How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty at the same time?

[Shakadoodoo]

Just saying.... - You should call it Pro-Like - Pro whatever you like.

[C&CDean]

Because some people deserve to be eliminated for what they do to others, and some people are completely innocent, didn't even ask to be conceived, and simply due to the selfishness of their POS mother are eliminated. Apples/Oranges.

Also, it's going to the Oblama board.

[olevetonahill]

Just saying.... - You should call it Pro-Like - Pro whatever you like.

Will try to answer that. Im against the DP in most cases anymore . Exceptions are the likes of T.M. and those who admitted terrible crimes . Kill em in a heart beat

But any way

A pro lifer is anti abortion if Im correct they want to Protect an INNOCENT life
Where as those that are Pro DP want to end a Guilty life

[Shakadoodoo]

Many people that are on DP are not actually guilty - DNA evidence has proven this time and time again - how does one justify that?

[hawaii 5-0]

I see a difference as well.

You can be antiabortion as well as support the death penalty.

5-0

[Shakadoodoo]

Pro-life = Pro-life - correct?

[Turd_Ferguson]

And this doodoo teaches kids? Wow.

[hawaii 5-0]

Pro-life = Pro-life - correct?



I call myself pro-choice.

Others can call themselves whatever they want.

5-0

[Shakadoodoo]

I wouldn't bring that up in the class room - I teach kids how to think, not what to think - but it is fine to bring it up in a forum - wouldn't you think?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Pro-life = Pro-life - correct?Quit play'n...you know damn good and well what the difference is...if ya don't, re-read Deans post. If your whole reasoning for this post was to bring attention to some doodoo that was executed then later found out innocent, just say it...sheesh.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I wouldn't bring that up in the class room - I teach kids how to think, not what to think - but it is fine to bring it up in a forum - wouldn't you think?Shouldn't you be teaching right now, or are you on a union break?

[olevetonahill]

Many people that are on DP are not actually guilty - DNA evidence has proven this time and time again - how does one justify that?

Why i said Im pretty much ANTI DP

Except in cases where the perp has admitted his crimes like Timothy McVeigh and a few others .

[Shakadoodoo]

Life is Life - shouldn't you call it something different?

[SoonerPride]

I will give the Catholic Church credit on this.

They are at least not in a contradictory stance. They oppose abortion. Hell, they also oppose any form of birth control, because (as Monty Python lampooned) "every sperm is sacred."

But they also oppose the death penalty. Fervently.

The other Christian denominations that split hairs on this are on shaky moral ground here IMHO.

But what do I know?

I'm a heathen.

[Midtowner]

Except in cases where the perp has admitted his crimes like Timothy McVeigh and a few others .

The McVeigh case is a great example of how the death penalty in the U.S. is an arbitrary and unjust system. We put McVeigh to death, but TWICE spared the life of Terry Nichols for committing exactly the same crime. If someone with the entire weight of the FBI, state's attorney, etc., against them who is found by a jury to be guilty of hundreds of murders, including children, can get life, how can we possibly give the needle to someone who just whacked one person for love or money, a drug deal gone bad, or something like that?

[Shakadoodoo]

I'm back in school getting my Computer Programming degree - Teaching is not looking to promising and is not doing much to support my 5 kids by myself - I am going to satisfy my teaching bug by starting a new wrestling team in north Dallas - I moved here about 6 months ago.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Why i said Im pretty much ANTI DP

Except in cases where the perp has admitted his crimes like Timothy McVeigh and a few others .So if they are GUILTY of a HEINOUS crime, then it's all good?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm back in school getting my Computer Programming degree -Good on ya


Teaching is not looking to promising and is not doing much to support my 5 kids by myself -
Holy hell, I'm sure I make a little more than teachers and 3 kids kick my bank accounts ***.


I am going to satisfy my teaching bug by starting a new wrestling team in north Dallas -Again, good on ya.

[olevetonahill]

The McVeigh case is a great example of how the death penalty in the U.S. is an arbitrary and unjust system. We put McVeigh to death, but TWICE spared the life of Terry Nichols for committing exactly the same crime. If someone with the entire weight of the FBI, state's attorney, etc., against them who is found by a jury to be guilty of hundreds of murders, including children, can get life, how can we possibly give the needle to someone who just whacked one person for love or money, a drug deal gone bad, or something like that?


So if they are GUILTY of a HEINOUS crime, then it's all good?

Naw, Ya idjits. McVeigh asked for and received the DP , So I wernt willin to argue that point .

What Im sayin is if the Perp gets the DP and has admitted his crime then I really dont have a Prob with it

On the other hand I have become anti DP in general

It costs far less to keep em locked up forever than it does to keep covering the costs of endless seeming appeals . Plus the bonus fact that IF a mistake has been made ya can still fix it

[Turd_Ferguson]

Naw, Ya idjits. McVeigh asked for and received the DP , So I wernt willin to argue that point .

What Im sayin is if the Perp gets the DP and has admitted his crime then I really dont have a Prob with it

On the other hand I have become anti DP in general

It costs far less to keep em locked up forever than it does to keep covering the costs of endless seeming appeals . Plus the bonus fact that IF a mistake has been made ya can still fix itGo tit.

[Midtowner]

Naw, Ya idjits. McVeigh asked for and received the DP , So I wernt willin to argue that point .

What Im sayin is if the Perp gets the DP and has admitted his crime then I really dont have a Prob with it

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Police are highly trained on eliciting confessions. Sometimes those confessions are less than reliable, but often accepted by juries as factual. Innocent people have definitely confessed to crimes they didn't commit, or much more commonly, gave confessions which enhanced their level of responsibility for a crime they may have committed where we're talking the difference between manslaughter and murder.


On the other hand I have become anti DP in general

It costs far less to keep em locked up forever than it does to keep covering the costs of endless seeming appeals . Plus the bonus fact that IF a mistake has been made ya can still fix it

My father had a client back in the 80s who had been convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to die. This is one of the few cases where someone was able to get the conviction overturned (there was a lot of prosecutorial misconduct allowed by the judge), and then got his client an acquittal in the new trial which resulted. This guy was on death row for 3 years for a murder that happened while he was passed out drunk in the backseat of the real killers' car.

In that case, the appeals process paid off. I can't imagine what would've happened to that fella had there been an OIDS case in Caddo County. He'd probably be dead.

There are plenty of convictions out there right now where DNA evidence has subsequently proved the state wrong. Death is too final, confessions are not 100% reliable, and as you said, the costs of the system are ridiculous. There's no rational reason to keep capital punishment. It's a relic that needs to be done away with.

[C&CDean]

I'm like this on it:

If you've been charged, tried, and convicted by a jury of your peers, AND there is DNA/video evidence, you should fry ASAP.

If there's a question about it, things like conflicting eyewitnesses, no DNA/video, no eyewitnesses, etc. and you're still convicted by a jury of your peers then life without parole.

[olevetonahill]

I think yer still missin my point Mid

We've all seen where the accused has gone on braggin about whatever crime

Like I said In general Im pretty much Anti

For one thing the DP hurts far more than just the Bad Guy. It also hurts His/Her Families just as hard as the Victims family

I changed my stance a lot after readin John Gresham's book "The Chamber"

Oh and Im not sayin do away with the Appeals process either

[Whet]

John Wayne Gacey and Ted Bundy are a couple of guys that deserved to die.

[C&CDean]

And if you are the product of your parent's silliness you deserve a shot at life.

[Phil]

I am pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-death penalty. Seriously. Chew on that for a while.

[Shakadoodoo]

Although I am registered as a Democrat - I do not believe in Abortion, The death penalty and I strongly disagree with many of the wars going on - past and present. When I think of "for life" - I think of "for life" - no if, and or buts - "for life/Pro-life". I don't think man/woman has the decision to kill anyone. Lock them up for life. Death in some cases is the easy way out. If things truly operated on an eye for an eye principal - we would all be pretty damned deformed.

[jk the sooner fan]

i dont typically compare the rights of an unborn fetus to the rights of a convicted criminal

[SoonerPride]

i dont typically compare the rights of an unborn fetus to the rights of a convicted criminal

and yet sometimes those convicted criminals are just as innocent.

strange how that works.

if you are against the taking of even one innocent life, you should be anti-death penalty.

ask a Catholic.

[C&CDean]

i dont typically compare the rights of an unborn fetus to the rights of a convicted criminal

Yup.

[C&CDean]

and yet sometimes those convicted criminals are just as innocent.

strange how that works.

if you are against the taking of even one innocent life, you should be anti-death penalty.

ask a Catholic.

Strange how you support the Catholics on this one issue but lambast them on others.

