I guess when you dont have a good history, you just make one

[Ferno]

Ferno, I stand by my statement and it's not personal against woodchip. It's just biology and the differences between genders. Just as I, a female, can't relate to male privilege, dominance and aggression, neither can males relate to what women go through dealing with that male privilege, dominance and aggression put towards US. A person in a position of power telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body is against a female's rights. Women are from Venus, men are from Mars.

"oh you're a different sex, you must not have the mental faculties to UNDERSTAND ME!" "it's just the way nature made us!" "we're so oppressed!"

Sorry, I don't buy that argument one iota. It's just ignorant. BTW, I think you owe woody an apology.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You may have heard this from me before, TunnelCat, so I'll try to rephrase somewhat, but I think you're subscribing to a misrepresentation of the issue. There are people in this country, myself included, that recognize Abortion as murder--the devaluing, dehumanization, and cutting off of an innocent life for selfish reasons. Please don't trivialize that statement by try to characterize the 90% that I just described as the 10% (if that much) which may involve the life of the mother being at risk. It is not a woman's rights issue, it's a matter of life and death. A awful, awful, trend for dodging the responsibility that comes with having sex. You ought to get whipped up about that, not this "woman's rights" nonsense.

[Tunnelcat]

So because a person believes life begins at conception makes them anti_women? What does that say about women who believe the same thing?

Yep. Essentially, Romney is telling women they can't use any hormonal birth control because it could destroy a human life,

Mind linking somewhere he said that?

By the very definition of personhood as Romney sees it and that his statement reiterating that life begins at conception that hormonal birth control would have to be outlawed, because it interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/a ... 002e0.html

[Tunnelcat]

Ferno, no I don't. Woody, nor you, can't possibly think like a woman, or know what it feels like to be a woman. Nothing personal.

ST, it's our body, it should under our control and it should be our decision with that goes on inside it. Let women and God, if there is one even, sort that out in the end, not the state. An egg may have all the code to be a human, but it's not a human with feelings or sentience, yet. It's just a mass of cells, that we don't even know if it's viable life yet.

Let me ask you this; how far does the state or the church have to go to protect human life? Does it require that even masturbating destroys human life, because the very act of male orgasm spills a part of the code that can make a human? The Catholic Church used to believe that human life was ALL in the sperm, the homunculus as they called it, and that all the woman contributed was the means to carry it to term. So spilling your seed during masturbation was killing human life and thus outlawed. That didn't stop men from doing the act and killing what they thought were potential babies when it was a crime years ago, did it?

[CUDA]

First off, I think the whole bunch of you are being too dismissive of others over largely style points, not substance. Second, if you all feel that this place is some sort of intellectual sewer, feel free to PM me and I'll give you the addys for one or two spots that make this forum look like a Mensa convention.(CUDA, ya feel me on this point?)

Why do you think I asked you to come here, I've said it before I seldom agree with you however we USUALLY keep it non personal, And as bad as it get's here it's not like other places. it's just some some people all the time (both sides) that make no attempt and Civil discussion and always revert to flaming, and everyone does it some of the time.

[flip]

I agree with you TC on all points except that the state should also not provide opportunity to abort the child either, except in the most extreme of cases. The state can't keep a woman from getting pregnant nor make her get pregnant or tell her how many times she can get pregnant or remove the child if she accidently gets pregnant. It's all on her.

[Sergeant Thorne]

ST, it's our body, it should under our control and it should be our decision with that goes on inside it. Let women and God, if there is one even, sort that out in the end, not the state. An egg may have all the code to be a human, but it's not a human with feelings or sentience, yet. It's just a mass of cells, that we don't even know if it's viable life yet.

Wrong on two fronts. It is the state's place to protect life, not just life you will admit is life. That sets the precedent--unless somehow it could be determined that it is really not life (doesn't look good for you). Secondly, and aside from that, the procedure must be performed by a third party, who in our country is licensed by the state, so from that angle also the state has a say regarding what he can and cannot do, especially in regards to snuffing out an underdeveloped human life. There's a reason it's called "Pro Life", not "Anti-Choice".

Let me ask you this; how far does the state or the church have to go to protect human life? Does it require that even masturbating destroys human life, because the very act of male orgasm spills a part of the code that can make a human? The Catholic Church used to believe that human life was ALL in the sperm, the homunculus as they called it, and that all the woman contributed was the means to carry it to term. So spilling your seed during masturbation was killing human life and thus outlawed. That didn't stop men from doing the act and killing what they thought were potential babies when it was a crime years ago, did it?

