Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     


    No, it's not. It's developing into a human being, but still is not a self-sustaining form of life. Nor does a fetus have legal rights granted to it via international or US legal doctrine. By that logic, does a single sperm cell count as a life? It can develop into a human with the presence of other factors (egg), much like a fetus can (a viable nutritional source and host to carry it). Further extrapolate that logic, and theoretically, any time you have ever unnaturally prevented reproduction, whether that be by contraception, self-stimulation, or "pulling out," you have deprived that "living being" of its right to life. Aside: I feel like I'm restating what I had fed to me in Catholic school growing up, bleh.

     



    Newborns aren't a "self-sustaining" form of life. Neither are some handicapped persons. Should we abort them at our whim?

    As far as legal definitions, they are simply words based on opinion. They mean nothing at all.

    A sperm is no more a human being than a skin cell. It is the combination of a sperm and egg that creates a human being. Until that occurs, a human life does not exist so prevention of that union cannot be murder.

    I used to be a pro-abortion person. I used all the empty arguments. Then I simply realized "killing babies is wrong". All arguments fall to that one.

    As always, I would determine the status of this issue on a state by state basis.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:


    "Muskets were "military grade" firearms at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Obviously the ratifiers didn't see a problem with civilians having the same small arms capability as the military. So change the Constitution. They built in a process to do so."

    Logically, this argument is sound in my opinion. I'm not quite sure where I stand in regards to government's influence on one's right to bear arms, so I won't comment.

     



    I believe the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the people armed in case a federal government became overbearing and they needed to assert their autonomy. Back then the states were adamantly dedicated to their relative autonomy.

    I strongly support the original vision of separate states in choosing their own destiny with the federal government being simply the glue that holds them together rather than the decider of destiny for all.

    It's not primarily about hunting or defending the home from intruders. It is primarily the need to have viable arms to contend with a federal military bent on oppression. Otherwise there is no need to word it like it was.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    Prolate0spheroid simply said they have easy access to healthcare and good-paying jobs. He never stated that they were somehow superior to America's. And in fact, his experience may well be that for him his access to quality healthcare is greater there with a higher-paying and more fruitful job than he had in America.



    He has a long history of telling us we should be like Canada, replete with numerous implications about how much superior the utopian tundra is.

    This is not the first time he and I have crossed swords on this issue.

     

    Frankly, I like Canada, and Canadians, when they're not telling me how smart they are and how they know how to do things better. They aren't and they don't.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I assume you are consistent and would favor polygamous marriages and marriages between close family members as well.


    Frankly, I think the whole "marriage" thing is a can of worms. I would abolish that institution from a legal/secular standpoint and allow "civil unions" affording the same rights for any two adults that wish to enter one. It would have nothing to do with gender or sexuality whatsoever. That should shut both sides of the argument up.

    Marriage would be relegated to a ceremonial status administered by whatever religious or other entity the partakers chose.



    I agree that marriage is definitely a can of worms. I would be all for your proposed amendment. As it stands, marriage exists as two separate functions, religious and civil, so furthering the divide between the two would certainly end the heated debate. Of course, such a radical change would never be accepted, so we're stuck with the current state of how things are.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Newborns aren't a "self-sustaining" form of life. Neither are some handicapped persons. Should we abort them at our whim?

     

    As far as legal definitions, they are simply words based on opinion. They mean nothing at all.

    A sperm is no more a human being than a skin cell. It is the combination of a sperm and egg that creates a human being. Until that occurs, a human life does not exist so prevention of that union cannot be murder.

    I used to be a pro-abortion person. I used all the empty arguments. Then I simply realized "killing babies is wrong". All arguments fall to that one.

    As always, I would determine the status of this issue on a state by state basis.[/quote]

    I wholeheartedly disagree with your contentions that legal definitions mean nothing at all. Legal definitions are the framework of our society. Of course, the true value in their existence lies in the reasoning behind such definitions and codes. But without thoroughly thought-out and carefully worded legal definitions, our system loses its backbone, its legitimacy, and ultimately fails.

