Execution of an innocent man?

[etothep]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/texas.execution.probe/index.html


DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- An investigation into claims that faulty evidence led Texas to execute an innocent man in 2004 was at a "crucial point" when the state's governor replaced three of its members this week, one of the three said Thursday.

Gov. Rick Perry's shake-up of the Texas Forensic Science Commission came two days before it was to hear from the author of a scathing report in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. That Friday session has been postponed indefinitely in the wake of Perry's new appointments, and critics of the governor accused him of trying to quash the Willingham probe.

"I think people are making a lot of this issue," Perry told reporters Thursday in Austin, Texas. He said the replacement of commission Chairman Sam Bassett and commissioners Alan Levy and Aliece Watts, whose terms had expired, was "pretty normal protocol."

"If you've got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process, rather than bring people in there for a short period of time and then replace them," he said. "I think it makes a whole lot more sense to make a change now than to make a change later."

The Forensic Science Commission began investigating the Willingham case in 2008, hiring Maryland fire investigation expert Craig Beyler to examine the evidence used to convince a jury the fire that killed Willingham's three daughters was deliberately set. Levy said Thursday he told the governor's office "that it would be disruptive to make the new appointments right now."

"The commission was at a crucial point in the investigation," he said. Asked about the future of the Willingham investigation, he said, "I don't know if it will ever be heard."

Levy, a top prosecutor in Fort Worth, Texas, said he had asked to remain on the commission, but received no response from the governor's office. Sam Bassett, the panel's former chairman, said he also asked to remain.

[rest can be found in the link]


If it turns out that he was in fact not guilty, then shouldn't the DA or executioner (or both) be arrested on murder chargers, or at least manslaughter? Many have argued for years that it would only be a matter of time before something like this would occur (if you don't think it already occurred that is, in either the controversial Tagero & Felker cases). To my knowledge, there were 2 cases in the UK involving the acknowledgment of wrongful exocutions (both taking place back in the 50's )

At least it has been proven that capitol punishment helps deter crime. And by deter crime, I mean have little, if any, measurable effect on the rate of crime.

[HoustonGM]

I think you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that the death penalty hasn't resulted in the death of some innocent people over the years.

As for bringing up the DA or executioner on murder/manslaughter charges, I don't know about that.

I am absolutely for abolishing the death penalty, though.

[gRYFYN1]

If it turns out that he was in fact not guilty, then shouldn't the DA or executioner (or both) be arrested on murder chargers, or at least manslaughter?

What about the judge and the jury ... why go ahead and include them too.

[etothep]

Sorry, that question was hypothetical guys, in an attempt to bring to light the issue of the paradox connected with the death penalty (especially in a society with a, supposedly, representative gov't)

[OregonDuck1989]

Innocent people are locked up every day. Just a fact of life, the more power people have, the more times it is abused.

[free2131]

Innocent people are locked up every day. Just a fact of life, the more power people have, the more times it is abused.

Innocent people locked up, well, kinda sucks, but at least we AREN'T DEAD.

Innocent people executed... yeah, kinda hard to make that one up.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_M1X_sAaTRpY/SkJM4appcHI/AAAAAAAAAWE/aO586SUMeMM/s400/no+death+penalty+button.jpg

[SirKodiak]

Something I learned from Freakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/006073132X):


A 1-in-4 chance of being killed! Compare these odds to being a timber cutter, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls the most dangerous job in the United States. Over four years' time, a timber cutter would stand only a 1-in-200 chance of being killed. Or compare the crack dealer's odds to those of a death row inmate in Texas, which executes more prisoners than any other state. In 2003, Texas put to death twenty-four inmates—or just 5 percent of the nearly 500 inmates on its death row during that time. Which means that you stand a greater chance of dying while dealing crack in a Chicago housing project than you do while sitting on death row in Texas. So if crack dealing is the most dangerous job in America, and if the salary is only $3.30 an hour, why on earth would anyone take such a job?

[Jeffy25]

what was the john cusack movie? it was good.

[dickay]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/texas.execution.probe/index.html




If it turns out that he was in fact not guilty, then shouldn't the DA or executioner (or both) be arrested on murder chargers, or at least manslaughter? Many have argued for years that it would only be a matter of time before something like this would occur (if you don't think it already occurred that is, in either the controversial Tagero & Felker cases). To my knowledge, there were 2 cases in the UK involving the acknowledgment of wrongful exocutions (both taking place back in the 50's )

At least it has been proven that capitol punishment helps deter crime. And by deter crime, I mean have little, if any, measurable effect on the rate of crime.

the DA or judge didn't find him guilty...it was a jury of the people. Might as well hang them too.:rolleyes:

[MichelleWie]

the da or judge didn't find him guilty...it was a jury of the people. Might as well hang them too.:rolleyes:

+1

[dickay]

I admit to struggling with the death penalty. I've been for and against many times in my life and really the reason is that there are convincing arguments to both sides. In truth if I had a leaning it would be to abolish it, at the moment.

