Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 301 (295261)
03-14-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
03-14-2006 10:55 AM


quote:
The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience....
Actually the real issue is terminating an unwanted condition. "Innocent" and "life" are rhetorical terms used by those who have no real argument beyond their own desire to impose their beliefs and values on others.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 10:55 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 17 of 301 (295264)
03-14-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
03-14-2006 3:06 PM


Actually the real issue is terminating an unwanted condition. "Innocent" and "life" are rhetorical terms used by those who have no real argument beyond their own desire to impose their beliefs and values on others.
Interesting. Then why was Scott Peterson convited of 2 murders? According to you his son would be simply an "unwanted condition."
Hell, his wife was obviously an unwanted condition; and he should be able to kill his wife because, after all, I don't want to impose my beliefs and values on him.
This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:10 PM

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 3:06 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:17 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 3:21 PM Tal has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 301 (295265)
03-14-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tal
03-14-2006 2:59 PM


quote:
That is up to the legislature to decide, but second degree murder sounds good. It is the sentence Scott Peterson recieved for killing his unborn son.
That's going to be quite a few 9-26 year old girls and women convicted of second degree murder.
You interested in sending thousands of girls to prison?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 2:59 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:14 PM nator has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 19 of 301 (295267)
03-14-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
03-14-2006 3:09 PM


That's going to be quite a few 9-26 year old girls and women convicted of second degree murder.
You interested in sending thousands of girls to prison?
The difference between a partial-birth abortion and murder is 6 inches. The fact remains the same: You have still terminated a human life simply because you didn't want to take responsibility for your actions (pre-marital unprotected sex). You play, you pay.
To answer your question, yes. If someone breaks the law they should be punished. I work in Law Enforcment and that is how I see it.
This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:14 PM

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:23 PM Tal has replied
 Message 23 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:26 PM Tal has replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 4:09 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 4:28 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-14-2006 10:58 PM Tal has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 301 (295269)
03-14-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:09 PM


quote:
Hell, his wife was obviously an unwanted condition; and he should be able to kill his wife because, after all, I don't want to impose my beliefs and values on him.
What about people who take the "Morning After Pill"?
Should we convict them of murder if it can be determined that they housed within their bodies a fertilized egg?
Also, should we be collecting and searching the menstrual discharge of all female people, since most fertilized eggs never implant and are expelled to die?
What about IUD's? Since they prevent preganacy by preventing implantation, should we outlaw them?
I mean, Those fertilized eggs are life, right? Shouldn't we be doing all we can to save it?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-14-2006 03:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:09 PM Tal has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 301 (295272)
03-14-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:09 PM


quote:
Then why was Scott Peterson convited of 2 murders?
Because there are legislators that would abuse the law and language for their own agendas.
-
quote:
According to you his son would be simply an "unwanted condition."
No, that would be determination made by the woman carrying the fetus.
-
quote:
his wife was obviously an unwanted condition
Probably, but unlike a fetus at least his wife was a person.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:09 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-14-2006 10:59 PM Chiroptera has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 301 (295273)
03-14-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:14 PM


So tell me tal, do you support the government providing free and easily-obtained birth control and extensive and explicit government-mandated sex education for all children and people, starting from an early age?
This is in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:14 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:33 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 301 (295275)
03-14-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:14 PM


quote:
The difference between a partial-birth abortion and murder is 6 inches.
And the difference between shooting an enemy combatant and murdering someone with a gun is a piece of paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:14 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:28 PM nator has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 24 of 301 (295277)
03-14-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
03-14-2006 3:26 PM


Ooo you got me there!
lol

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:26 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 9:49 PM Tal has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 25 of 301 (295279)
03-14-2006 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 1:07 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
That's an interesting question, but even if a fetus gains all human rights at the moment of conception, I'm not familiar with any concept of human rights that mandates that any human being has a right to divert sustenance from the body and organs of another human being.
Over 50,000 people are sitting on the transplant lists, waiting for kidneys. And just about everybody has a spare one that they can live without. What's the difference between a putative right of a fetus to take residency in a woman's uterus and a dialysis patient's putative right to go around harvesting kidneys against the will of their donors?
I think the fact that the mother carried the fetus up to the point where it has human rights demands that she has certain responsibilities towards its well being.
This isn't a stranger after all, and terming it that way it kindof miseleading. This is where your analogy breaks down imo. By bringing the fetus to the point where it has human rights gives you certain responsibilities towards that person.
Does a person have the right to demand that you feed them and take care of them? What right does a person have to demand that you divert resources and time for its well being? None, in most cases. But if it is your newborn baby, you do have a responsibility towards its future well being. You can't just throw it in the garbage. Do you disagree with this?
So just as a stranger doesn't have the right to demand that you divert your time and resources for his/her future well being, but your newborn baby does, a stranger doesn't have the right to demand to use your organs, but a baby (i.e, fetus with human rights) does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 1:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:36 PM JustinC has not replied
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 4:19 PM JustinC has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 26 of 301 (295280)
03-14-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
03-14-2006 3:23 PM


This is in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
You play you pay. I don't support the government doing anything relating to sex. That should be for the parents (competent parents anyway)to *gasp* teach their children about sex and its CONSEQUENCES. Have an unwanted pregnance? Either keep the kid or give him/her up for adoption. There are plenty of couples out there that can't have kids of their own that would jump at the chance of adopting. The answer is definately not to scramble the kids brains and crush his skull.
Here's a theory: Don't have sex until marriage. I did it. I now have 2 wonderful children and good, solid family life. Who taught me about sex? My mother did when I was 8 years old. All the gory stuff too. It wasn't just jack and jill make a baby jack somehow. I guess that was her nursing and biology degrees coming into play. I didn't rely on the government to tell me how to make my decisions or what the consequences would be.
This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:37 PM

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:23 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 3:48 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 4:13 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 33 by ReverendDG, posted 03-14-2006 4:27 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 36 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-14-2006 5:05 PM Tal has replied
 Message 59 by nator, posted 03-15-2006 11:52 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 27 of 301 (295282)
03-14-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by JustinC
03-14-2006 3:31 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
You can't just throw it in the garbage. Do you disagree with this?
No, so called "Pro-Choicers" have to agree with this if their logic about ending an "unwanted condtion" is to stand the test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by JustinC, posted 03-14-2006 3:31 PM JustinC has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 301 (295286)
03-14-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:33 PM


quote:
You play you pay.
This seems to support the idea that pregnancy is just punishment for a woman who dares to have sex outside of a legally sanctioned marriage. (Now if only we had something to take care of those lesbians!)

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:33 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 03-14-2006 4:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 301 (295292)
03-14-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
03-14-2006 3:14 PM


To answer your question, yes. If someone breaks the law they should be punished.
Understand, Tal, that we're talking about one out of every three women in America.
You're advocating the death penalty for one out of every three women in America? Don't you think that could have some repercussions on the population? (yeah, yeah, "so does abortion." Here's the thing - laws against abortion don't prevent abortions.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:14 PM Tal has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 301 (295294)
03-14-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Chiroptera
03-14-2006 3:48 PM


rotfl!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 3:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 6:08 PM 1.61803 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024