    I'm sure you know this, but obviously pro-abortion and pro-choice are different. Be more careful with your choice of words, because they imply different rationales. I'm all for a woman having her choice, but by no means do I advocate having an abortion for all instances. I'm lucky enough to have never been faced with such a decision, and to be honest, I don't know what I would do in such a case. I believe that the woman should have a choice regardless.

    And yes, killing babies is wrong. Once again, we fall back to the issue that your definition of a beginning of life and mine differ, simple as that.

    And I agree that it should be a state issue, for the most part. However, when the issue of Constitutional rights arises (the right to life in particular), that's when these cases have to be heard by higher courts.

    As for your last post, I am aware of the framework and rationale behind the second amendment. I simply do not know where I stand as far as specific topics related to regulation, like what's appropriate to require for permits, transportation, and where to draw the line ethically when it comes to lethal weapons.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I assume you are consistent and would favor polygamous marriages and marriages between close family members as well.


    Frankly, I think the whole "marriage" thing is a can of worms. I would abolish that institution from a legal/secular standpoint and allow "civil unions" affording the same rights for any two adults that wish to enter one. It would have nothing to do with gender or sexuality whatsoever. That should shut both sides of the argument up.

    Marriage would be relegated to a ceremonial status administered by whatever religious or other entity the partakers chose.


    I agree that marriage is definitely a can of worms. I would be all for your proposed amendment. As it stands, marriage exists as two separate functions, religious and civil, so furthering the divide between the two would certainly end the heated debate. Of course, such a radical change would never be accepted, so we're stuck with the current state of how things are.

    Who knows if that proposal would be accepted or not. None of our leaders have had enough brains to propose it. Frankly, I have seen a large number of persons such as yourself finding the idea to be a good solution to the issue.

    And you avoided my questions regarding whether you apply the same principles to polygamy and incest.


    I wholeheartedly disagree with your contentions that legal definitions mean nothing at all. Legal definitions are the framework of our society. Of course, the true value in their existence lies in the reasoning behind such definitions and codes. But without thoroughly thought-out and carefully worded legal definitions, our system loses its backbone, its legitimacy, and ultimately fails.

    Yeah, we need law. But just because something is law does not make it right.



    I'm sure you know this, but obviously pro-abortion and pro-choice are different. Be more careful with your choice of words, because they imply different rationales. I'm all for a woman having her choice, but by no means do I advocate having an abortion for all instances. I'm lucky enough to have never been faced with such a decision, and to be honest, I don't know what I would do in such a case. I believe that the woman should have a choice regardless.

    Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing. One is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. Mincing the words does not change that fact.



    And yes, killing babies is wrong. Once again, we fall back to the issue that your definition of a beginning of life and mine differ, simple as that.

    It is irrefutable scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Whether that life is developed enough to be aborted is a subjective judgement.

    And I agree that it should be a state issue, for the most part. However, when the issue of Constitutional rights arises (the right to life in particular), that's when these cases have to be heard by higher courts.

    No they don't.

     

    As for your last post, I am aware of the framework and rationale behind the second amendment. I simply do not know where I stand as far as specific topics related to regulation, like what's appropriate to require for permits, transportation, and where to draw the line ethically when it comes to lethal weapons.

    The line should be drawn roughly at the same point the framers drew it. Back then, the army had muskets, so the citizens get muskets. Now the army has assault rifles, so the citizens get assault rifles. It doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't like it. It's the mandate of the Constitution. If people don't like it, they can change it.

     


    But actually, too few lawmakers, judges or people seem to care much about the Constitution these days. They only care about their political agenda. And that's why we are going to hell in a handbasket. It will get much worse. Soon.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Who knows if that proposal would be accepted or not. None of our leaders have had enough brains to propose it. Frankly, I have seen a large number of persons such as yourself finding the idea to be a good solution to the issue.