Would it come as a surprise to you if I told you I have not been apprised of that? Call me uninformed, but I have never followed masturbation trends in any century. That was a bizarre way to try to bring the topic to my level. I think the answer to your question, as stated, could be found here: "spills a part of the code that can make a human". I really don't know. All I know is sperm will be sperm will be sperm until it encounters an egg in a woman's body, at which point the beginnings of a child is produced. Is that too simple for you?

[Tunnelcat]

ST, it's our body, it should under our control and it should be our decision with that goes on inside it. Let women and God, if there is one even, sort that out in the end, not the state. An egg may have all the code to be a human, but it's not a human with feelings or sentience, yet. It's just a mass of cells, that we don't even know if it's viable life yet.

Wrong on two fronts. It is the state's place to protect life, not just life you will admit is life. That sets the precedent--unless somehow it could be determined that it is really not life (doesn't look good for you). Secondly, and aside from that, the procedure must be performed by a third party, who in our country is licensed by the state, so from that angle also the state has a say regarding what he can and cannot do, especially in regards to snuffing out an underdeveloped human life. There's a reason it's called "Pro Life", not "Anti-Choice".

OK, do you support the death penalty? The state is killing human beings in defense of the law. Fully formed adults, by the way, not little eggs. I don't see the churches out politicking to stop all executions. In fact, a Republican audience even roundly applauded Gov. Rick Perry, because Texas has one of the best records for the most executions of any state in the union.

The best reason for state sanctioned abortion is to prevent the killing or maiming of women through coat-hanger abortions, because even if you outlaw it, it will still go on. It has in the past, and will in the future. Read the history in the link below. If abortion gets outlawed, the only feel good thing for religious moralists is that they won't have to feel guilty anymore that the state is no longer sanctioning it. Outta sight, outta mind. There will always be women, and the men that contributed, who don't want a pregnancy for one reason or another.

Just as you don't like the state mandating that we have to buy health care coverage via Obamacare, women don't want the state mandating what they can or cannot do medically with their bodies. Since abortion's a medical procedure and the state has to license doctors for safety and competency, that's the way it has to work.

Let me ask you this; how far does the state or the church have to go to protect human life? Does it require that even masturbating destroys human life, because the very act of male orgasm spills a part of the code that can make a human? The Catholic Church used to believe that human life was ALL in the sperm, the homunculus as they called it, and that all the woman contributed was the means to carry it to term. So spilling your seed during masturbation was killing human life and thus outlawed. That didn't stop men from doing the act and killing what they thought were potential babies when it was a crime years ago, did it?

Would it come as a surprise to you if I told you I have not been apprised of that? Call me uninformed, but I have never followed masturbation trends in any century. That was a bizarre way to try to bring the topic to my level. I think the answer to your question, as stated, could be found here: "spills a part of the code that can make a human". I really don't know. All I know is sperm will be sperm will be sperm until it encounters an egg in a woman's body, at which point the beginnings of a child is produced. Is that too simple for you?

Here, O' unlearned one.

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Ne ... ortion.htm

Also, since the role of the ovum was not learned until the nineteenth century, the sperm were thought to be little homunculi, miniature people, and for this reason male masturbation was sometimes called homicide.

[Sergeant Thorne]

To kill people in society who prey upon and kill others is to protect life. Is THAT too simple?

[Top Gun]

Once a murderer is in maximum-security lockdown, one could argue that the public is already protected, at least in most cases.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yes I suppose we could make the case for building large, expensive compounds to secure, house, feed, and entertain the destructive elements in society, but I think it is more instructive to the rest to make an end of them. Justice, after all, is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

[fliptw]

Yes I suppose we could make the case for building large, expensive compounds to secure, house, feed, and entertain the destructive elements in society, but I think it is more instructive to the rest to make an end of them. Justice, after all, is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

Justice isn't instructive. The process doesn't impart anything to observers.

[Sergeant Thorne]

But I didn't say that this was justice because it was instructive, I indicated that it was justice because the individual who killed another is put to death themselves. But justice is instructive. It's instructive for other people to see the seriousness of taking a life illustrated clearly in the death of the murderer. In a world full of injustice, the execution of justice is very instructive.