Where I most find difficulty is rationalizing arguments for consistency. "How can I be pro-life yet for the death penalty." That can easily be rationalized because the convict is in 99.9% (i'd bet even higher) of the time guilty of a heinous act. However, much of me screams thats not right either, but at least theres a case for rationalizing it. What I can't rationalize is the pro-choicers who are against the death penalty. Kill the child and save the murderer?? I'd like to hear some at least honestly admit there is a moral conflict there, but often people lie to themselves about it. But using free's quote, it easily could read the following in an abortion argument;


Innocent children in foster homes, well, kinda sucks, but at least they AREN'T DEAD.

Innocent children are aborted... yeah, kinda hard to make that one up.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_M1X_sAaTRpY/SkJM4appcHI/AAAAAAAAAWE/aO586SUMeMM/s400/no+death+penalty+button.jpg

[dickay]

Sorry, that question was hypothetical guys, in an attempt to bring to light the issue of the paradox connected with the death penalty (especially in a society with a, supposedly, representative gov't)

sorry, i commented on your post before reading this. ;)

[HoustonGM]

The rationalization is that many pro-choice people don't believe life starts at conception.

[guidi2009]

The rationalization is that many pro-choice people don't believe life starts at conception.

I don't know I'm pro-choice and I do believe life starts at conception

[HoustonGM]

I don't know I'm pro-choice and I do believe life starts at conception
I did say "many" not "all."

[filihok]

I don't know I'm pro-choice and I do believe life starts at conception

Then I guess HGM's answer doesn't apply to you does it?

You're free to answer the question for yourself.

[HoustonGM]

And, furthermore, you can be pro-choice without being "pro-abortion." I do not think I would advocate abortion except in specific cases such as rape/health of mother, but I do think that having the option available for a safe abortion is much preferable to the alternative.

[guidi2009]

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons, first I don't believe its really a deterrent. Most murders are not planned, they are done with passion or rage in the heat of the moment, they are not thinking of consequences. Secondly, like others stated we will always be wrong and some innocents will die, that is ground enough to abolish it right there.


Release all the weed busts in our jails and make murder, any murder a life sentence.

[dickay]

The rationalization is that many pro-choice people don't believe life starts at conception.

so when does it begin? how is it not life whereas if you do not abort it, it will continue to evolve into human shape? conception is life...its the beginning of it but its an evolving growing lifeform. I don't see how it can be viewed as anything other than that, unless of course one is looking for a definition to fit their need.

i understand your arguement for pro-choice in certain extreme circumstances. I just don't see how pro-choicers for any reason can rationalize being against the death penalty.

I'd at least like to hear pro-choicers confirm they struggle with the rationalization. Every time this comes up it seems they refuse to acknowledge it, and I can't fathom it to be honest.

[OregonDuck1989]

Abortion in a death penalty thread?

Well, I never...

[HoustonGM]

I don't view a clump of cells with no nervous system, heartbeat, organs, etc. as equivalent to a fully-formed human life.

Personally, I can't understand how pro-lifers rationalize being for the death penalty. It's okay to kill a full grown human being but not a clump of cells? Doesn't make sense to me.

[dickay]

I don't view a clump of cells with no nervous system, heartbeat, organs, etc. as equivalent to a fully-formed human life.

Personally, I can't understand how pro-lifers rationalize being for the death penalty. It's okay to kill a full grown human being but not a clump of cells? Doesn't make sense to me.

well, i've already admitted that i think it is difficult to rationlize...but there is the whole guilt & innocent thing. Clump of cells??? Its still life, innocent life which will undoubtedly develop into a functioning human. Trying to justify it as a lump of cells is a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized. Its still life. A child raping murderer......no, i somehow think its far easier to justify that. And to the religious...arguably the eye for the eye argument fits.

[HoustonGM]

Clump of cells??? Its still life, innocent life which will undoubtedly develop into a functioning human.
This is false.

And no, I do not see it as "a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized." Frankly, I don't see the connection there in the least bit.

[dickay]

This is false.

way to avoid the intent of the post.


Clump of cells??? Its still life, innocent life which will, in most cases, develop into a functioning human.

there, fixed for ya :rolleyes:

[dickay]

This is false.

And no, I do not see it as "a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized." Frankly, I don't see the connection there in the least bit.

yeah, because its hard to see the connection in saying that because one views the start of life as meaningless that they may try to view the end of life as the same :rolleyes:

[Slingshot]

I don't view a clump of cells with no nervous system, heartbeat, organs, etc. as equivalent to a fully-formed human life.

Personally, I can't understand how pro-lifers rationalize being for the death penalty. It's okay to kill a full grown human being but not a clump of cells? Doesn't make sense to me.