    And you avoided my questions regarding whether you apply the same principles to polygamy and incest.

    No one knows for sure, but it's fairly reasonable to assume that a majority of the country would be opposed to the government telling them that their former marriage is now only seen as a civil union. I know it's a matter of semantics, but people do care. Perhaps our leaders have enough brains to realize that such a move would spell political suicide and that's why they haven't proposed such a move.

    On polygamy and incest, in principle it would flow I suppose. Of course, I don't know if such a thing would have real, measurable damage to future children and such. I know that in virtually all reproducing animals that I know of, a history of close incest can lead to severe birth defects, and for that reason I would oppose it if that held true for humans as well.

    Yeah, we need law. But just because something is law does not make it right.

    Oh of course not, and I gave several examples of what I consider to be outdated or outrageous laws. My point was that saying that legal definitions mean nothing at all was quite an extreme position to take, one of which I find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing. One is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. Mincing the words does not change that fact.

    No they are not. And if you truly feel so, why would you insist on using pro-abortion instead of pro-choice? The fact of the matter is that semantics does matter, and using the term pro-abortion serves the purpose of pinning a particular opposite stance in a perceived more negative light. Additionally, you yourself stated that you would opt to save the mother if giving birth would endanger her life (or certainly kill her). Many people who consider themselves pro-choice take that position specifically because of situations like that scenario. If you're pro-life, I interpret that as an absolute. In fact, you yourself also just said one is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. So given that you said you would opt to abort a baby if it would kill the mother to give birth, and then you claim to still be absolutely pro-life, you have just contradicted yourself.

    It is irrefutable scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Whether that life is developed enough to be aborted is a subjective judgement.

    Fair point, and I'll give you that then.

    No they don't.

    Yes, they do. Federal courts are the only courts that have jurisdiction over Constitutional appeals. Their results shape what state courts can rule in future cases.

    The line should be drawn roughly at the same point the framers drew it. Back then, the army had muskets, so the citizens get muskets. Now the army has assault rifles, so the citizens get assault rifles. It doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't like it. It's the mandate of the Constitution. If people don't like it, they can change it.

    I get your point, and I don't dispute or advocate it. Just stating simply that there are still some questions for me that I have yet to ponder seriously, that's all. 


    But actually, too few lawmakers, judges or people seem to care much about the Constitution these days. They only care about their political agenda. And that's why we are going to hell in a handbasket. It will get much worse. Soon.

    I definitely agree with the first two sentences. It's an unfortunate situation, truly.

     



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     

    On polygamy and incest, in principle it would flow I suppose. Of course, I don't know if such a thing would have real, measurable damage to future children and such. I know that in virtually all reproducing animals that I know of, a history of close incest can lead to severe birth defects, and for that reason I would oppose it if that held true for humans as well.

     



    Obviously the detrimental effects of an incestuous marriage on offspring would have to be dealt with by a requirement that one or the other person be sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation). And of course if it was a gay incestuous union that factor would be moot naturally.

    But the point is that both polygamy and incestuous union are prohibited on moral grounds, just as gay marriage is. But generally those in favor of gay marriage are not in favor of the others. So the facade of wanting "rights" is exposed through that position.

    I'm sure some judge could find it unconstitutional to deny a polygamous marriage if the politics behind him/her was strong enough.

    So it's really a moral judgement in the end. Yet some decry religious persons from making such a judgement while they do exactly the same thing.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     

    Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing. One is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. Mincing the words does not change that fact.

    No they are not. And if you truly feel so, why would you insist on using pro-abortion instead of pro-choice? The fact of the matter is that semantics does matter, and using the term pro-abortion serves the purpose of pinning a particular opposite stance in a perceived more negative light.

     



    Semantics do matter. That's why it is called "abortion" rather than what it really is; murder. That's why it is preferred by those who ascribe to it as being called "pro choice" instead of "pro abortion". It is to cast a positive light on something that is clearly evil.