Also, there's nobody on death row that is as innocent as an unborn child. Saying something like that completely disqualifies anything else you say about it.

[SoonerPride]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/image/iheader2.jpg

That should pretty much seal the deal.

If you care about innocent lives.

[Turd_Ferguson]

SP's been DQ'd...lol

[SoonerPride]

Strange how you support the Catholics on this one issue but lambast them on others.

Also, there's nobody on death row that is as innocent as an unborn child. Saying something like that completely disqualifies anything else you say about it.

um, yeah, anyone who is innocent on death row is as innocent as a fertilized egg. that's how it works. innocent is innocent. period.

and while I am no fan of the Catholic church (or really any church for that matter) I at least acknowledge that Catholics are consistent in their "life is sacred" stance.

anyone else who purports to follow the bible and Jesus who diverges from that line is just a hypocrite IMHO.

[okie52]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/image/iheader2.jpg

That should pretty much seal the deal.

If you care about innocent lives.

Collateral damage.

[badger]

The death penalty is so expensive on states, as is an increasing inmate population and sometimes I just wonder if there's an alternative to our current justice system... you know, like shipping everyone to the South American overcrowded prison system. They are already overcrowded. Surely they wouldn't mind doubling up even more.

[Midtowner]

Naw, Ya idjits. McVeigh asked for and received the DP , So I wernt willin to argue that point .

What Im sayin is if the Perp gets the DP and has admitted his crime then I really dont have a Prob with it

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Police are highly trained on eliciting confessions. Sometimes those confessions are less than reliable, but often accepted by juries as factual. Innocent people have definitely confessed to crimes they didn't commit, or much more commonly, gave confessions which enhanced their level of responsibility for a crime they may have committed where we're talking the difference between manslaughter and murder.


On the other hand I have become anti DP in general

It costs far less to keep em locked up forever than it does to keep covering the costs of endless seeming appeals . Plus the bonus fact that IF a mistake has been made ya can still fix it

My father had a client back in the 80s who had been convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to die. This is one of the few cases where someone was able to get the conviction overturned (there was a lot of prosecutorial misconduct allowed by the judge), and then got his client an acquittal in the new trial which resulted. This guy was on death row for 3 years for a murder that happened while he was passed out drunk in the backseat of the real killers' car.

In that case, the appeals process paid off. I can't imagine what would've happened to that fella had there been an OIDS case in Caddo County. He'd probably be dead.

There are plenty of convictions out there right now where DNA evidence has subsequently proved the state wrong. Death is too final, confessions are not 100% reliable, and as you said, the costs of the system are ridiculous. There's no rational reason to keep capital punishment. It's a relic that needs to be done away with.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Police are highly trained on eliciting confessions. Sometimes those confessions are less than reliable, but often accepted by juries as factual. Innocent people have definitely confessed to crimes they didn't commit, or much more commonly, gave confessions which enhanced their level of responsibility for a crime they may have committed where we're talking the difference between manslaughter and murder.



My father had a client back in the 80s who had been convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to die. This is one of the few cases where someone was able to get the conviction overturned (there was a lot of prosecutorial misconduct allowed by the judge), and then got his client an acquittal in the new trial which resulted. This guy was on death row for 3 years for a murder that happened while he was passed out drunk in the backseat of the real killers' car.

In that case, the appeals process paid off. I can't imagine what would've happened to that fella had there been an OIDS case in Caddo County. He'd probably be dead.

There are plenty of convictions out there right now where DNA evidence has subsequently proved the state wrong. Death is too final, confessions are not 100% reliable, and as you said, the costs of the system are ridiculous. There's no rational reason to keep capital punishment. It's a relic that needs to be done away with.I think your bot is broke...

[SoonerPride]

Collateral damage.

How cavalier you are with other people's lives.

[Turd_Ferguson]

How cavalier you are with other people's lives.Get over yourself dude...

[Midtowner]

I think your bot is broke...

Yeah, I got back from lunch and couldn't remember if I'd clicked the reply button. C'est la vie.

[C&CDean]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/image/iheader2.jpg

That should pretty much seal the deal.

If you care about innocent lives.

Meh. Like those guys are really innocent. Perhaps of the specific crime they were convicted of, but not a one of them isn't at least a criminal of some sort. Some might even just be guilty by association. In any case, they shouldn't have been hanging around or doing whatever it was that got them arrested, tried, and convicted in the first place.

[SoonerPride]

Meh. Like those guys are really innocent. Perhaps of the specific crime they were convicted of, but not a one of them isn't at least a criminal of some sort. Some might even just be guilty by association. In any case, they shouldn't have been hanging around or doing whatever it was that got them arrested, tried, and convicted in the first place.

I see.

Then there is nothing more to discuss.

[Midtowner]

Meh. Like those guys are really innocent. Perhaps of the specific crime they were convicted of, but not a one of them isn't at least a criminal of some sort. Some might even just be guilty by association. In any case, they shouldn't have been hanging around or doing whatever it was that got them arrested, tried, and convicted in the first place.

That's an insane way to look at things. The law requires that they be proven guilty, not proven innocent to be convicted. The reason we have the verdict of not guilty instead of innocent is not a technical one, it reflects the burdens required to send someone to prison.

The point is that the system is fallible, it makes mistakes, and no one should have to die because of a mistake.

And of course "they shouldn't have been...." is just silly. You don't know what implicated these folks in any of these cases. Take the case I mentioned earlier (one of those 140). He was passed out drunk in the back seat of a car, clearly minding his own business. Would you say that because he had a few too many that night and was hanging around with a couple of real killers, but was otherwise incapacitated, he deserved the needle? Surely not.

[C&CDean]

I see.

Then there is nothing more to discuss.

So you're admitting you're wrong. I'm good with that.

[jk the sooner fan]

and yet sometimes those convicted criminals are just as innocent.

strange how that works.

if you are against the taking of even one innocent life, you should be anti-death penalty.

ask a Catholic.

i'm not catholic, and do not look to that faith tradition as a guide of any sorts

i acknowledge that while our criminal justice system is not perfect, it is still the best in the world, the appeals process for death row is pretty complicated

i am against the killing of unborn babies thru abortion - period and i'm unapologetic about it

i am in support of a jury finding an accused guilty of a capital crime resulting in a death sentence, and that death sentence being carried out


you can put whatever label you want on all that, i dont care

[SoonerPride]

So you're admitting you're wrong. I'm good with that.

No, I'm saying your stance is irrational and there is no point in continuing to waste my time.

[C&CDean]

That's an insane way to look at things. The law requires that they be proven guilty, not proven innocent to be convicted. The reason we have the verdict of not guilty instead of innocent is not a technical one, it reflects the burdens required to send someone to prison.

The point is that the system is fallible, it makes mistakes, and no one should have to die because of a mistake.

And of course "they shouldn't have been...." is just silly. You don't know what implicated these folks in any of these cases. Take the case I mentioned earlier (one of those 140). He was passed out drunk in the back seat of a car, clearly minding his own business. Would you say that because he had a few too many that night and was hanging around with a couple of real killers, but was otherwise incapacitated, he deserved the needle? Surely not.

Dude, stop jumping off the cliff.

Since you're the lawyerin' type, let me ask you a question or two. What percentage of people who are on death row do you believe to be innocent of the crime they were convicted of? What percentage of them are first-time offenders? How many totally "innocent of some felonious crime" folks are there right now?

You are obviously in the camp of "even one is too many" and I'm in the camp of "they were way too close to the crime to be truly innocent or at least are a habitual criminal". In which case I guess it's like Turd said, collateral damage. Either way, we're all gonna die some day.

[C&CDean]

No, I'm saying your stance is irrational and there is no point in continuing to waste my time.

Have you ever once thought that perhaps your stance is the irrational one? After all, you are a liberal.

[StoopTroup]

Capote's "In Cold Blood, Errol Morris's A Thin Blue Line and Gresham's "An Innocent Man are all stories that I think show just how hard a life in prison was, is and will always be a very awful way to serve out the rest of your life. The number of shows and documentaries that show the goings on in Prison in our Country even have many folks ending their own lives even if they are going to possibly serve 10 years. The Prison's are no longer these feel sorry for inmates, White Collar Golf Resorts that we used to see. If you do time....you will be forever changed even if you get out.