Well, there is one clear distinction between them. The embryo hasn't committed a crime.

[HoustonGM]

I just do not believe that a human person exists from the moment of conception. I don't know how else to explain it.

[HoustonGM]

yeah, because its hard to see the connection in saying that because one views the start of life as meaningless that they may try to view the end of life as the same :rolleyes:
Disagreeing on when life starts does not mean that I think the start of life is meaningless. Furthermore, there are reasons beyond life/death for being pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

[haveacigar]

yeah, because its hard to see the connection in saying that because one views the start of life as meaningless that they may try to view the end of life as the same :rolleyes:

Wow. That was a pretty offensive leap in logic you just took there.

[dickay]

Disagreeing on when life starts does not mean that I think the start of life is meaningless. Furthermore, there are reasons beyond life/death for being pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

houston, all i'm saying is that I think there is a significant moral/ethical dilemma that those pro-choicers who are for killing an innocent organism that will "in the vast majority of cases" evolve and develop into a fully functioning human being yet are against killing those convicted of henious crimes against society.

pro-choicers try to rationalize it by choosing arbitrary start of life points that fit their moral stance and position, yet its an ethical dilemma none the less that they must reason with. And i'll also say that unlike you who has a rather soft pro-choice position, there are some (i'd argue a small majority) that are very firm and feel the woman should be able to choose to abort at any point prior to the baby being delivered. I'd also guess that the majority of pro-choicers are also anti-death penalty (from my experiences) so I find this issue interesting.

despite your eagerness to debate, can you at least agree that its a moral and ethical dilemma that must be dealt with? Whether you agree with me that its easy or difficult to get through, its still is one non-the-less.

[SirKodiak]

The one thing that I think is always missing from these discussions is what makes a person a person.

[dickay]

Wow. That was a pretty offensive leap in logic you just took there.

not any less offensive than those who tell people that their baby is just a "clump of cells" hence its just to abort it. the intent of my post was to show that the logic backwards was equally as offensive so thanks.

[haveacigar]

not any less offensive than those who tell people that their baby is just a "clump of cells" hence its just to abort it. the intent of my post was to show that the logic backwards was equally as offensive so thanks.

I think it's pretty offensive to tell someone who disagrees on at which point "life" beings that they find it to be meaningless, and then say that they support euthanising the elderly. And if it you weren't taking a shot at HGM personally, then I apologize, but it sure looked like you did.

[filihok]

Maybe the same way that they rationalize brutally enslaving and slaughtering countless lives in the form of our animal friends.

A cow is well beyond a 'clump of cells' AND more innocent than a death row convict

[haveacigar]

This is the problem I have with this whole debate. Everyone has their own definitions of very complex things like what constitutes a life, what constitutes an innocent or guilty life, etc., and they have those definitions for their own reasons. Demonizing someone else because they don't have the same definitions you do happens far too much in these debates.

[HoustonGM]

despite your eagerness to debate, can you at least agree that its a moral and ethical dilemma that must be dealt with? Whether you agree with me that its easy or difficult to get through, its still is one non-the-less.
If it wasn't a moral or ethical dilemma, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't know where I ever said it wasn't.


This is the problem I have with this whole debate. Everyone has their own definitions of very complex things like what constitutes a life, what constitutes an innocent or guilty life, etc., and they have those definitions for their own reasons. Demonizing someone else because they don't have the same definitions you do happens far too much in these debates.
Agreed.

[acetoolguy]

Back on the death penality for a moment if I may hijack the Roe v Wade thread......

While in most cases I would be against it, I think a socity needs to have the option as some things are just unforgivable.

[filihok]

Back on the death penality for a moment if I may hijack the Roe v Wade thread......

While in most cases I would be against it, I think a socity needs to have the option as some things are just unforgivable.

Executing an innocent man, for example

[acetoolguy]

Executing an innocent man, for example

Or kidnapping, raping and buring alive a child.

[filihok]

Or kidnapping, raping and buring alive a child.

allegedly

[acetoolguy]

It may shock you to learn that sometimes, most actually, juries get it right.

[etothep]

It may shock you to learn that sometimes, most actually, juries get it right.

So you're fine with the occasional innocent person getting caught up in this machine & being put to death b/c it doesn't happen too often? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly

[filihok]

No, it doesn't.

I'd be curious to see those stats though and how that works exactly

[acetoolguy]

Reasonable doubt? then no
Irrefutable proof, then yes.


I really need to use spell checker....but you get the point....

[filihok]

Doesn't reasonable doubt set someone free?

[SirKodiak]

I always find the death penalty hard, because I think I would rather be killed than put in prison for life without the possibility of parole, if I was guilty.

[OregonDuck1989]

I believe you have to be proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

Which is why defense lawyers just try to add doubt.

