Abortion [Originally started in Topic: Re: Oslo Bombing]

[polar]

A lot were shotty at best?  wtf.  They were put on DEATH ROW dude!!  corruption or not.  There were plenty found innocent after George W fried them by DNA evidence. There are many more because the cases stop at death.   The system doesn't work... its that simple.  So I can't support the system with my vote.   Now you want things "Swiftly" done in which that leaves more room for corruption.  What  about the future 1000's of lives that don't make CNN that were due 'swiftly'??   They can't even get it right slowly.

Now personally....  in this case looks like its a 'slam dunk'.   Myself ....   yea I'd expect to die legally if that was me. In fact I'd sign off on that.  21 years is a joke imho. and I wouldn't mind if he was off'd in a reasonable timeframe if the guy is 'sane'.  but where do you draw the line?  'Death Penalty' has already been abused. If there was a new system in place, I already said I would be open to it to think it through. 


In a failed system of course.  1 innocent life I would never want to be on death row.

Do you want to pay for it?   [edit]
 

at least you're consistent.  i usually laugh at those who support abortion but are against the death penalty

[dman1991]

at least you're consistent.  i usually laugh at those who support abortion but are against the death penalty

I gather from this that those arguing against the death penalty are for abortion in certain cases, like rape, etc?

[polar]

I gather from this that those arguing against the death penalty are for abortion in certain cases, like rape, etc?

i can't speak for others, but i don't agree with abortion in any case

[mooney]

at least you're consistent.  i usually laugh at those who support abortion but are against the death penalty

Seems i along with everyone else missed this moronic statement. Can we have him back just for this?

[dman1991]

Did he get banned? Btw, why do you consider that statement moronic?

[Sean]

Did he get banned?

haha no.     maybe the reality of him becoming a father is kicking him in his already crazy SOB head hmmmm  and something like that.....    perhaps a melt down?       come on ol' pal... tell me to wanker off now.  We're all equals here and see ?   we're not robots

[mooney]

Did he get banned? Btw, why do you consider that statement moronic?

well he isn't here to clarify, but typically people who are opposed to both do so on the grounds that they are one and the same. This only works if you decide that an abortion is killing a 'baby'. Which is simply not true. Then they will argue that, 'well, it has the potential to become a baby - a human, with a central nervous system etc...'. Well by that logic you have to be opposed to condoms etc... Killing an already living, full developed human being in the name of 'justice' is not in any way on the same level as killing something that has the 'potential' to be a human being. Concern for those already in existence seems like a more worthy cause.

It's a matter of suffering, basically. Who suffers more, Troy Davies and his family, or an embryo aborted before a nervous system has developed? Or for that matter (hypocritically i'm not a vegetarian but...) swap davies' name with 'a pig' or 'a cow'... who suffers more in that scenario? a mother having a baby they don't want will likely suffer too. A cluster of embryonic cells almost certainly do not suffer.

[dman1991]

I wouldnt say its moronic to consider it killing a baby, just a difference in philosophy. At what point does abortion stop being ok? Is late term abortion any different that early? Where do you draw the line? Who is to know what could have become of the embryo, is it up to us to play god, or whatever sort of fate you may believe in? What if a baby that wasnt wanted could potentially turn out to be the next Gandhi?

Of course, I agree in womens rights, and their right to choose, but the same logic could be applied to abortion. We may not know if Davies was guilty, and it almost surely seems he wasnt, but at the same time we may not know what is to become of the fetus. I do not think any case like the Troy Davies case should be up for execution, but I certainly think there should be exceptions for a death penalty.

Also back to the mother suffering, wouldnt there be some psychological ramifications of having an abortion? Mental anguish?

[Sean]

I took it more as an off the cuff one liner complement with an off the cuff stereo-vibe sogginess to it.  and leaning on mooney's more looking at it from different angles.

   now you know why I didn't respond to it.


gonna separate this out from the Oslo thread into a new one.


ps. I never stated that I know of,  if I am for abortion or not. I already stated my reasoning with FAQ for 'death' sentence.