The idea of giving someone therapy in order to rehabilitate them seems long gone. The only Therapy that goes on is to help inmates get through their incarceration and I'd dare say that most of the folks that get through life in prison and then are released stand little chance of living a better life outside prison than in. Inside they learn to live within the system. Outside the system changes while they are in so when they get out....it's probably even harder to adjust to the life they need to live in order to stay out a 2nd time. Many find it easier to just go commit another crime to get back in. It's just easier for them. IMO....that's pretty sad. It almost leaves a person thinking that if you know someone that's been in prison....you would do well Not to hire them or have anyone you know exposed to them socially in any way. I'm not sure how we expect these folks to become model citizens.

I think it's why we see so many folks get so many chances before they are put in prison and those that really need to be there permanently are allowed to do damage to our society until the Police have piled up enough to convince a judge that it is time to incarcerate them.

I've always been for Life in Prison for U.S. Citizens. Folks who come here and use deportation as a way to get away with murder of our Citizens....I might lean toward executing as they are the worst at preconceiving their crimes many times. Especially the Gangs that spill over into our Country. I can honestly say that given the right amount of circumstance that even though I might have some regrets....I would push the button to inject them myself and ask God for his mercy. What they are really doing is crimes of War IMO. When you come to the US....you don't act like you are bullet-proof....you are to act like you are a guest of ours.

Our Criminal Justice System has become big business for some and a real problem for those who face incarceration and a real problem for those of us who live in the cities that many of these folks are released into.

[StoopTroup]

Josh Powell. An example of how screwed up our system is.

[okie52]

How cavalier you are with other people's lives.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Laughing_Hyena_Cartoon.gif

[Midtowner]

What percentage of people who are on death row do you believe to be innocent of the crime they were convicted of?

Far less than 1%.


What percentage of them are first-time offenders?

I'd be willing to guess a significant number are. No idea on the statistics.


How many totally "innocent of some felonious crime" folks are there right now?

Probably not a soul, but before you pounce on that, most of us are probably guilty of quite a few felonies we've just gotten away with. Mostly nothing violent, but the federal criminal code is 21,000 or so pages long. You could probably lock up just about everyone in the country for something. That said, how many would be guilty of other violent felonies? Again, I don't really have an answer for that, but I'd say a significant number wouldn't be. Recent high-profile cases like Jerome Ersland and Brenda Andrews come to mind.


You are obviously in the camp of "even one is too many" and I'm in the camp of "they were way too close to the crime to be truly innocent or at least are a habitual criminal". In which case I guess it's like Turd said, collateral damage. Either way, we're all gonna die some day.

Well, we don't punish people because we suspect they might be habitual criminals. And mere speculation is probably not a good enough reason to put people to death and unnecessarily spend millions upon millions of dollars for which we derive no tangible benefit except one--once you put 'em to death, the recidivism rate is zero.

[TitoMorelli]

Only the truly shallow-minded would attempt to equate abortion with the death penalty. Or expect Blake Bell to be given a legitimate shot at the starting QB spot this spring.

[KABOOKIE]

I will agree to outlaw the DP if abortions of convienece are outlawed as well.

[KABOOKIE]

Oh and uh....

"How can you call on be a democrat, a party who says they fight for those who are weak and speak for those without a voice, and yet support abortion?"

[yermom]

Oh and uh....

"How can you call on be a democrat, a party who says they fight for those who are weak and speak for those without a voice, and yet support abortion?"

i don't really get that either

i guess i'm in the Shakadoodoo camp on this one

[Frozen Sooner]

Strange how you support the Catholics on this one issue but lambast them on others.

Also, there's nobody on death row that is as innocent as an unborn child. Saying something like that completely disqualifies anything else you say about it.

I thought an unbaptized child was still guilty of Original Sin. Did I misunderstand something about church teachings?

[jk the sooner fan]

I thought an unbaptized child was still guilty of Original Sin. Did I misunderstand something about church teachings?

this makes absolutely no sense - you cant baptize an unborn child - and i dont know of any scripture that says that babies are guilty of an "original sin"

we're all sinners....

[soonercruiser]

I will give the Catholic Church credit on this.

They are at least not in a contradictory stance. They oppose abortion. Hell, they also oppose any form of birth control, because (as Monty Python lampooned) "every sperm is sacred."

But they also oppose the death penalty. Fervently.

The other Christian denominations that split hairs on this are on shaky moral ground here IMHO.

But what do I know?

I'm a heathen.

WRONG! Get educated!

You talking about the 87% of Catholics that use contraception?

[soonercruiser]

and yet sometimes those convicted criminals are just as innocent.

strange how that works.

if you are against the taking of even one innocent life, you should be anti-death penalty.

ask a Catholic.

WRONG AGAIN!!!!

[soonercruiser]

The death penalty is so expensive on states, as is an increasing inmate population and sometimes I just wonder if there's an alternative to our current justice system... you know, like shipping everyone to the South American overcrowded prison system. They are already overcrowded. Surely they wouldn't mind doubling up even more.

OH! So its all about $$$$$!
I get it. And raising a child is waaaaayyyyy more expensive than just killing it.
'ceptin if you think they should be living, working, paying taxes, and buying American products.
:dispirited:

[soonercruiser]

I will agree to outlaw the DP if abortions of convienece are outlawed as well.

BINGO!
A stance I can "live" with!
First save the innocent! Then we can talk about saving the evil & guilty.

IN FACT, THIS IS THE STANCE THAT MOST PRO-LIFE CATHOLICS HAVE!

Because.....SoonerPride......the last time it was even written about at length (by Pope John Paul II), he acknowledged that resorting to the death penalty should be "rare".(....considering modern society's resources)

So......SoonerPride.......that means that even the Pope acknowledges that there are instances where the henious criminal must be eliminated.... for the good of humanity.

[soonercruiser]

I thought an unbaptized child was still guilty of Original Sin. Did I misunderstand something about church teachings?

"Limbo" Rock!
But, the Catholic Church has been looking for some kind of new position on this for decades.
(Kinda like the death penalty - not all "black & white".)

Just like jk said......doesn't really add up.
But, the idea is that we all share in Adam's sin at birth.

[yermom]

I thought an unbaptized child was still guilty of Original Sin. Did I misunderstand something about church teachings?

yeah, since they weren't baptized, they are going to hell

[StoopTroup]

I think many folks think that the Catholic Church goes around policing their flock and having Eucharistic Ministers escort the folks who don't follow Church Doctrine off the property.

[AlboSooner]

How can you be pro-abortion?

[East Coast Bias]

I am not for abortion either, but I think Shaq has this right. Either you value life or you don't. Both parties have a position that is hypocritical.Killing someone to punish for killing or as a means to prevent other killing is a flawed concept that is hard to defend on logical grounds. I am not sure why everyone is teeing off on him for wanting to be in the teaching profession either? Education is a noble profession that holds the key to our future.

[C&CDean]

I am not for abortion either, but I think Shaq has this right. Either you value life or you don't. Both parties have a position that is hypocritical.Killing someone to punish for killing or as a means to prevent other killing is a flawed concept that is hard to defend on logical grounds. I am not sure why everyone is teeing off on him for wanting to be in the teaching profession either? Education is a noble profession that holds the key to our future.

I didn't see "everyone teeing off on him" at all. Turd yanked his chain and then praised him for the nobility of what he does.

I don't see it as flawed at all. An unborn child is COMPLETELY innocent. A murderer is COMPLETELY guilty. The law says "off his worthless ***." If you don't like that law, work to change it.

[C&CDean]

I thought an unbaptized child was still guilty of Original Sin. Did I misunderstand something about church teachings?

C'mon Mikey, you can do better than that.

[East Coast Bias]

I didn't see "everyone teeing off on him" at all. Turd yanked his chain and then praised him for the nobility of what he does.

I don't see it as flawed at all. An unborn child is COMPLETELY innocent. A murderer is COMPLETELY guilty. The law says "off his worthless ***." If you don't like that law, work to change it.

The statement that you value life depends on qualification. I am simply pointing to that. The logic that is flawed is in thinking that capital punishment prevents murder. The facts don't support this. The innocence of the unborn has certainly been called into question by the folks here that believe in talking snakes as well as the certainty of guilt for all of those put to death?

[jk the sooner fan]

so are all of you who are against the death penalty also conscientious objectors......what is war to you? because if we're going to break down this "value life" - lets really get down in the weeds here

those of you who have a problem with somebody being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty - how do you feel about the deaths caused during an armed conflict?

frankly i think the intention of the original post and those who agreed with him is really to take a shot at religion - and nothing more

so kudo's to you for "making your point"

[C&CDean]

The statement that you value life depends on qualification. I am simply pointing to that. The logic that is flawed is in thinking that capital punishment prevents murder. The facts don't support this. The innocence of the unborn has certainly been called into question by the folks here that believe in talking snakes as well as the certainty of guilt for all of those put to death?