[acetoolguy]

I believe you have to be proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

Which is why defense lawyers just try to add doubt.

This.
And for the death penalty I would limit to to very few crimes, but crimes vs children are going to be on the list.

[filihok]

This.
And for the death penalty I would limit to to very few crimes, but crimes vs children are going to be on the list.

But, they innocent guy that was executed he had to be convicted based on evidence that lead a jury to believe that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and they were wrong.

[haveacigar]

There is no possible way to avoid sending an innocent man to his death, except to abolish it entirely.

There's just no point to it. What purpose does it serve, make us feel a little better because we got our revenge on someone who committed a heinous crime? Because revenge is a really bad way to set policy. It doesn't really establish a significant deterrent, it gets handed out disproportionately to minorities, just not worth it.

I could stomach it if it were reserved for things like terrorism and treason, but even then, I wouldn't like it very much.

[acetoolguy]

But, they innocent guy that was executed he had to be convicted based on evidence that lead a jury to believe that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and they were wrong.

Tragically, nothing in life is perfect. What error rate would I accept? None. Socity owes this man a debt it cannot repay. In my mind though that does not mean we stop punishing those we believe to be truly guilty of a heinous crime. We don't stop trying because we failed in the past. I am not above seeking revenge. With some crimes you lose your right to exist.

[filihok]

There is no possible way to avoid sending an innocent man to his death, except to abolish it entirely.

There's just no point to it. What purpose does it serve, make us feel a little better because we got our revenge on someone who committed a heinous crime? Because revenge is a really bad way to set policy. It doesn't really establish a significant deterrent, it gets handed out disproportionately to minorities, just not worth it.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rsoUZJDcjkw/SN9r7bQRe_I/AAAAAAAAFBY/MBjku0A2osc/s400/yep.jpg

[OregonDuck1989]

There is no possible way to avoid sending an innocent man to his death, except to abolish it entirely.

There's just no point to it. What purpose does it serve, make us feel a little better because we got our revenge on someone who committed a heinous crime? Because revenge is a really bad way to set policy. It doesn't really establish a significant deterrent, it gets handed out disproportionately to minorities, just not worth it.

I could stomach it if it were reserved for things like terrorism and treason, but even then, I wouldn't like it very much.

Agreed.

[free2131]

What error rate would I accept? None.

Obviously this isn't accurate, as you still support executing people even after innocent people have been put to death.

[free2131]

This:

http://www.christianandamerican.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/embryo1.gif

=/=

http://www.delawaresecc.org/images/posters/800x600/elderly_man_800.jpg

[dickay]

There is no possible way to avoid sending an innocent man to his death, except to abolish it entirely.

There's just no point to it. What purpose does it serve, make us feel a little better because we got our revenge on someone who committed a heinous crime? Because revenge is a really bad way to set policy. It doesn't really establish a significant deterrent, it gets handed out disproportionately to minorities, just not worth it.

I could stomach it if it were reserved for things like terrorism and treason, but even then, I wouldn't like it very much.

this is well said and pretty much how my current beliefs are shaped. not so sure about the last sentence, but the rest is well said.

[dickay]

I think it's pretty offensive to tell someone who disagrees on at which point "life" beings that they find it to be meaningless, and then say that they support euthanising the elderly. And if it you weren't taking a shot at HGM personally, then I apologize, but it sure looked like you did.


This is the problem I have with this whole debate. Everyone has their own definitions of very complex things like what constitutes a life, what constitutes an innocent or guilty life, etc., and they have those definitions for their own reasons. Demonizing someone else because they don't have the same definitions you do happens far too much in these debates.

i'll come full circle since i have been busy with real life issues.

for the record, don't put words into my mouth. i never said HGM supported euthanizing the elderly or that he feels the start of life is meaningless. I did state in lesser words that he finds what I view the start of life as meaningless, hence his statement regarding aborting the "clump of cells".

nobody was demonizing anyone, or at least I certainly wasn't. My statement was clearly regarding my personal views of the barbaric acts done to an unborn child based upon my view of when life starts. Why is my view less valuable to the discussion than yours or anyone elses?

The way i see it, if one can justify aborting an unborn child by using the rationale that its just a "clump of cells" than its equivalent to those who feel that euthanizing the elderly who can no longer support themselves is just because they are a drain on society. To me both are equal because both are life. I don't see how one can say the "clump of cells" that will in the vast majority of cases develop into fully functioning humans is not life. To me, an evolving and developing organism is life, and this life is one that will in the vast majority of cases develop into a human being. Saying it can be aborted because its just a "clump of cells" is saying they are meaningless.

