08 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's only because I am right.
Since you seem to see only your side of the discussion, small wonder
why you cannot believe there is an argument here!
Kelly
Are you suggesting that the man on death row has a choice?
Are you suggesting that someone having an abortion or wanting euthenasia does not?
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat does size of government have to do with it? We are talking
No, it's a rant, because you did not answer my question, which I'll rephrase to make it even more clear: If conservatives believe in limited government, why do they want to give it the ultimate power? If conservatives believe that public entities are less efficient than private ones, why do they want an inefficient entity (the government) having the power to make such an ultimate and irreversible decision?
about due process within the law, and it’s punishments. If there is
worth to life than there is worth, if there is justice then there is
justice. How far do we take our values for both is the discussion,
not how big or powerful our government is?
There is nothing wrong with power if that was the limit you were
refering to, as long as it is fair and just. A level playing field is all we
can ask for and hope for. As long as our due process is fair, I see no
issues with crimes that have capital punishment. Which is quite unlike
abortion, which takes life without any protection or value given to the
one being aborted.
Kelly
08 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirWell if your right why are you waisting your time with me?
It's only because I am right.
Are you suggesting that the man on death row has a choice?
Are you suggesting that someone having an abortion or wanting euthenasia does not?
The man on death row had a choice if he is there because he
did something against the law.
The one being aborted has no choice, someone else is making a
choice to abort their life. Unless rape was involved then the one about
to make that choice made one earlier and is now going to force
another to pay for it. If rape was involved, then the crimes of the man
is going to doom the life of the one being aborted.
You will have to define what you mean by euthenasia and choices.
Kelly
08 Sep 04
I'm against the death penalty. Here's why. Forget about your religious beliefs, your stance on morality, etc. Those play a smaller role to the following reason, imo. The one reason that keeps me coming back to this conclusion against the death penalty is simple. After reading and hearing about on 20/20, 48 hours, etc. about the hundreds of people who sat on death row, to later be acquitted of the crimes that they were accused of--- well, that just takes the cake for me. I would rather see 1 innocent person live after being charged with a murder he didnt commit, then see 10 die who actually committed the crime they were charged with.
As for abortion, call me narrow-minded or naive, but I truly believe that life begins at conception. I will never understand why people believe that killing a baby at an early age is such a horrendous crime to them, while having that same baby killed while still in the womb is any less of a crime.
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by lioyankDoes condom fall into WMD category for you?
I'm against the death penalty. Here's why. Forget about your religious beliefs, your stance on morality, etc. Those play a smaller role to the following reason, imo. The one reason that keeps me coming back to this conclusion against the death penalty is simple. After reading and hearing about on 20/20, 48 hours, etc. about the hundreds of people who sat o ...[text shortened]... rime to them, while having that same baby killed while still in the womb is any less of a crime.
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess Reagan was wrong, government can be the solution!
What does size of government have to do with it? We are talking
about due process within the law, and it’s punishments. If there is
worth to life than there is worth, if there is justice then there is
justice. How far do we take our values for both is the discussion,
not how big or powerful our government is?
There is nothing wrong with power if that ...[text shortened]... tion, which takes life without any protection or value given to the
one being aborted.
Kelly
I was primarily interested in this thread as it asked an interesting question regarding whether people's position vis-a-vis abortion rights and capital punishment are consistent. I've explained how mine are; you haven't. I'm really not interested in getting into an abortion argument: you're asserting that at conception a full human being exists and that it is murder to have an abortion. The first part of your assertion is unprovable; I'm sure you believe it; I don't. So the discussion would be "Is not" "Is to" which is fine for a kindergarten, but boring in a debate among adults. Therefore, having addressed the point of the thread, I withdraw.
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by lioyankThis is his point: Since Condoms prevent conception, and since conception is the beginning of a human life, condoms prevent humans from coming into existence. In other words, speaking counterfactually, humans that would have existed otherwise are prevented from coming into existence by condom use. Thus, if you morally equate the prevention of a being from coming into existence with killing a being (a dubious equation, in my opinion) then when a condom prevents a human from coming into existence, it is morally equivalent to murder. Since millions of humans are prevented from coming into existence via widespread condom use, wideapread condom use is morally equivalent to mass murder. I don't agree with this argument, but it is an interesting one.
WMD= weapons of mass destruction? A condom as a weapon of mass destruction? No...
Obviously your being sarcastic. Could you elaborate on your question?
08 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI would ask that you come back to this thread later and read our
I guess Reagan was wrong, government can be the solution!
I was primarily interested in this thread as it asked an interesting question regarding whether people's position vis-a-vis abortion rights and capital pu ...[text shortened]... . Therefore, having addressed the point of the thread, I withdraw.
responses again.
You don't think I have been consistent? Abortion rights no matter how
you look at it; with or without conception will at some point always
move to the value of who/what is inside the woman. No one is going
to debate the removal of a wart even though it is part of the woman's
body and has human cells. Simply put, value judgments are there at
every stage of what is growing within the woman. If that were not true
why say a first trimester abortion is any different than a partial birth
abortion?
You don’t like the way the discussion became framed, simply say you
want to have no value judgements on what or who is inside the woman,
and lets compare abortion to capital punishment, which is worse?
Please tell me why you think that way, just remember, no value
judgments on who or what is growing inside the woman. That was all
you had to do!
Kelly
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me cast a rope and drag you back down to reality.
Well if your right why are you waisting your time with me?
The man on death row had a choice if he is there because he
did something against the law.
