Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Mass voters bring back the death penalty!

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. 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.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  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:

    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.

     



     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. 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:

     

    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)

     

     
  9. 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.

     

     

     

     
  10. 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:

     

     

    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.



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

     
  11. 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.

     
  12. 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:

     

    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.

     



    No, I did . . . read above . . . 

     
Sections
Shortcuts