[callmeslick]

Yes I suppose we could make the case for building large, expensive compounds to secure, house, feed, and entertain the destructive elements in society, but I think it is more instructive to the rest to make an end of them. Justice, after all, is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

let me get this straight.....you would replace the hundreds of currently extant large, expensive compounds(every state has one, most have several) with execution chambers? Nice.

[Ferno]

Ferno, no I don't. Woody, nor you, can't possibly think like a woman, or know what it feels like to be a woman. Nothing personal.

okay, let's try that line of reasoning on something else. Just because i'm not part of say.. a certain culture I would have no idea how they think. Or.. just because I don't have a certain skin colour means I have no idea how they think. or if I'm not from a certain country, I have no idea how they think.

do you see how asinine your train of thought becomes when just one variable changes? Just because I or another man doesn't have what you have, does not mean whatsoever that we can't understand it. it's complete horseshit and it's completely sexist. Why wouldn't any of us know what it's like to be told that we can't know something because we don't fit a certain mould. or have a certain status.

What if someone told you: "you're a woman, you couldn't possibly understand reason and logic"? Don't answer that. I already know it pisses women off. and I bet it pisses you off too. But you know why it does? because it's the other side of the same sword. you just can't see it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yes I suppose we could make the case for building large, expensive compounds to secure, house, feed, and entertain the destructive elements in society, but I think it is more instructive to the rest to make an end of them. Justice, after all, is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

let me get this straight.....you would replace the hundreds of currently extant large, expensive compounds(every state has one, most have several) with execution chambers? Nice.

That's not how you get it straight, that's called extrapolation. BlueFlames, Roid, and Top Gun and his science degree expect better of you.

For certain crimes I believe I would be in favor of instituting the death penalty. Not because I hate these people, but because there are some places you just don't go. Don't ★■◆●ing cross that line. Doesn't matter how you feel, you pull that trigger in aggression; you rape and kill that woman; you kidnap, rape and/or kill that child; you steel that property and kill the owner when he/she tries to stop you--you die upon conviction.

[flip]

I'd rather to redeem them as I think that's a short-sighted view. Sure, they screwed this life up and they should pay for that, some even with their lives, but if what I believe is true, they should be given opportunity to grow old and learn the error of their ways and maybe , just maybe, have respect for the life to come.

EDIT:Say some jackass 20 year old ,had no daddy and is hard as hell, robs and kills the storemanager. Will he be the same person if left to himself for the next 40 years? Or should he just be damned to hell and separation from God for eternity, with no hope for getting another body?

[Top Gun]

Yes I suppose we could make the case for building large, expensive compounds to secure, house, feed, and entertain the destructive elements in society, but I think it is more instructive to the rest to make an end of them. Justice, after all, is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

Hmm...wasn't there some guy who gave an alternative to "eye for an eye"? Something like "turn the other cheek?" Can't quite remember his name.

For the record, by the time the entire appeals process concludes, executing a person generally requires a greater public expenditure than feeding and housing them for their entire lives. Also, there has been no real evidence showing the death penalty as a deterrence to capital crime...in fact, some studies have shown the exact opposite effect.

[woodchip]

So because a person believes life begins at conception makes them anti_women? What does that say about women who believe the same thing?

Yep. Essentially, Romney is telling women they can't use any hormonal birth control because it could destroy a human life,

Mind linking somewhere he said that?

By the very definition of personhood as Romney sees it and that his statement reiterating that life begins at conception that hormonal birth control would have to be outlawed, because it interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/a ... 002e0.html

I read it and your link is purely speculation and conjecture

[woodchip]

Also, there has been no real evidence showing the death penalty as a deterrence to capital crime...in fact, some studies have shown the exact opposite effect.

Well one thing is for sure, the executed murderer won't ever be set free where he can commit another killing.

[Top Gun]

He wouldn't be regardless. "Life without parole" is a pretty clear-cut sentence.

[CUDA]

He wouldn't be regardless. "Life without parole" is a pretty clear-cut sentence.

no such thing, there are still ways they can be released

[Top Gun]

Then you close the loopholes. Problem solved.

[CUDA]

Except for the people on the left think this way

LWOP is as dehumanizing as death itself, and in some ways it is even worse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -idea.html

[Tunnelcat]

To kill people in society who prey upon and kill others is to protect life. Is THAT too simple?