Now at the present time I am anti-death penalty for the reasons largely mentioned on this last page by you. I have been back and forth, and i have struggled at one point in my life with being pro-choice and for the death penalty. I personally struggled with that...and my statements from the beginning were that I don't see how others of the same mindset don't struggle with that either. I too tried to set an artificial point where I felt life began to justify it...but i always felt I was trying to sell myself this bag of goods to fit my argument. I couldn't get beyond the FACT that the "clump of cells" is in fact an evolving lifeform that will develop into a human being.

Now there are also those pro-choicers who believe that the woman should have a choice even after the baby is further developed beyond the "clump of cell" debate. There are many of them that are against the death penalty. To me, saying its OK to abort the child for any reason (many do so because its a burden they don't want to carry) is no different than euthanizing the elderly because they are a burden they don't want to carry.

I don't see how that is insulting in any way. Unless of course someone is struggling with their personal views and takes offense to having the real consequences of their opinions thrown in front of them. Now if someone else has a different view of the start of life...and doesn't view the "clump of cells" as life (i don't personally understand how one can have that view) than they shouldn't be offended because their views should be developed. This is my opinion and view. I find abortion for convenience insulting. My opinion in these forums should be just as respected as yours.

[HoustonGM]

nobody was demonizing anyone, or at least I certainly wasn't.
Okay, how about mischaracterizing? Or putting words into someone's mouth? Nobody here has mentioned euthanizing the elderly, yet you're implying that those that are pro-choice because they don't believe life begins at conception aren't that far from supporting murder of the elderly. You don't see how someone can take offense to that? You don't see how that that's not respecting OUR opinions?


I don't see how that is insulting in any way. Unless of course someone is struggling with their personal views and takes offense to having the real consequences of their opinions thrown in front of them.
You don't see how accusing somebody of supporting murder that they don't support can be insulting?


Now if someone else has a different view of the start of life...and doesn't view the "clump of cells" as life (i don't personally understand how one can have that view) than they shouldn't be offended because their views should be developed.
It's offensive because it's a mischaracterization.


This is my opinion and view. I find abortion for convenience insulting.
Okay, well, that's NOT all you're talking about, plus...nobody here is supporting "abortion for convenience."


My opinion in these forums should be just as respected as yours.
If you want said respect, I think you have to give it too.

[HoustonGM]

Oh, and then, there's of course the fact that nobody here actually supports abortion, but rather, having the option available....making the whole thing about killing the elderly even more ridiculous.

[free2131]

To me, saying its OK to abort the child for any reason (many do so because its a burden they don't want to carry) is no different than euthanizing the elderly because they are a burden they don't want to carry.


A fetus is not self-aware, sentient, nor is it a seperate being from the mother (in the early stages). The closest thing that an early term fetus could be described as is a parasitic organism, and you seem to have no problem people killing those when they invade and start feeding off the human body.

You are also ignoring a very important part of the debate, IMO, as that this fetus is a part of the woman's body, as since we have the freedom to choose what happens medically with our bodies here in the USA, I don't see how someone could tell a woman what to do with her own body, just as I couldn't fathom someone protesting outside a doctor's office, calling patients murder's and damning them to hell when they get antibiotics to kill viruses, since they are just as alive as an embryonic cell is.

[free2131]

I view an abortion the same way I view using a condom to stop the sperm from fertalizing the egg. Both are stopping a potential human from being created, but just because it has the POTENTIAL to become a human, doesn't mean that it should be awarded the same rights and be classified as an actual human.

[acetoolguy]

Obviously this isn't accurate, as you still support executing people even after innocent people have been put to death.

Of course it is.....NASA has a zero acceptence rate of fatalities. When they had them they did not close up shop, they tried harder. You want to quit everytime we fail? If we convict an innocent man we don't arrest anybody else because we made a mistake? As I said, its not a perfect world, that does not mean we stop trying.

[dickay]

Of course it is.....NASA has a zero acceptence rate of fatalities. When they had them they did not close up shop, they tried harder. You want to quit everytime we fail? If we convict an innocent man we don't arrest anybody else because we made a mistake? As I said, its not a perfect world, that does not mean we stop trying.

good point. unlike others i give credence to those who have good points because there are good ones on both sides of most issues. even though this one disagrees with my overall viewpoint, it is a fair point nontheless.

[dickay]

Okay, how about mischaracterizing? Or putting words into someone's mouth? Nobody here has mentioned euthanizing the elderly, yet you're implying that those that are pro-choice because they don't believe life begins at conception aren't that far from supporting murder of the elderly. You don't see how someone can take offense to that? You don't see how that that's not respecting OUR opinions?

It is you putting words in peoples mouths. I made no such implification. It is my belief that life does begin at conception, but my point was not merely for the early stages of pregnancy but for any stage in which the mother chooses that the child is too big of a burden/inconvenience to bear thus abortion is OK. Yes, i do equate that to saying the elderly who no longer can take care of themselves, thus are a burden to society and could be euthanized. That is a valid discussion as there are many that feel that way. Does it matter if nobody mentioned that? I did! I wasn't speaking of you in general so stop trying to make everything about you! I also stated that if you don't believe life is present at the "clump of cells" than it is different and the elderly comment is not relevant. I went onto say that I personally don't see how one can't view such "clump of cells" as life, but that it is MY OPINION.