Huh? I don't give a rat's *** if it prevents further murder or not. It's a punishment for a crime committed. Nothing more. If it just happens to keep someone else from murdering someone then that's good. If it doesn't? Oh well. One thing it absolutely guarantees is that this murderous ********** will never kill anyone else. And that's all it's intended/designed to do.

[Curly Bill]

Can I be pro death penalty and believe I have no business telling a woman what to do if she's pregnant?

I just want to clear up what is acceptable.

[jk the sooner fan]

Can I be pro death penalty and believe I have no business telling a woman what to do if she's pregnant?

I just want to clear up what is acceptable.

i love this logic

let me ask you this - are you personally against the act of abortion? (not withstanding your lack of desire to tell a woman what she can or can't do)

[C&CDean]

Can I be pro death penalty and believe I have no business telling a woman what to do if she's pregnant?

I just want to clear up what is acceptable.

Fire OVenabama!!1!!

[Soonerjeepman]

and yet sometimes those convicted criminals are just as innocent.

strange how that works.

if you are against the taking of even one innocent life, you should be anti-death penalty.

ask a Catholic.

actually the Catholic teaching is that killing is justified if the person is a threat to society...is my understanding...being raised/practicing Catholic...Hitler, serial killers...etc...I'd have to double check but that might not include DP...more of a war/shooting in the act type thing....

but yes, pro-life ...over 90% of abortions are due to convenience...not rape or incest as those in the $$$ business would want ya to believe....

[SoonerBBall]

Can I be pro death penalty and believe I have no business telling a woman what to do if she's pregnant?

I just want to clear up what is acceptable.

The problem is that the argument is framed incorrectly.

Pro-life is a stupid term. Everyone is Pro-life (or, at least, 99.9999% of people). Almost nobody is Pro-death. We wouldn't function as a society if there were advocates against life. The death penalty is different as it is someone convicted of a heinous crime being removed from society for its own good. You can be for the death penalty while still being an advocate for life. People convicted of the death penalty have broken the social contract in such a remarkable manner that removing them from society so that they can't break it further is seen as the only possible solution. This is done with the understanding that taking someone's life is the ultimate violation of their inalienable rights.

Pro-life is even more ridiculous when talking about abortion because it isn't an argument about life. It is an argument about choice. You are either Pro-choice or Anti-choice. You believe that an individual's rights and liberties extend to choices they make about their own body or not. It is completely reasonable to believe as I do, that abortion is not something that I would consider if it were my choice but that everyone doesn't believe like me and they are entitled to their own decisions concerning their body when it doesn't affect me.

[jk the sooner fan]

to me - the abortion debate/argument can be broken down like this

there are those people who have personal and moral standards that don't extend beyond the tip of their nose......."i believe "such and such" is wrong, but i'm ok if other people want to do it"

and then those people who have personal and moral standards that extend into society - those that believe society will be better and work together on moral issues when the majority opinion becomes the law of the land

[SoonerBBall]

to me - the abortion debate/argument can be broken down like this

there are those people who have personal and moral standards that don't extend beyond the tip of their nose......."i believe "such and such" is wrong, but i'm ok if other people want to do it"

and then those people who have personal and moral standards that extend into society - those that believe society will be better and work together on moral issues when the majority opinion becomes the law of the land

I agree, but the argument is being staged in the United States of America which was founded on the principal that individuals were entitled to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness without interference from the government as long as their pursuit didn't interfere with the entitlements of other individuals. Telling others what to do with their body when it doesn't affect anyone else shouldn't be in the cards especially since we aren't entitled to assuage anyone else's sense of morality.

[jk the sooner fan]

I agree, but the argument is being staged in the United States of America which was founded on the principal that individuals were entitled to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness without interference from the government as long as their pursuit didn't interfere with the entitlements of other individuals. Telling others what to do with their body when it doesn't affect anyone else shouldn't be in the cards especially since we aren't entitled to assuage anyone else's sense of morality.

our society is FULL of laws based on moral principles.....dig around the statutes a little and you'll see

you say "telling others what to do with their body when it doesnt affect ANYBODY ELSE".......well there in lies the problem because the pro-life crowd believes that it DOES affect SOMEBODY else.......the unborn baby

[Curly Bill]

i love this logic

let me ask you this - are you personally against the act of abortion? (not withstanding your lack of desire to tell a woman what she can or can't do)

Am I a fan of abortion? No, not at all. Is it something I feel super strongly about? No. As a non-female I really don't consider it a whole lot of my business.

[Curly Bill]

Fire OVenabama!!1!!

We did kick ol BV on down the road. If we can do the same with the POTUS I'd be a happy dude.

[SoonerBBall]

our society is FULL of laws based on moral principles.....dig around the statutes a little and you'll see

you say "telling others what to do with their body when it doesnt affect ANYBODY ELSE".......well there in lies the problem because the pro-life crowd believes that it DOES affect SOMEBODY else.......the unborn baby

Just because society is full of laws based on morality doesn't make them right and doesn't mean we should continue to make laws based on them. It just means that, in the past, it was allowed to happen. We can't buy liquor after 9pm or on Sundays in Oklahoma because of old, ridiculous moral laws. Is that right? Is it even defensible?

I figured you'd bring up the "unborn baby rights" argument, but doesn't have a place in the discussion. We cannot determine when life actually begins for a fetus. Different groups try to get it defined at different points, but the fact is it is currently unknowable and because of that we cannot put the rights of a fetus above the rights of the mother. Note, I have no problem with legislation that punishes people who deprive an unborn child of the opportunity to be born when it is beyond the pregnant mother's control because that child was going to be born of the mother's volition without any outside interference as her choice. The key to the argument, again, is her choice.

[Curly Bill]

The problem is that the argument is framed incorrectly.

Pro-life is a stupid term. Everyone is Pro-life (or, at least, 99.9999% of people). Almost nobody is Pro-death. We wouldn't function as a society if there were advocates against life. The death penalty is different as it is someone convicted of a heinous crime being removed from society for its own good. You can be for the death penalty while still being an advocate for life. People convicted of the death penalty have broken the social contract in such a remarkable manner that removing them from society so that they can't break it further is seen as the only possible solution. This is done with the understanding that taking someone's life is the ultimate violation of their inalienable rights.

Pro-life is even more ridiculous when talking about abortion because it isn't an argument about life. It is an argument about choice. You are either Pro-choice or Anti-choice. You believe that an individual's rights and liberties extend to choices they make about their own body or not. It is completely reasonable to believe as I do, that abortion is not something that I would consider if it were my choice but that everyone doesn't believe like me and they are entitled to their own decisions concerning their body when it doesn't affect me.

Sounds about like me.

[pphilfran]

Just because society is full of laws based on morality doesn't make them right and doesn't mean we should continue to make laws based on them. It just means that, in the past, it was allowed to happen. We can't buy liquor after 9pm or on Sundays in Oklahoma because of old, ridiculous moral laws. Is that right? Is it even defensible?

I figured you'd bring up the "unborn baby rights" argument, but doesn't have a place in the discussion. We cannot determine when life actually begins for a fetus. Different groups try to get it defined at different points, but the fact is it is currently unknowable and because of that we cannot put the rights of a fetus above the rights of the mother. Note, I have no problem with legislation that punishes people who deprive an unborn child of the opportunity to be born when it is beyond the pregnant mother's control because that child was going to be born of the mother's volition without any outside interference as her choice. The key to the argument, again, is her choice.

Since we don't know we damn sure should be erring on the side of caution....

A fetus has the same DNA as a human....it has dividing cells so it is alive....you can be prosecuted for killing a fetus...

[jk the sooner fan]

Just because society is full of laws based on morality doesn't make them right and doesn't mean we should continue to make laws based on them. It just means that, in the past, it was allowed to happen. We can't buy liquor after 9pm or on Sundays in Oklahoma because of old, ridiculous moral laws. Is that right? Is it even defensible?

I figured you'd bring up the "unborn baby rights" argument, but doesn't have a place in the discussion. We cannot determine when life actually begins for a fetus. Different groups try to get it defined at different points, but the fact is it is currently unknowable and because of that we cannot put the rights of a fetus above the rights of the mother. Note, I have no problem with legislation that punishes people who deprive an unborn child of the opportunity to be born when it is beyond the pregnant mother's control because that child was going to be born of the mother's volition without any outside interference as her choice. The key to the argument, again, is her choice.

it doesnt have a place in the discussion? says who? it absolutely does so far as i'm concerned and is another difference in the debate....you dont place any(or much) value on the fetus......i place a great deal of value on the fetus

[SoonerBBall]

Since we don't know we damn sure should be erring on the side of caution....