    That's why those in favor of gay marriage call those opposed to it "gay bashers", and that those same suffer from "homophobia". These folks are neither "bashing" nor "afraid" of gays, but the words create a perception that the left uses to further their agenda.

    It's all word games to try and paint things in a less harsh or more harsh light to further an agenda. The words are fake contrivances to sway opinion and are devoid of truth. That's what the left does; play word games.

    So, persons who favor the wholesale destruction of innocent unborn human life at a whim are not only pro-abortion, but really, pro-murder (or pro-homicide).

    There is no getting around that bottom line truth.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Additionally, you yourself stated that you would opt to save the mother if giving birth would endanger her life (or certainly kill her). Many people who consider themselves pro-choice take that position specifically because of situations like that scenario. If you're pro-life, I interpret that as an absolute. In fact, you yourself also just said one is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. So given that you said you would opt to abort a baby if it would kill the mother to give birth, and then you claim to still be absolutely pro-life, you have just contradicted yourself.



    Obviously in that sad scenario somebody would die. According to your strict definition of the term "pro-life" I would be damned if I did and damned if I didn't.

    In that type of "one or the other" situation the mother would be the preferred one to save because she might have other children dependent upon her and/or a husband or family that would be devastated by her loss. The fetus would have no such attachments to consider in the choice.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Prefer to take the high road rather than respond to murder with another murder . . . I guess we could cut off the hands of thieves, poke out eyes for eyes, and bring back public hangings too, but really I sort of like the more civilized approach we've evolved toward.

     

     

     



    yes we have evolved to a nation that is fat [68% overwgt]; dumb[look at the educational scores against of nations]; and stupid [we want our enemies to like us]. As an aside, we would not have won WWII with the present rules of engagement.  Questions from the uniformed?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, well the smarter countries don't have the death penalty.  Nor do they allow guns everywhere. And they have government-funded health care.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ouch!

    Had to stop reading the thread when I got to this unfortunate post.

    Just so you (and anyone else who doesn't) will know, the "government" doesn't fund anything.

     

    Thats your (and my) money they're  squandering 12 zeroes at a time.

     

    (ohhh . . .  and pardon me if someone else -- as I fervently hope -- has pointed this out in the hundred or so responses I didn't read)

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to p-mike's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Prefer to take the high road rather than respond to murder with another murder . . . I guess we could cut off the hands of thieves, poke out eyes for eyes, and bring back public hangings too, but really I sort of like the more civilized approach we've evolved toward.

     

     

     

     

     



    yes we have evolved to a nation that is fat [68% overwgt]; dumb[look at the educational scores against of nations]; and stupid [we want our enemies to like us]. As an aside, we would not have won WWII with the present rules of engagement.  Questions from the uniformed?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Yes, well the smarter countries don't have the death penalty.  Nor do they allow guns everywhere. And they have government-funded health care. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ouch!

    Had to stop reading the thread when I got to this unfortunate post.

    Just so you (and anyone else who doesn't) will know, the "government" doesn't fund anything.

     

    Thats your (and my) money they're  squandering 12 zeroes at a time.

     

    (ohhh . . .  and pardon me if someone else -- as I fervently hope -- has pointed this out in the hundred or so responses I didn't read)

     

     



    Wow! Really?  I had no idea!  You mean all those checks I've been writing for thirty plus years to the US Treasury and various state departments of revenue and a whole bunch of different cities and towns and now even to the Canada Revenue Agency actually are what they use to pay for government programs?  I'm astounded.  I never once made the connection. Here I am writing checks for tens, even hundreds, of thousands of American and Canadian dollars every year and never once knowing that it's me who's funding all those government programs in two countries, a province, and two or three different states.  You mean it was me who helped put all those kids through school, paid for police and fire protection, helped buy health care coverage for millions of Canadian families, supported the defense of two different nations, made it possible for old people to retire more comfortably, ensured whole cities and towns had clean water, helped build better roads and bridges, and even got the garbage off the streets?  