[jcarter125]

if abortion is not killing a baby, maybe it's killing the chance of somebody to be born and live.

[mooney]

I wouldnt say its moronic to consider it killing a baby, just a difference in philosophy.

It's not philosophy. It's biology. It's simply inaccurate - or at best, premature - to call a bunch of cells without a nervous system a 'baby'.

At what point does abortion stop being ok? Is late term abortion any different that early? Where do you draw the line? Who is to know what could have become of the embryo, is it up to us to play god, or whatever sort of fate you may believe in? What if a baby that wasnt wanted could potentially turn out to be the next Gandhi?

At what point does it stop being ok... well I'm not a biologist. My best guess would be when it starts to develop a nervous system etc... I'm sure you can google it. I'd be interested to know if you do.

As for Gandhi, well, firstly, what about that embryo that turned out to be a crazy Austrian with a mustache'... Clearly that can go both ways. The point is, as i stated, the 'potential Ganghi', or the more commonly used, 'potential Beethoven' argument is totally illogical and actually defeats itself. If you are opposed to killing 'potential', you must be opposed to contraception. You can't have it both ways. You must also be opposed to someone opposing rape... in other words, any chance of fertilization must be taken or else you are 'potentially' killing Gandhi, MLK (or Pol Pot)... 'Potential' simply doesn't work here.

Also back to the mother suffering, wouldnt there be some psychological ramifications of having an abortion? Mental anguish?

Quite possibly, but ultimately, as the already existing human with a central nervous system and the body to home the potential child, it should be her choice. I'm not arguing getting an abortion is an easy decision for a woman, im sure it is very tough indeed.

if abortion is not killing a baby, maybe it's killing the chance of somebody to be born and live.

in accordance with YOUR own logic then, so does resisting rape, wearing a condom, or passing up any chance of copulation that may lead to a humans existence.

[2NaFish]

if abortion is not killing a baby, maybe it's killing the chance of somebody to be born and live.

i got a lingering glance off a hottie on the bus today. the chance to get my leg over and make a baby was lost when she got off and i didnt make a move.

murder is wrong.

[dman1991]

I wouldnt say its moronic to consider it killing a baby, just a difference in philosophy.

It's not philosophy. It's biology. It's simply inaccurate - or at best, premature - to call a bunch of cells without a nervous system a 'baby'.

At what point does abortion stop being ok? Is late term abortion any different that early? Where do you draw the line? Who is to know what could have become of the embryo, is it up to us to play god, or whatever sort of fate you may believe in? What if a baby that wasnt wanted could potentially turn out to be the next Gandhi?

At what point does it stop being ok... well I'm not a biologist. My best guess would be when it starts to develop a nervous system etc... I'm sure you can google it. I'd be interested to know if you do.

As for Gandhi, well, firstly, what about that embryo that turned out to be a crazy Austrian with a mustache'... Clearly that can go both ways. The point is, as i stated, the 'potential Ganghi', or the more commonly used, 'potential Beethoven' argument is totally illogical and actually defeats itself. If you are opposed to killing 'potential', you must be opposed to contraception. You can't have it both ways. You must also be opposed to someone opposing rape... in other words, any chance of fertilization must be taken or else you are 'potentially' killing Gandhi, MLK (or Pol Pot)... 'Potential' simply doesn't work here.

I have read through a few sources, and none can actually pinpoint when the unborn fetus begins to think. Some say it has been witnessed that they can feel pain around 16 weeks, but nothing is exact, there is still much to be discovered about an adults CNS, let alone an undeveloped one.


I must ask, you think it is ok to abort a being that has never had a chance to live, but it is not ok the carry the death penalty on a fully developed adult who was proven 100% beyond a reasonable doubt guilty in an act of absolute evil causing mass casualty?

[2NaFish]

I must ask, you think it is ok to abort a being that has never had a chance to live,

How can it be a 'being' if it has not yet lived? I appreciate what you're getting at, but what mooney says about potential stands and what you've presented is just another wording of the same point i feel.