A fetus has the same DNA as a human....it has dividing cells so it is alive....you can be prosecuted for killing a fetus...

No, we shouldn't. We should be erring on the side of allowing individuals to choose, the founding principle of this country. Our DNA is over 98% identical to monkeys, should they be protected constitutionally as well? The only rationale for erring on the side of caution is a moral one, not a logical one and this country was built on the principle of not forcing the morality of any one group on society as a whole.

[jk the sooner fan]

your recollection of history is interesting

[SoonerBBall]

it doesnt have a place in the discussion? says who? it absolutely does so far as i'm concerned and is another difference in the debate....you dont place any(or much) value on the fetus......i place a great deal of value on the fetus

You're just attacking me now, and incorrectly. Just because I place a greater value on the rights of a woman who is of sound mind and able to make decisions over that of a fetus doesn't mean I don't value the potential life of a fetus at all. It is obvious from my posts above supporting certain unborn child legislation that I do value them as potential lives with the same rights as any other. It is obvious, though, that you just place a greater value on the rights of a fetus than you do of a pregnant woman and I find that wholly ridiculous and indefensible in regards to the constitution and the founding principles of this country. The only defense to that position is a religious or moral one.

[jk the sooner fan]

attacking you?

lol - lord, please....i'll bow out of the debate if thats what you honestly think

be well

[SoonerBBall]

your recollection of history is interesting

Feel free to point out any inconsistencies with my argument and the constitution of the United States of America. Just because politicians and lawyers have been influential in crafting legislation that supports religious and moral biases doesn't mean that the founding principles of the country have changed.

[pphilfran]

No, we shouldn't. We should be erring on the side of allowing individuals to choose, the founding principle of this country. The only rationale for erring on the side of caution is a moral one, not a logical one and this country was built on the principle of not forcing the morality of any one group on society as a whole.

That is bass ackwards thinking..

You risk killing a human because we don't err on the side of caution? Because we don't know all of the facts?

I believe this is part of an 8 week old fetus...picture shouldn't bother ya since it is nothing but a clump of cells and not human....

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/a4.jpg

[SoonerBBall]

attacking you?

lol - lord, please....i'll bow out of the debate if thats what you honestly think

be well

Yes, attacking my personal beliefs as opposed to the argument. You can deny it, but it is exactly what you did by implying that I have no value for fetuses and that you do.

[pphilfran]

Is a fetus alive?

Does it have human DNA? Will it grow into any other species other than human?

Can you be prosecuted for murder of a fetus?

[pphilfran]

I am a fence rider on the debate...

I find both sides have distasteful issues...

Women's rights should not be ignored is on one side...

The unknown point in time when a fetus becomes human on the other....

[pphilfran]

Whatever the case you better make damn sure you are not killing a human....

[AlboSooner]

No, we shouldn't. We should be erring on the side of allowing individuals to choose, the founding principle of this country. Our DNA is over 98% identical to monkeys, should they be protected constitutionally as well? The only rationale for erring on the side of caution is a moral one, not a logical one and this country was built on the principle of not forcing the morality of any one group on society as a whole.

The founding principle of this country was not to choice to end human life. Choice of religion is not the same as allowing human life to live.

Human DNA and animal DNA is similar because they are made from the same Creator, and for humans and animals to interact and benefit from each other, DNA has to be similar. This country was founded on forcing a group of good morals on a whole country. Read the Bill of Rights. It is a set of moral statements, which are absolute in this country. Somebody with a different morality than the Bill of Rights is FORCED by the constitution to abide or else be removed from society.

It so laughable that you would invoke reason and logic in such a post. Logic could hit you with a 2x4, and you wouldn't be able to recognize. Nobody is trying to stop women from having a choice, however there is a difference between a baby, and what should a woman wear, or where should she work.

[SoonerBBall]

That is bass ackwards thinking..

You risk killing a human because we don't err on the side of caution? Because we don't know all of the facts?

I believe this is part of an 8 week old fetus...picture shouldn't bother ya since it is nothing but a clump of cells and not human....


Again, you are making a plea to emotion rather than logic. You are using pictures specifically designed to convince us that your argument is correct. Where is the rest of the fetus? Is it left out because it is obviously unrecognizable as a human? What about other pictures of the same time that aren't as well formed? Anecdotal evidence like this is great for politics and TV news clips, but poor for a sustained argument supporting the removal of women's rights. Does the picture show brain activity? Does it show conscious thought? No, it can't possibly show those things, so it is poor evidence to support your theory.

[SoonerPride]

I would be willing to put abortion to a vote.

Only women are allowed to vote however.

If they outlaw it except in cases of rape or incest, then so be it.

I really think men have zero to say about it.

[AlboSooner]

I am a fence rider on the debate...

I find both sides have distasteful issues...

Women's rights should not be ignored is on one side...

The unknown point in time when a fetus becomes human on the other....

You have the right to find sides distasteful, but only one side is actually ending human lives. Scientifically the egg and sperm are both human, once conception happens, those two not discontinue to be human. They come from humans after all. I think you mean person hood. You do not know when a human life deserves person hood. Scientifically, when conception occurs, everything about that future person has been determined genotype wise and phenotype wise. I mean, at conception it has been determined if the person will have blue eyes, black hair, or be short or tall, black or white.

This issue has nothing to do with choice vs mandate not to kill babies. I think pro-abortion people know there is a difference between allowing women to vote, and stopping them from ending human life. It has all to do with overthrowing what is seen as a religious burden, or a religious chore. It is the everlasting escape from God. It is the secular anthem cry that in order to distance ourselves with God, we must even give in the absurdity of being pro-abortion. To be pro-abortion is utterly absurd.

In India where abortion is legal, they are aborting baby girls by a rate 1:10 compared to baby boys. Check the facts. Now, if this is what the pro-abortion, pro-woman world looks like, then may God have mercy on our souls come judgement day.

[AlboSooner]

I would be willing to put abortion to a vote.

Only women are allowed to vote however.

If they outlaw it except in cases of rape or incest, then so be it.

I really think men have zero to say about it.

Good thing you have nothing to say about it.

[SoonerBBall]

The founding principle of this country was not to choice to end human life. Choice of religion is not the same as allowing human life to live.

Human DNA and animal DNA is similar because they are made from the same Creator, and for humans and animals to interact and benefit from each other, DNA has to be similar. This country was founded on forcing a group of good morals on a whole country. Read the Bill of Rights. It is a moral statements, which is absolute in this country. Somebody with a different morality than the Bill of Rights is FORCED by the constitution to abide or else be removed from society.

It so laughable that you would invoke reason and logic in such a post. Logic could hit you with a 2x4, and you wouldn't be able to recognize. Nobody is trying to stop women from having a choice, however there is a difference between a baby, and what should a woman wear, or where should she work.

You're right. I should have been using the term "religious morality" in place of just "morality" since all laws are an attempt to force some kind of morality into society. The Bill of Rights forces us to adhere to morality unencumbered by religious or political bias. That is what makes it fantastic. It is rational morality that works for everyone regardless of their race, creed, or color and allows us to work together toward a common goal: society as free as possible from government interference that forces us to conform to the religious, political, cultural, etc. values of others.

That being said, there is still no logical morality in placing the rights of a potential human over the rights of the existing human that could produce it in all but the most extreme circumstances. It doesn't make any rational sense. You trying to confuse the issue by saying that some choices (clothes, workplace) are fine to leave to individuals, but others choices are not (babies) and I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

[AlboSooner]

You're right. I should have been using the term "religious morality" in place of just "morality" since all laws are an attempt to force some kind of morality into society. The Bill of Rights forces us to adhere to morality unencumbered by religious or political bias. That is what makes it fantastic. It is rational morality that works for everyone regardless of their race, creed, or color and allows us to work together toward a common goal: society as free as possible from government interference that forces us to conform to the religious, political, cultural, etc. values of others.

That being said, there is still no logical morality in placing the rights of a potential human over the rights of the existing human that could produce it in all but the most extreme circumstances. It doesn't make any rational sense. You trying to confuse the issue by saying that some choices (clothes, workplace) are fine to leave to individuals, but others choices are not (babies) and I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Reason cannot be the creator of morality. Reason is a tool to validate morality, or to oppose it. Do you think that the NAZIs were being unreasonable when they destroyed other races? Or do you think they were being immoral? Did they violate reason when they killed other people, or did they violate morality? Did they have the right to choose to kill people or did they not because it was morally wrong?
A NAZI would say: we followed reason; we needed resources and we took them to feed our people. It was our choice and the reasonable thing to do.