    Wow, I'm feeling pretty darn good about that, P-mike. Thanks for letting me know. That rather substantial tax bill I paid last year has done a heck of a lot more good than I ever thought.  

    Honestly, now that I know what it did, I think it could be the best expenditure I made all year.  Better even than my Pats season tickets when you really think about it.

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing. One is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. Mincing the words does not change that fact.

    No they are not. And if you truly feel so, why would you insist on using pro-abortion instead of pro-choice? The fact of the matter is that semantics does matter, and using the term pro-abortion serves the purpose of pinning a particular opposite stance in a perceived more negative light.

     

     



    Semantics do matter. That's why it is called "abortion" rather than what it really is; murder. That's why it is preferred by those who ascribe to it as being called "pro choice" instead of "pro abortion". It is to cast a positive light on something that is clearly evil.

     

    That's why those in favor of gay marriage call those opposed to it "gay bashers", and that those same suffer from "homophobia". These folks are neither "bashing" nor "afraid" of gays, but the words create a perception that the left uses to further their agenda.

    It's all word games to try and paint things in a less harsh or more harsh light to further an agenda. The words are fake contrivances to sway opinion and are devoid of truth. That's what the left does; play word games.

    So, persons who favor the wholesale destruction of innocent unborn human life at a whim are not only pro-abortion, but really, pro-murder (or pro-homicide).

    There is no getting around that bottom line truth.

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe.... That's the style!!!!!!!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to p-mike's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Prefer to take the high road rather than respond to murder with another murder . . . I guess we could cut off the hands of thieves, poke out eyes for eyes, and bring back public hangings too, but really I sort of like the more civilized approach we've evolved toward.

     

     

     

     

     



    yes we have evolved to a nation that is fat [68% overwgt]; dumb[look at the educational scores against of nations]; and stupid [we want our enemies to like us]. As an aside, we would not have won WWII with the present rules of engagement.  Questions from the uniformed?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Yes, well the smarter countries don't have the death penalty.  Nor do they allow guns everywhere. And they have government-funded health care. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ouch!

    Had to stop reading the thread when I got to this unfortunate post.

    Just so you (and anyone else who doesn't) will know, the "government" doesn't fund anything.

     

    Thats your (and my) money they're  squandering 12 zeroes at a time.

     

    (ohhh . . .  and pardon me if someone else -- as I fervently hope -- has pointed this out in the hundred or so responses I didn't read)

     

     



    Wow! Really?  I had no idea! 

      

     Actually, though, the government does fund much.  We just fund the government.  

     

     



    Hey Pro ... You still haven't commented on how we have evolved as a civilization from giving Fathers the right to kill their children to now giving Mothers the right to do the same.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to p-mike's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Prefer to take the high road rather than respond to murder with another murder . . . I guess we could cut off the hands of thieves, poke out eyes for eyes, and bring back public hangings too, but really I sort of like the more civilized approach we've evolved toward.

     

     

     

     

     



    yes we have evolved to a nation that is fat [68% overwgt]; dumb[look at the educational scores against of nations]; and stupid [we want our enemies to like us]. As an aside, we would not have won WWII with the present rules of engagement.  Questions from the uniformed?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Yes, well the smarter countries don't have the death penalty.  Nor do they allow guns everywhere. And they have government-funded health care. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ouch!

    Had to stop reading the thread when I got to this unfortunate post.

    Just so you (and anyone else who doesn't) will know, the "government" doesn't fund anything.

     

    Thats your (and my) money they're  squandering 12 zeroes at a time.

     

    (ohhh . . .  and pardon me if someone else -- as I fervently hope -- has pointed this out in the hundred or so responses I didn't read)

     

     



    Wow! Really?  I had no idea! 

      

     Actually, though, the government does fund much.  We just fund the government.  

     

     

     



    Hey Pro ... You still haven't commented on how we have evolved as a civilization from giving Fathers the right to kill their children to now giving Mothers the right to do the same.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, I did . . . read above . . . 

     

Share