The one being aborted has no choice, someone else is making a
choice to abort their life. Unless rape was involved then the one about
to make that choice made one earlier and is now going to force
an ...[text shortened]... he one being aborted.
You will have to define what you mean by euthenasia and choices.
Kelly
The man on death row had a choice if he is there because he
did something against the law.
I'm not on about him breaking the law. I'm on about the punishment. He has no say in the matter of life-imprisonment vs. death. I also note you accidently missed out on the "100% proof" part of the argument.
The one being aborted has no choice
Huh? The one being? This isn't a 12 year old schoolboy we're talking about is it?
No, we're talking about a clump of cells which can't live without the female's consent. If she poisons herself, the clump of cells die. If she does a parachute jump and doesn't open the chute...the clump of cells die.
This clump of cells is NOTHING without the female. That's why it's a female's choice what she does with it.
Unless rape was involved then the one about
to make that choice made one earlier and is now going to force
another to pay for it.
I may have to repeat this: THERE IS NO OTHER ONE! It's a clump-a-cells. It's not paying for anything! It doesn't earn wages, it doesn't have a tax number and it's not in my phone book.
If rape was involved, then the crimes of the man
is going to doom the life of the one being aborted
What's so sacred about life? Besides this, I can't help but repeat myself, a woman can do with her own body what she wants. YOU CAN'T STOP HER. Now, until she poops that little clump-a-cells out and gives it a name, it's an integral part of her body. End of story.
Stop trying to force women to have less choice. We've fought generations to get where we are. Stop trying to send us back to the 'good-old-times' where women did what others wanted.
If a woman doesn't want an abortion. Fine. Good for her. Give her a rose or something; I don't know, give her a life-time's supply of pro-life magazines for all I care.
If she does want that abortion. Accept it. It's her body. She can do whatever the hell she likes with it.
You will have to define what you mean by euthenasia and choices.
Kelly
I could define euthenasia. But I'm not gonna too. ANYBODY who wants to kill themselves can. IT'S THEIR CHOICE! If they're sick, morbid, gothic, mentally ill or deprived...IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
Sure. If someone is out of their wits, give them medication by all means. JUST DON'T JUDGE THEM FOR WANTING TO END IT.
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayVery quickly: I don't care if a woman has an abortion or not, that's none of my business it's a private choice made by a private decision maker. I care if the government kills someone in my name (in New York crimininal cases are titled "The People of the State of New York v. Mister X). I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted debate about at what stage a zygote-embyro-fetus is a human life entitled to protection from the person carrying it(them); I don't know, reasonable minds differ and my position is that given such a level of uncertainty and disagreement the proper person to make that decision is the woman involved, not the State by criminalizing it (which it was before Roe v. Wade).
I would ask that you come back to this thread later and read our
responses again.
You don't think I have been consistent? Abortion rights no matter how
you look at it; with or without conception will at some point always
move to the value of who/what is inside the woman. No one is going
to debate the removal of a wart even though it is part of the w ...[text shortened]...
judgments on who or what is growing inside the woman. That was all
you had to do!
Kelly
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrI don't agree with it either, and think it is not worthy of being called
This is his point: Since Condoms prevent conception, and since conception is the beginning of a human life, condoms prevent humans from coming into existence. In other words, speaking counterfactually, humans that would have existed otherwise are prevented from coming into existence by condom use. Thus, if you morally equate the prevention of a being from c ...[text shortened]... lly equivalent to mass murder. I don't agree with this argument, but it is an interesting one.
interesting.
Kelly
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrDude...
This is his point: Since Condoms prevent conception, and since conception is the beginning of a human life, condoms prevent humans from coming into existence. In other words, speaking counterfactually, humans that would have existed otherwise are prevented from coming into existence by condom use. Thus, if you morally equate the prevention of a being from c ...[text shortened]... lly equivalent to mass murder. I don't agree with this argument, but it is an interesting one.
You can't murder something that's never lived. .
And if it is murder, then I've wiped out whole civilisations with carefully used socks.
08 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't agree with it either🙂 But it is logical consequence of your position. Discussion in this thread goes nowhere - you are not addressing inconsistencies in your position.
I don't agree with it either, and think it is not worthy of being called
interesting.
Kelly
08 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI did not miss your 100% proof, I saw it and rejected it. Our process
Let me cast a rope and drag you back down to reality.
The man on death row had a choice if he is there because he
did something against the law.
I'm not on about him breaking the law. I'm on about the punishment. He has no ...[text shortened]... by all means. JUST DON'T JUDGE THEM FOR WANTING TO END IT.
says beyond a reasonable doubt not 100% certainty.
You can call a wart a bunch of cells, you can call a mole a bunch of
cells, but what is being aborted will be a full-grown human being
at later stages of his or her life. That group of cells will be an
infant, a baby, a toddler, and so on with the females helps. No denying
the life will die if she dies, or that life requires help even outside
of the womb it needs it's mother or someone standing in her stead for
food and other things. We do not allow people to kill infants because
they need help to live, why start a few minutes before that with the
same person?
If you have to ask what is so sacred about life, why worry about what
the state does? My being able to stop someone from doing anything
isn't the topic or the issue, we cannot stop murder or rape yet we have
laws that say they are not allowed.
You seem to think what is growing inside the woman has the same
value of bowel movement, so I guess that for you an abortion is no big
deal. Now, until she poops that little clump-a-cells out and gives it a
name, it's an integral part of her body. End of story. Small wonder you
think the way you do. How sad.
Kelly