The acts of NAZI Germany become wrong when one claims that morality, or objective morality is a-priori, and a-priori objective morality universal morality found in the bill of rights, comes only come from God. For morality to be universal, true for everyone, it has to unencumbered by racial bias, secular bias, naturalistic bias, or else Nietzsche was right that if you claim God to be dead, then objective morality, The Bill of Rights, is simply non-sense.

Only the morality of the strongest survives in a world devoid of God.

The last part of your post is confusing because you hurried to reply without getting the jest of what I was saying. I type this knowing fully well, that whatever fact of reason I may present you will reject because smart people can argue anything they want.

[SoonerBBall]

You have the right to find sides distasteful, but only one side is actually ending human lives. Scientifically the egg and sperm are both human, once conception happens, those two not discontinue to be human. They come from humans after all. I think you mean person hood. You do not know when a human life deserves person hood. Scientifically, when conception occurs, everything about that future person has been determined genotype wise and phenotype wise. I mean, at conception it has been determined if the person will have blue eyes, black hair, or be short or tall, black or white.

This issue has nothing to do with choice vs mandate not to kill babies. I think pro-abortion people know there is a difference between allowing women to vote, and stopping them from ending human life. It has all to do with overthrowing what is seen as a religious burden, or a religious chore. It is the everlasting escape from God. It is the secular anthem cry that in order to distance ourselves with God, we must even give in the absurdity of being pro-abortion. To be pro-abortion is utterly absurd.

In India where abortion is legal, they are aborting baby girls by a rate 1:10 compared to baby boys. Check the facts. Now, if this is what the pro-abortion, pro-woman world looks like, then may God have mercy on our souls come judgement day.

An egg and sperm are not humans. They are a seed and fertilizer that could possibly combine to gestate into a human, given the right conditions. There are a lot of things that can happen before, during, and after conception that can prevent them from forming into a human without including abortion. What about the billions of sperm and eggs that never become babies. Are those constitutionally protected as well?

The argument has everything to do with dominion over your own body. Not just for women but for men as well because as soon as we legislate against freedom of choice for one sex, it opens the door for legislation against the other sex as well.

As for the rest of your argument that is wholly founded in religion and fear of God, I've covered that. It is awesome that you have faith and believe as you do, but that isn't what everyone believes and forcing your religious belief system on others shouldn't be allowed at all in this country.

[C&CDean]

Again, you are making a plea to emotion rather than logic. You are using pictures specifically designed to convince us that your argument is correct. Where is the rest of the fetus? Is it left out because it is obviously unrecognizable as a human? What about other pictures of the same time that aren't as well formed? Anecdotal evidence like this is great for politics and TV news clips, but poor for a sustained argument supporting the removal of women's rights. Does the picture show brain activity? Does it show conscious thought? No, it can't possibly show those things, so it is poor evidence to support your theory.

Dude. Really? The rest of the fetus is in bits and pieces from being chopped up and sucked out. Sheez.

[SoonerBBall]

Reason cannot be the creator of morality. Reason is a tool to validate morality, or to oppose it. Do you think that the NAZIs were being unreasonable when they destroyed other races? Or do you think they were being immoral? Did they violate reason when they killed other people, or did they violate morality? Did they have the right to choose to kill people or did they not because it was morally wrong?
A NAZI would say: we followed reason; we needed resources and we took them to feed our people. It was our choice and the reasonable thing to do.



The acts of NAZI Germany become wrong when one claims that morality, or objective morality is a-priori, and a-priori objective morality universal morality found in the bill of rights, comes only come from God. For morality to be universal, true for everyone, it has to unencumbered by racial bias, secular bias, naturalistic bias, or else Nietzsche was right that if you claim God to be dead, then objective morality, The Bill of Rights, is simply non-sense.

Only the morality of the strongest survives in a world devoid of God.

The last part of your post is confusing because you hurried to reply without getting the jest of what I was saying. I type this knowing fully well, that whatever fact of reason I may present you will reject because smart people can argue anything they want.

Really? You are going to claim that it was rationally moral to commit genocide in the 1930s and 1940s? If so, I'll choose to bow out as well.

[AlboSooner]

An egg and sperm are not humans. They are a seed and fertilizer that could possibly combine to gestate into a human, given the right conditions. There are a lot of things that can happen before, during, and after conception that can prevent them from forming into a human without including abortion. What about the billions of sperm and eggs that never become babies. Are those constitutionally protected as well?

The argument has everything to do with dominion over your own body. Not just for women but for men as well because as soon as we legislate against freedom of choice for one sex, it opens the door for legislation against the other sex as well.

As for the rest of your argument that is wholly founded in religion and fear of God, I've covered that. It is awesome that you have faith and believe as you do, but that isn't what everyone believes and forcing your religious belief system on others shouldn't be allowed at all in this country.

Are you tolling us? What?

A human egg is not human? Human sperm is not human? Gestate into a human given the right condition? What? They are human regardless if the pregnancy continues or not. I've got some shocking news for you: even you a grown human being, depend on the right conditions to survive. You are a buffered solution, that a slight change in pH of your bodily fluid would suffocate you in seconds. Every human life depends on the right conditions. Even now as an independent adult you depend on the rest of us, called society, in order to survive.

[SoonerBBall]

Dude. Really? The rest of the fetus is in bits and pieces from being chopped up and sucked out. Sheez.

Really? How do we know that? We can't possibly know from what he posted. His picture was meant to make you assume exactly that.

[AlboSooner]

Really? You are going to claim that it was rationally moral to commit genocide in the 1930s and 1940s? If so, I'll choose to bow out as well.

http://s1.e46fanatics.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalmsmiley.gif

Obvious troll is obvious.

[SoonerBBall]

Are you tolling us? What?

A human egg is not human? Human sperm is not human? Gestate into a human given the right condition? What? They are human regardless if the pregnancy continues or not. I've got some shocking news for you: even you a grown human being, depend on the right conditions to survive. You are a buffered solution, that a slight change in pH of your bodily fluid would suffocate you in second. Every human life depends on the right conditions. Even now as an independent adult you depend on the rest of us, called society, in order to survive.

I'm fairly sure you are the one trolling.

Saying an egg and sperm are humans is like saying all apple seeds are apple trees. I didn't say they weren't human genetic material, I said they weren't humans.

[soonercruiser]

yeah, since they weren't baptized, they are going to hell

Ignorance and stupidity are being displayed in your post!

[AlboSooner]

I'm fairly sure you are the one trolling.

Saying an egg and sperm are humans is like saying all apple seeds are apple trees. I didn't say they weren't human genetic material, I said they weren't humans.

Are human genes human? You confuse the term human, with human being, which implies person-hood. I'm sure you have heard the term: we found human remains in the crash site. They mean they found stuff from a human being, they don't mean they found a person there.

Human DNA is human, but it is not a human being. An unborn child, after 7 weeks, has all the traits of a human being.

[SoonerBBall]

Are human genes human? You confuse the term human, with human being, which implies person-hood. I'm sure you have heard the term: we found human remains in the crash site. They mean they found stuff from a human being, they don't mean they found a person there.

Human DNA is human, but it is not a human being. An unborn child, after 7 weeks, has all the traits of a human being.

I see what you mean now that you clarify. There is a reason they say "human remains" though and not just "humans". :)

Also, I'd like to know where you got your information concerning 7 week fetuses having all the traits of a fully formed person. Is that just external physical traits?

[soonercruiser]

The problem is that the argument is framed incorrectly.

Pro-life is a stupid term. Everyone is Pro-life (or, at least, 99.9999% of people). Almost nobody is Pro-death. We wouldn't function as a society if there were advocates against life. The death penalty is different as it is someone convicted of a heinous crime being removed from society for its own good. You can be for the death penalty while still being an advocate for life. People convicted of the death penalty have broken the social contract in such a remarkable manner that removing them from society so that they can't break it further is seen as the only possible solution. This is done with the understanding that taking someone's life is the ultimate violation of their inalienable rights.

Pro-life is even more ridiculous when talking about abortion because it isn't an argument about life. It is an argument about choice. You are either Pro-choice or Anti-choice. You believe that an individual's rights and liberties extend to choices they make about their own body or not. It is completely reasonable to believe as I do, that abortion is not something that I would consider if it were my choice but that everyone doesn't believe like me and they are entitled to their own decisions concerning their body when it doesn't affect me.

Psychobabble, probably taken from left wing talking points!
Pro-choice is actually "Pro-Death"!
Choice??? Yes - the "choice to take another human life" for convenience!