Either you're for killing or you're against killing, even for state sanctioned executions. You can't have it both ways if you believe in a loving God that created all life, yes, even those that are the scum and evil of the earth. Even suicide is considered a mortal sin. If all human life is God given, and thus a mortal sin for one human being to take the life of another, then what does that say about our moral principles and the way they're applied in our laws? And don't forget that a percentage of those put to death may be innocent, or ARE innocent. If that's the case, it's state sanctioned murder.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocen ... -death-row

My point is that you can't tell women to NOT kill an ovum because it's a human life, then turn around and take revenge by executing a full, grown living human being because they DID something bad in life. Isn't God supposed to be the final judge?

I'm not trying to make a case for or against executions. I'm saying if you're following you're religious morals about not killing humans, be principled and consistent, not selective.

[CUDA]

My point is that you can't tell women to NOT kill an ovum because it's a human life, then turn around and take revenge by executing a full, grown living human being because they DID something bad in life.

sure you can, the person that took a life made a choice and knew the consequences of that choice. thats called personal accountability.
the Ovum or "UN-Born" had not choice and are in fact innocent, so the proper analogy would be to execute the mother for making a choice to take the life of a child
which FYI I do not advocate

I'm not trying to make a case for or against executions. I'm saying if you're following you're religious morals about not killing humans, be principled and consistent, not selective.

The 6th commandment is thou shalt not Murder.

Romans 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

[Tunnelcat]

My body is mine and what goes on inside it is my decision. That personal accountability is mine, and mine alone, in the eyes before God, if there is a God.

The 6th Commandment is just a cop-out to sanction revenge murder under the law. Either you're for murdering a human, or you're against it. Simple principle.

You should be proud. Representative Bubba Carpenter of Mississippi recently stood up touting his victory in stopping almost all abortions in his state. He may have saved the ovum, but he'll probably be responsible for the death of a few desperate pregnant women in Mississippi. A trade of one life for another. Moral values! Bah!

"We have literally stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi. Three blocks from the Capitol sits the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi. A bill was drafted. It said, if you would perform an abortion in the state of Mississippi, you must be a certified OB/GYN and you must have admitting privileges to a hospital. Anybody here in the medical field knows how hard it is to get admitting privileges to a hospital...

"It's going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all -- but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to-- Roe vs. Wade. So we've done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They're like, 'Well, the poor pitiful women that can't afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.' That's what we've heard over and over and over.

"But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we've decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi."

[callmeslick]

He wouldn't be regardless. "Life without parole" is a pretty clear-cut sentence.

no such thing, there are still ways they can be released

not in PA, even if very ill. Life is life. No parole, never, for anyone.

[Sergeant Thorne]

To kill people in society who prey upon and kill others is to protect life. Is THAT too simple?

Either you're for killing or you're against killing ...

Jesus Christ--the Son of God--was killed to satisfy God's requirement for justice because of sin. If I were against killing in such a simplistic fashion as you present, then I would have to accuse God himself of doing wrong. Your feeble arguments do not even begin to approach the reality of murder, justice, and execution. I guess the only question is, who's the idiot who led you to understand killing as some unreasoned negative that can never be right (or JUST, more importantly)? If someone is shooting people, and I kill them between victim 4 and 5, am I a murderer? I believe that justice--JUSTICE--is served by killing a person who has taken the life of another. That is the reality of it. This being true, it also means that justice is not done when a murderer is simply locked away. So a legal system has failed to execute justice by being unwilling to meet out the just dues of murder. The Bible says that...

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

The "sword". What do you use a sword for again? To smack the back of the hand?

I'd rather to redeem them as I think that's a short-sighted view. Sure, they screwed this life up and they should pay for that, some even with their lives, but if what I believe is true, they should be given opportunity to grow old and learn the error of their ways and maybe , just maybe, have respect for the life to come.

They didn't just "screw this life up", they took another life. You're talking mercy, and mercy would be great, but in order to have mercy you would have to be in recognition of the fact that they deserve to die. Honestly, if our justice system took this approach--of sparing people who commit murder so that they could have a chance to repent before this life is over and they must stand before God--I don't know that I'd have a thing to say against it. But this "nobody deserves to die, ever" philosophy is justice made sick and ineffectual--they have perverted justice.

