beef. Police the opinions? Now that is funny. The policing done on NPR/OPB is done by the hosts, from what I have seen.

My idea of consistency? Hmm, what is your idea in these regards? I feel that these subjects would by the very nature of each topic, be at odds. What say you?
 
DaLincolnJones said:
My idea of consistency? Hmm, what is your idea in these regards? I feel that these subjects would by the very nature of each topic, be at odds. What say you?
Click to expand...

I guess I see them as different subjects, and neither one primarily related to 'killing'. Death penalty is about justice, abortion is about whether someone is going to have a rugrat or not. I don't think it is necessary to have a 'consistent' opinion on those two subjects (although I do, as posted earlier in the thread).

barfo
 
If you are an anti-abortion male, wear a condom.

As a male who can't be impregnated, that should be the extent of your activism.
 
magnifier661 said:
It's pretty dumb. It's like the conversation I had with a tree hugger about being vegan because it murders animals, then I notice her wearing a leather belt and leather shoes.
Click to expand...

True Vegans don't wear leather. Emily Deschanel is a Vegan. We offered her a seat in our chair at our apartment and she declined saying "it's leather."
 
KingSpeed said:
True Vegans don't wear leather. Emily Deschanel is a Vegan. We offered her a seat in our chair at our apartment and she declined saying "it's leather."
Click to expand...

That seems extremely rude and pretentious. Did she stand in a corner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magnifier661
Richard Dawkins: Natural Selection?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
julius
julius
SlyPokerDog
Politics Alabama executes Nathaniel Woods for slaying of 3 cops
Replies
21
Views
793
crandc
crandc
SlyPokerDog
Jailed but Innocent: Record Number of People Exonerated in 2015
Replies
0
Views
236
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Denny Crane
AP sources: Dems reach deal to drop gov't-run plan
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
5K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
BrianFromWA
If not us, who?
2 3
Replies
80
Views
4K
MARIS61
MARIS61

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top