"Social Contract"????!!!!
Where might I find that teaching???? The Bible? The Constitution???
...maybe the Church of Social Justice"???
:dispirited:

[soonercruiser]

That is bass ackwards thinking..

You risk killing a human because we don't err on the side of caution? Because we don't know all of the facts?

I believe this is part of an 8 week old fetus...picture shouldn't bother ya since it is nothing but a clump of cells and not human....

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/a4.jpg

Thanks Phil!
A picture is worth a thousand words!
Sometimes even a good cartoon is too....:tennis:

[soonercruiser]

Again, you are making a plea to emotion rather than logic. You are using pictures specifically designed to convince us that your argument is correct. Where is the rest of the fetus? Is it left out because it is obviously unrecognizable as a human? What about other pictures of the same time that aren't as well formed? Anecdotal evidence like this is great for politics and TV news clips, but poor for a sustained argument supporting the removal of women's rights. Does the picture show brain activity? Does it show conscious thought? No, it can't possibly show those things, so it is poor evidence to support your theory.

SoonerBal...
And you are making an argument on simple human logic only; without morals or an unformed conscience.

[soonercruiser]

An egg and sperm are not humans. They are a seed and fertilizer that could possibly combine to gestate into a human, given the right conditions. There are a lot of things that can happen before, during, and after conception that can prevent them from forming into a human without including abortion. What about the billions of sperm and eggs that never become babies. Are those constitutionally protected as well?

The argument has everything to do with dominion over your own body. Not just for women but for men as well because as soon as we legislate against freedom of choice for one sex, it opens the door for legislation against the other sex as well.

As for the rest of your argument that is wholly founded in religion and fear of God, I've covered that. It is awesome that you have faith and believe as you do, but that isn't what everyone believes and forcing your religious belief system on others shouldn't be allowed at all in this country.

From the medical perspective, once the sperm fertilizes the egg, and cell diiivision starts.....the DNA is unique!

Too bad Obama is forcing his morals on us Catholics.
:dispirited:

[AlboSooner]

I see what you mean now that you clarify. There is a reason they say "human remains" though and not just "humans". :)

Also, I'd like to know where you got your information concerning 7 week fetuses having all the traits of a fully formed person. Is that just external physical traits?


Look I am passionate about this issue. But that passion doesn't cloud my reason, only my tact. It doesn't matter what I say, what facts I present. You will not change your position. I follow the Anthony Flew logic: I will follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's why I used to be an atheist, and come from a family of atheists.

We, anti-abortion people, do not want to enslave, diminish, devalue women, and we think that human life is worth preserving. Human life should not be seen as an inconvenience, to be ended when it pleases us. 95% of abortions are performed because the mother can't afford the baby. That is just plain wrong.

More than 50 million babies are aborted since 1973. Twice as much as the current population of the Netherlands. How can anyone be pro-abortion?

[SoonerPride]

There is no shortage of opinions.

[okie52]

Albo, I am assuming you are anti-death penalty...is that correct?

[AlboSooner]

Albo, I am assuming you are anti-death penalty...is that correct?

The death penalty issue is more complicated. In this case we are talking about somebody who has committed a crime. The un-born child has not committed a crime.

I find the correlation of abortion and death penalty, as odd.


I am ok with states that have the d penalty, and ok with those who don't have it. I don't think the d penalty does much to prevent crime, and also I believe that life in prison in solitary confinement which is the substitute if one is spared from the death penalty, is more punitive than the death penalty.

Physiologically speaking, the death by lethal injection is as easy as death can be. Now, the life long "living" in solitary confinement, leads a person to die a little each day under the punitive tides of paranoia, hallucinations, and schizophrenia.

In the bible, when you commit a crime, you are not promised deliverance from the law of the land, nor are you promised deliverance from the consequences in this world. Jesus said if you owe money and are taken to court, you will be in jail until you pay every penny back. Paul talked about the servant of the law having the sword and using it on law breakers.

What is your position?

[Curly Bill]

Peeps are as convinced as to their being correct in the abortion debate, as they are in the playoffs/no-playoff debate concerning D-1 football. Its entertaining to take in.

[okie52]

I have always been pro death penalty but I would gladly trade it if it would end abortions.

That said, I am pro choice. Really a morally bankrupt position but I hate for prochoice/prolife to be the litmus test for many candidates politically. I have dumped the responsiblity for protecting the unborn on the shoulders of the mother. Pictures like Phil posted do make me rethink my position.

[OU_Sooners75]

Many people that are on DP are not actually guilty - DNA evidence has proven this time and time again - how does one justify that?

many?

There are currently 3,022 people on death row in the United State.

The most ever was 3,581 in 2001.

That said, there have been only 289 DNA post conviction exonerations (total not all on death row) in the US.

Of those, only 17 were serving time on death row.

So comparing the number of current death row inmates to the number of death row exonerations, it really isn't many and damn sure hasn't been time and time again.

Google is a wonderful tool!

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

[OU_Sooners75]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/image/iheader2.jpg

That should pretty much seal the deal.

If you care about innocent lives.

But not all of those have been because of DNA, like your troll handle suggests.

[pphilfran]

So we don't want to execute a convicted murderer because they might be proven innocent by some future information or test...

Yet we allow abortions, and wish to err on the risky side, without really knowing when the fetus becomes human...

[okie52]

So we don't want to execute a convicted murderer because they might be proven innocent by some future information or test...

Yet we allow abortions, and wish to err on the risky side, without really knowing when the fetus becomes human...

God have mercy on the early developers.

[soonercruiser]

...exactly why the left is making the case that abortions and contraception save healthcare $$!
(Simple $$ logic only. "Maintaining" old people costs too much too!)

[SoonerPride]

So we don't want to execute a convicted murderer because they might be proven innocent by some future information or test...

Yet we allow abortions, and wish to err on the risky side, without really knowing when the fetus becomes human...

I said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't have a vagina it really isn't any of your damn business.

I don't think it is up to anyone to tell a woman she has to carry a pregnancy to term. That is a private decision between her and her physician.

I'd exclude everyone else from that equation.

Especially the state.

[soonercruiser]

I have always been pro death penalty but I would gladly trade it if it would end abortions.

That said, I am pro choice. Really a morally bankrupt position but I hate for prochoice/prolife to be the litmus test for many candidates politically. I have dumped the responsiblity for protecting the unborn on the shoulders of the mother. Pictures like Phil posted do make me rethink my position.

Phil your position is a cop-out!
With every pregnancy, the father of the child has the right to choose live for his progeny.
(Although most "situations" do not have a truely male father involved)
It is the biologic and psychsocial responsibility of the male to protect the female - even from her own bad decisions.

[SoonerPride]

Phil your position is a cop-out!
With every pregnancy, the father of the child has the right to choose live for his progeny.
(Although most "situations" do not have a truely male father involved)
It is the biologic and psychsocial responsibility of the male to protect the female - even from her own bad decisions.

Um, the 1950s called and would like you to return as soon as possible.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't have a vagina it really isn't any of your damn business.

I don't think it is up to anyone to tell a woman she has to carry a human to term. That is a private decision between her and her physician.

I'd exclude everyone else from that equation.

Especially the state.Doesn't seem so neat and tidy now, does it.

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm pro-choice. Every woman should be able to choose to open her legs or keep 'em closed. It's her choice. "Outrageous! You're telling women they can't have sex?!" Nope, just that there are consequences possible.

If she chooses to do things that create a completely separate human life, then her choice on that other life ends. The other life has it's own DNA, it's own everything, and very quickly.

We empathize with the women because we can see them. We don't get to see what that baby would have looked like, sounded like, felt like, smelled like, because it's butchered on the altar of convenience.

I wish these artists that do age enhanced pictures would make one of every baby that get's aborted. Show 'em around say, 10 years old.

It's disgusting and barbaric what we allow. Obama is for partial birth abortion. He is for letting a live born botched abortion baby to be put in a room until it dies, alone. And all for the sake of votes. He had better pray there isn't a heaven and a hell, or a Jesus that he claims he follows. He calls these children "mistakes". I call that evil.

Oh and I am against the death penalty because I don't think my Savior would ever pull the switch on somebody. He was convicted of a capital crime that he didn't commit also.

I would like to see them doing hard labor for life however, and I am not opposed to whips to get them motivated to move rock piles...in far northern Alaska.

I don't lose a wink of sleep over those that do get executed. I just wouldn't do it personally.

[StoopTroup]

Peeps are as convinced as to their being correct in the abortion debate, as they are in the playoffs/no-playoff debate concerning D-1 football. Its entertaining to take in.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. I'm one of the folks that think the Abortion Debate ends up with someone actually having a life terminated as opposed to the Playoff/no-Playoff Debate....at the end of that....nobody dies because of the decision. I also think that in regards to the Playoff/ No-Playoff thing....there are a whole lot of folks that don't really know what they want...they just don't like what they see.