So to answer your questions, no and most definetly no. I most certainly respect others opinions on this topic AND WENT SOFAR as to say that I too was once of the same mindset. that I too was once pro-choice and anti death penalty. That I too once set different meaning to when I felt life began. Get real!


You don't see how accusing somebody of supporting murder that they don't support can be insulting?


I never accused anyone of anything. again, don't put words in others mouths. never once!


It's offensive because it's a mischaracterization.

you don't even know what you're talking about and are merely trolling. nothing was mischaracterized.


Okay, well, that's NOT all you're talking about, plus...nobody here is supporting "abortion for convenience."

again, putting words in my mouth. please show me where I said people here were supporting abortion for convenience?


If you want said respect, I think you have to give it too.

mirror check. troll....but then again, i'm feeding it so i should just stop. :rolleyes:


Oh, and then, there's of course the fact that nobody here actually supports abortion, but rather, having the option available....making the whole thing about killing the elderly even more ridiculous.

please learn to read and comprehend...but then again, i know you can do that so i'll again chalk this up to merely trolling. My posts have clearly discussed many in society as a whole. I am not, nor would I or have I ever limited any conversation to just the people in these forums because honestly I know little about any of them.


A fetus is not self-aware, sentient, nor is it a seperate being from the mother (in the early stages). The closest thing that an early term fetus could be described as is a parasitic organism, and you seem to have no problem people killing those when they invade and start feeding off the human body.

Well, if that is your opinion than my points and comparisons about the elderly are not relevant to you. I disagree with your opinion, but thats what makes for a good discussion. Separate or not, I do believe it is life and quite a bit different than a parasite which is doing harm. I am for the choice of abortion when the risk of the mothers health is present. but in the vast majority of abortion cases that is not the issue, and i'm not limiting my discussion points to the mere early stages of life. but for the sake of argument, again that "clump of cells" is very much so in most cases going to develop into a fully functioning human being. It is developing and evolving thus it is life, human life IMO.


You are also ignoring a very important part of the debate, IMO, as that this fetus is a part of the woman's body, as since we have the freedom to choose what happens medically with our bodies here in the USA, I don't see how someone could tell a woman what to do with her own body, just as I couldn't fathom someone protesting outside a doctor's office, calling patients murder's and damning them to hell when they get antibiotics to kill viruses, since they are just as alive as an embryonic cell is.

i agree with all of this, and they are good points. there are alot of laws I don't agree with. woman have the right of choice at the present time in the USA. I would never tell a woman waht to do with her own body, but I am entitled to my opinion on the matter. As for the virus's, there are significant differences which I'm sure you can admit to.


I view an abortion the same way I view using a condom to stop the sperm from fertalizing the egg. Both are stopping a potential human from being created, but just because it has the POTENTIAL to become a human, doesn't mean that it should be awarded the same rights and be classified as an actual human.

Fair enough, though I don't. Sperm and an egg have no way of becoming human life w/o the other. A fertilized developing egg is human life IMO.

[HoustonGM]

It is you putting words in peoples mouths. I made no such implification. It is my belief that life does begin at conception, but my point was not merely for the early stages of pregnancy but for any stage in which the mother chooses that the child is too big of a burden/inconvenience to bear thus abortion is OK. Yes, i do equate that to saying the elderly who no longer can take care of themselves, thus are a burden to society and could be euthanized. That is a valid discussion as there are many that feel that way. Does it matter if nobody mentioned that? I did! I wasn't speaking of you in general so stop trying to make everything about you! I also stated that if you don't believe life is present at the "clump of cells" than it is different and the elderly comment is not relevant. I went onto say that I personally don't see how one can't view such "clump of cells" as life, but that it is MY OPINION.
I originally stated that I don't view the "clump of cells" stage as life, and in direct response to that comment from me, you said:

Trying to justify it as a lump of cells is a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized.
So, I don't see how you're now saying that the elderly person comment doesn't apply to those that don't view it as life, considering it was made in direct response to me stating that I don't view it as life.


I never accused anyone of anything. again, don't put words in others mouths. never once!
Oh, okay, you're right, you said that I'm "a few steps away" from it. Incredible difference there.


you don't even know what you're talking about and are merely trolling. nothing was mischaracterized.
I know exactly what I'm talking about and I'm not trolling. Nice fallback, though.


mirror check. troll....but then again, i'm feeding it so i should just stop. :rolleyes:
lol. Yep. I'm trolling because I don't appreciate that you originally equated my position to murder of the elderly. If you misspoke, fine, admit you did that and all is well...but, of course, rather than admit to that, you keep trying to justify it.


please learn to read and comprehend...
Right back at you.


but then again, i know you can do that so i'll again chalk this up to merely trolling.
Wrong.