[CUDA]

He wouldn't be regardless. "Life without parole" is a pretty clear-cut sentence.

no such thing, there are still ways they can be released

not in PA, even if very ill. Life is life. No parole, never, for anyone.

Sorry you're.wrong they can still be pardoned

[flip]

Well, I said "some" even with their lives. I just think it should be reserved for the most heinous and definitely not the first thing to think of. If a person kills someone, and I still see redeemable human quality, I would not sentence death, but I have great faith in God's final justice. I think that was the mindset behind "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Our justice system was setup that it had rather let the guilty go than ever convict the innocent. It's because of this faith in God's judgment that I don't run and grab my pitchfork everytime somebody gets way out of line. There's a just use of death, but I would exhaust all other options before I arrived at that one. Plus, that it is why the authority to condemn has been given over to governing authorities. It's more like a process or institution, rather than an individual administering justice. Everyone has just enough of a hand in it to claim ignorance .

Murder in my definition has to be motivated by some kind of malice. If I built a deck and it falls and kills someone, I am guilty of that person(s) death, but it nots murder. Murder implies hate or something evil. Finally I am left with this mindset and am completely glad that God set up an institution to deal with these matters and freed my mind from it.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

God worked for many thousands of years to bring about this kind of peace. It is a new way, for individual believers to commit themselves to.

EDIT: Sword= authority here.

[Top Gun]

If someone is shooting people, and I kill them between victim 4 and 5, am I a murderer?

If you do it in self-defense, or to save someone else in imminent danger, of course not. If you do it after the person is no longer a threat to anyone, then yes, you are. There's no "justice" in killing someone out of pure vengeance.

[woodchip]

So a bomber pilot who drops a bomb and kill innocent "collateral's" should also be guilty of murder?

[CUDA]

There's no "justice" in killing someone out of pure vengeance.

Osama Bin Laden

[Top Gun]

So a bomber pilot who drops a bomb and kill innocent "collateral's" should also be guilty of murder?

I shouldn't have to explain how an active combat zone operates under different auspices than peacetime, but if there were civilian casualties as a result of an attack on a legitimate target, I would qualify that as a tragic error, not murder.

There's no "justice" in killing someone out of pure vengeance.

Osama Bin Laden

The mission to take out bin Laden was much more about eliminating a commander of enemy combatants than simple vengeance for 9/11, regardless of the general public perception. (Incidentally, I've seen several good arguments for why treating terrorists as "combatants," as opposed to common criminals, winds up legitimizing them far more than they deserve, but that's another story.) Bin Laden's status as the leader of Al-Qaeda was considered a continuing threat to the US, so when he was located, that threat was eliminated. The thing is, bin Laden's unique status was such that I don't think that, even if one wanted to take him alive, there would be any practical way to do so: anywhere he was detained would be subject to continuous attacks.

[Tunnelcat]

So a bomber pilot who drops a bomb and kill innocent "collateral's" should also be guilty of murder?

Yep. War is institutionalized mass murder. But don't get me wrong. I'm not against killing those who have or are going to kill others in violation of the law. I don't see bombing civilians as proper though. Combatants, yes, civilians, no. Bin Laden deserved death with extreme prejudice.

I only reject those who claim moral superiority in telling others when it is right to kill, and when it is not. Either you hold ALL human life in sanctity, or you don't. That's a simple moral principle. I think even Jesus held that one. Correct me if I'm wrong.

ST, Jesus was murdered, and for the most inane of reasons, heresy. What a stupid reason to kill another human being. Religion, and the way it is applied to others can be really idiotic.

[woodchip]

Well if it is OK for a bomber pilot to kill innocents, then no one should have a problem with the State killing a convicted murderer.

[callmeslick]

He wouldn't be regardless. "Life without parole" is a pretty clear-cut sentence.

no such thing, there are still ways they can be released

not in PA, even if very ill. Life is life. No parole, never, for anyone.

Sorry you're.wrong they can still be pardoned

go dig up the list of how many in the past three decades. Or, ever. Trust me, it's near impossible. I tried to intervene for a relative by marriage, with mental illness and a terminal outcome from a severe stroke. Couldn't be done, and I knew the Governor by name, along with two of the Parole Board members and a few State Court Justices. It is a process designed to be functionally impossible, unless the intial sentence is overturned.