With abortion....It's a more of a serious debate that should be talked about in a serious manner and IMO the Babies right should be protected from the Adults who most think that the Playoff/No-playoff Debate is more important.

[pphilfran]

I said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't have a vagina it really isn't any of your damn business.

I don't think it is up to anyone to tell a woman she has to carry a pregnancy to term. That is a private decision between her and her physician.

I'd exclude everyone else from that equation.

Especially the state.

It seems that the Supreme Court disagrees with you...at some point in time the rights of the baby trump the right of the mother to abort the baby...

All I have said is that we do not know scientifically the exact point in time when the fetus becomes a baby and we should err on the side of the baby....a fetus has human DNA...a person can be charged and convicted with murder of a fetus...

It seems your stance is that we should err on the side of the mother being allowed to abort at any time...

I will stand by my stance any day until we know more about when a human baby is actually formed...

[okie52]

Phil your position is a cop-out!
With every pregnancy, the father of the child has the right to choose live for his progeny.
(Although most "situations" do not have a truely male father involved)
It is the biologic and psychsocial responsibility of the male to protect the female - even from her own bad decisions.

Phil's always copping out.

[pphilfran]

Phil's always copping out.

Change sides too....

[jk the sooner fan]

was this resolved yet? if so - it'll be the first time in the history of the internet

[yermom]

We empathize with the women because we can see them. We don't get to see what that baby would have looked like, sounded like, felt like, smelled like, because it's butchered on the altar of convenience.


this is what it's all about. i've yet to hear anyone give me a reason about "choice" that wasn't really grounded in this

if you want to talk about medically necessary abortions and rape/incest, then that is a whole other discussion.

if you want an abortion because you want to go to college, then STFU. how many fathers have been in the position to have to give up on dreams because some skank decides to keep a baby? this isn't the 50's where some woman is trapped by a man because she can't work or leave the house.

[Turd_Ferguson]

how many fathers have been in the position to have to give up on dreams because some skank decides to keep a baby?Your ignorance is showing...

[C&CDean]

Phil your position is a cop-out!
With every pregnancy, the father of the child has the right to choose live for his progeny.
(Although most "situations" do not have a truely male father involved)
It is the biologic and psychsocial responsibility of the male to protect the female - even from her own bad decisions.

Would someone please translate these drunken ramblings into the King's English?

[StoopTroup]

Would someone please translate these drunken ramblings into the King's English?

He thinks it's his responsibility to lock his bitch up until she has the child as most women will choose to kill it once they know he knocked them up? :D ;)

I might be a tad off....

[yermom]

Your ignorance is showing...

the left wants to make it about women's rights. back when the pill became a thing it was about women's rights and controlling their reproduction, and i can get behind that

on the other hand, if they get pregnant and decide to keep the baby, then the sperm donor is on the hook to her for 18+ years, with no say in the matter

i'm just saying there are two sides, and women want to have their cake and eat it too

[Turd_Ferguson]

the left wants to make it about women's rights. back when the pill became a thing it was about women's rights and controlling their reproduction, and i can get behind that

on the other hand, if they get pregnant and decide to keep the baby, then the sperm donor is on the hook to her for 18+ years, with no say in the matter

i'm just saying there are two sides, and women want to have their cake and eat it tooHow bout being responsible and not putting your sperm into a skank? I guess that would fall back on personal responsibility and wouldn't work...

[C&CDean]

How bout being responsible and not putting your sperm into a skank? I guess that would fall back on personal responsibility and wouldn't work...

pffffft. Like you could control yourself and not drop a load in a skank if'n she was willing to accept it. Heh.

[yermom]

How bout being responsible and not putting your sperm into a skank? I guess that would fall back on personal responsibility and wouldn't work...

This isn't about me. I'd take care of my skanks if it came down to it. I'm more concerned about said skank deciding that some clump of tissue is too much of an inconvenience

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And this doodoo teaches kids? Wow.VERY scary for our country.

[soonercruiser]

Would someone please translate these drunken ramblings into the King's English?

I am translating the male-female animal science research in your terms Dean!

[soonercruiser]

He thinks it's his responsibility to lock his bitch up until she has the child as most women will choose to kill it once they know he knocked them up? :D ;)

I might be a tad off....

"Off" is not even a close description of your thought process.
You libs are always quick to assign a crappy motive to anyone who has a different view than yours.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Mother *should* in my opinion have a legal obligation to carry a fetus if the sex was consensual, in the same terms that parents have a legal obligation to take care of children once they are born. What am I missing here from a legal mind much better than my own? And that would be about everybody.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Peeps are as convinced as to their being correct in the abortion debate, as they are in the playoffs/no-playoff debate concerning D-1 football. Its entertaining to take in.A human fetus is a person. Murder is a felony.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...we do not know scientifically the exact point in time when the fetus becomes a baby...Huh?

A human zygote is, well, a human.

[Curly Bill]

I'm not sure I follow that logic. I'm one of the folks that think the Abortion Debate ends up with someone actually having a life terminated as opposed to the Playoff/no-Playoff Debate....at the end of that....nobody dies because of the decision. I also think that in regards to the Playoff/ No-Playoff thing....there are a whole lot of folks that don't really know what they want...they just don't like what they see.

With abortion....It's a more of a serious debate that should be talked about in a serious manner and IMO the Babies right should be protected from the Adults who most think that the Playoff/No-playoff Debate is more important.

What a surprise! But calm down will ya, no one is saying abortion and playoffs/non-playoffs are the same, just that peeps stand strongly by their positions in either debate and aren't likely to be swayed.

[Curly Bill]

A human fetus is a person. Murder is a felony.

Are you on the same stuff ST is, and can't comprehend either?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are you on the same stuff ST is, and can't comprehend either?Can't comprehend what?

[pphilfran]

Are you on the same stuff ST is, and can't comprehend either?

You can be tried and sentenced for murdering a fetus....

[Curly Bill]

Can't comprehend what?

Seemed you were taking the ST route believing I was equating talk of football playoffs with abortion. I was only saying peeps aren't likely to be swayed from their stance on either issue.

If I misunderstood your post...my bad.

[Curly Bill]

You can be tried and sentenced for murdering a fetus....

Yes, and....?

[Mississippi Sooner]

I'm going to have to get with this new wave and start referring to everyone who doesn't agree with every word I say as "Libs!" A person's actually political leanings no longer seem to matter.

[Curly Bill]

I'm going to have to get with this new wave and start referring to everyone who doesn't agree with every word I say as "Libs!" A person's actually political leanings no longer seem to matter.

"Lib" is about the worst thing you can call a person.

[Mississippi Sooner]

"Lib" is about the worst thing you can call a person.

That's just insensitive. Polite people would say "the L-word."

[Curly Bill]

That's just insensitive. Polite people would say "the L-word."

You mean PC people, and I'd almost rather be a lib than be PC. ;)

[Mississippi Sooner]

You mean PC people, and I'd almost rather be a lib than be PC. ;)

;)

[SoonerPride]

I'm PC and a liberal.

And damn proud of it too.

;)

[Mississippi Sooner]

I'm a PC, but if I had a choice I'd be a Mac.

[okie52]

I'm PC and a liberal.

And damn proud of it too.

;)

Can you say illegal immigrant or illegal alien or does it have to be undocumented worker? Migrant worker? Maybe just immigrant?

Do you use "disenfranchised" often?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm... a liberal.

And damn proud of it too.

;)We couldn't figger that out. haha. HSFY, AYF.

[SoonerTerry]

Pro-life = Pro-life - correct?

So to you little baby=murdering scumbag...

OK

[cleller]

Sheesh.
If some female wants an abortion, let her have it.

If a jury sentences someone to death, lynch em.

You're overthinking this to death.

[soonercruiser]

Can you say illegal immigrant or illegal alien or does it have to be undocumented worker? Migrant worker? Maybe just immigrant?

Do you use "disenfranchised" often?

"Displaced laborer" could work.

(Of course, that could be confused with a woman giving birth in the wrong place - like a Planned Parenthood Office!)
:playful:

[TVKaleen]

"Lib" is about the worst thing you can call a person.

I thought the worst thing you could call a person is whorn.

[Curly Bill]

I thought the worst thing you could call a person is whorn.

It may be close, but I don't think it's as bad. I prolly shouldn't admit this but I have some really good friends who are whorn fans. I don't have any good friends who are devout libs.