My posts have clearly discussed many in society as a whole. I am not, nor would I or have I ever limited any conversation to just the people in these forums because honestly I know little about any of them.
There's very few people in society as a whole that actually directly support abortion.

[haveacigar]

Before you two get back into these things, dickay, you have to be more careful with how you say things. I understand that you weren't taking a personal shot at HGM initially, which is why I apologized for that assumption in a successive post, but it *really* looked like you were. Especially in discussions like this, you have to measure your words if you are not aiming to offend or attack the other poster (if that is your aim, of course, bombs away).

And H, if dickay says he didn't mean to say what you think he said, you're allowed to just say "oh ok" and leave it at that, rather than quoting a line and being like "see, you totally did say that!"

[free2131]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/retardedman10/49.jpg?t=1254631004

[filihok]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/retardedman10/49.jpg?t=1254631004

:rolleyes:

http://www.freespirit.com/files/IMAGE/COVER/LARGE/Dude_Thats_Rude.gif

:mad:

[free2131]

Yeah, sorry. I forgot how sensitive you are to the feelings of others...

[HoustonGM]

And H, if dickay says he didn't mean to say what you think he said, you're allowed to just say "oh ok" and leave it at that, rather than quoting a line and being like "see, you totally did say that!"
He's not simply saying that he didn't mean what I think he said. He's refusing to admit that he misspoke and is instead trying to paint me like I'm a bad guy, and frankly, I'm absolutely sick of him pathetically attacking me and calling me a troll every chance he gets. I'm trying to show him why I took it the way I did...which is because...it was said in that exact way. It's absolutely pathetic and it pisses me off. When I misunderstand somebody and admit that I was wrong, he has to post "No, you didn't misunderstand, you purposely twisted the words and are trolling." Which is, of course, a load of crap. But when he posts something that came out wrong, rather than admit to it, he's once again turning it around on me. It's ********.

[SirKodiak]

http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin2/attachment.php?attachmentid=25966&stc=1&d=1249609751

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25918&d=1249521456
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25958&d=1249603616

[HoustonGM]

Yeah, forgive me for getting annoyed that I can't post in any thread in Ejections without dickay jumping down my throat for anything I say.

[guidi2009]

This is pretty much all I need to think life starts at conception.


http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/video_embryo.html

[filihok]

A fetus is not self-aware, sentient, nor is it a seperate being from the mother (in the early stages).

The closest thing that an early term fetus could be described as is a parasitic organism,

Which are absolutely living things.



and you seem to have no problem people killing those when they invade and start feeding off the human body.


as since we have the freedom to choose what happens medically with our bodies here in the USA, I don't see how someone could tell a woman what to do with her own body, just as I couldn't fathom someone protesting outside a doctor's office, calling patients murder's and damning them to hell when they get antibiotics to kill viruses, since they are just as alive as an embryonic cell is.

It's pretty clear that people have differing opinions on what types of living organisms are ok to kill and which aren't (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=192844).


You are also ignoring a very important part of the debate, IMO, as that this fetus is a part of the woman's body,

Does your mom know that you are gay?

[free2131]

Does your mom know that you are gay?

What the hell are you talking about?

[SirKodiak]

http://www.mouserunner.com/dA_1/dA_Journal_Light/Peace_Love_Happiness-By_KenSaunders_12_25_2008.png

[filihok]

What the hell are you talking about?

My question, as well as your statement that a fetus is 'a part of the woman's body', both assume something as fact, which may not be fact.

[dickay]

wow, where to start?


He's not simply saying that he didn't mean what I think he said. He's refusing to admit that he misspoke and is instead trying to paint me like I'm a bad guy, and frankly, I'm absolutely sick of him pathetically attacking me and calling me a troll every chance he gets. I'm trying to show him why I took it the way I did...which is because...it was said in that exact way. It's absolutely pathetic and it pisses me off. When I misunderstand somebody and admit that I was wrong, he has to post "No, you didn't misunderstand, you purposely twisted the words and are trolling." Which is, of course, a load of crap. But when he posts something that came out wrong, rather than admit to it, he's once again turning it around on me. It's ********.

You really need to grow up. I didn't know until right here that somehow you felt I mispoke. I really don't believe I did here at all and have even posted many posts clarifying that my post wasn't about any one individual but about a segment of society. Whats laughable is that you posted TWICE after I posted the "elderly" comparison and you never once expressed outrage or even that you were insulted. You didn't do that until somebody else posted, someone who quickly realized he took my comments the wrong way and let it go. Why? I can only assume that you knew at the time what the post was referring to and wasn't upset, but then found a reason to troll. And after numerous clarifications you continue to troll. Nice.


I originally stated that I don't view the "clump of cells" stage as life, and in direct response to that comment from me, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Trying to justify it as a lump of cells is a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized.

So, I don't see how you're now saying that the elderly person comment doesn't apply to those that don't view it as life, considering it was made in direct response to me stating that I don't view it as life.

And I've been very clear that I'm discussing it as a part of society (a large part) that believes the woman has a choice for any reason and disregard whether its life or not. Since I can't view your "clump of cells" as nothing BUT life, those who feel a baby can be aboted because its going to be a burden, yes I view it as similar to saying the elderly could be euthanized because they too are a "burden". I did however say that if someone truly feels that life has not began at that "clump of cells" point, than obviously that doesn't apply and they shouldn't be upset. I made that very clear here;


I don't see how that is insulting in any way. Unless of course someone is struggling with their personal views and takes offense to having the real consequences of their opinions thrown in front of them. Now if someone else has a different view of the start of life...and doesn't view the "clump of cells" as life (i don't personally understand how one can have that view) than they shouldn't be offended because their views should be developed. This is my opinion and view. I find abortion for convenience insulting. My opinion in these forums should be just as respected as yours.

and here;


It is you putting words in peoples mouths. I made no such implification. It is my belief that life does begin at conception, but my point was not merely for the early stages of pregnancy but for any stage in which the mother chooses that the child is too big of a burden/inconvenience to bear thus abortion is OK. Yes, i do equate that to saying the elderly who no longer can take care of themselves, thus are a burden to society and could be euthanized. That is a valid discussion as there are many that feel that way. Does it matter if nobody mentioned that? I did! I wasn't speaking of you in general so stop trying to make everything about you! I also stated that if you don't believe life is present at the "clump of cells" than it is different and the elderly comment is not relevant. I went onto say that I personally don't see how one can't view such "clump of cells" as life, but that it is MY OPINION.

and IMO here;


nobody was demonizing anyone, or at least I certainly wasn't. My statement was clearly regarding my personal views of the barbaric acts done to an unborn child based upon my view of when life starts. Why is my view less valuable to the discussion than yours or anyone elses?

I've also said more than once that I too was once pro-choice and against the death penalty. I stated that I did set arbitrary "start of life" points to fit my argument but deep down I always felt it was wrong and couldn't get by the fact that it was a living organism. Those posts explained why personally I can't view your "clump of cells" as anything but human life. However multiple times now you refuse to respect my opinion and instead play the victim card (after someone handed it to you) and continually try to wrongfully claim to have been attacked. You remind me alot of myself at 18-21 or so. You know everything, are never wrong, and rather than debate others talk down to them and try to convince them of your way then get upset when they don't bow before and follow you.


There's very few people in society as a whole that actually directly support abortion.

Thats i think the second time you've said such nonsense. i don't know why its relevant since I've mentioned pro-choice on i think every occassion. Many people have different interpretations of what is pro-choice. I am ok with the choice of abortion for medical reasons or in case of rape, incest or other severe extenuating circumstances. I am not ok with it for other reasons. I view that a pro-life stance, some do not. I've stated more than once, probably more than twice in here that the crux of my argument is not merely for the very beginning of life in the womb but for those pro-choicers who feel its the womans right to choose abortion for whatever reason and even those who feel its ok whenever during the pregnancy.


Before you two get back into these things, dickay, you have to be more careful with how you say things. I understand that you weren't taking a personal shot at HGM initially, which is why I apologized for that assumption in a successive post, but it *really* looked like you were. Especially in discussions like this, you have to measure your words if you are not aiming to offend or attack the other poster (if that is your aim, of course, bombs away).

I understand. If it makes him feel better for me to say I "misspoke" than HGM, i'm sorry I misspoke. In a forum where a conversation takes place over days its easy for things to be left out or understood by one and not the other which is why additional posts bring clarity. I've brought clarity to the post many times now, and I believe it was clear based upon the context of our arguments at the time it was made. I believe HGM was clear on it thus why he didn't express being insulted until you chimed in. I feel that even if he did take it for however he feels i'm saying it (which still confuses me) than my follow-up posts were more than clear and the following 3 pages on it were merely trolling.

Again for clarity..my personal view is that the "clump" has to be human life. I don't see how it could be otherwise. I do view saying that such life is meaningless is the same as the euthanization of elderly who are a burden of society. I'm not saying murder of elderly, never said that (those words were put into my mouth by someone who claims to never do such things). There are many segments of society that have debated that issue for many years, and it involves the elderly who want to leave their life and be euthanized. Thats an ethical dilemma that is real, just as real as the start of life point. I didin't say "murder", again someone put those words into my mouth. Euthanasia is a controversial topic, no different than abortion...its not a bad thing to compare towards. I don't see how that can be insulting to say that I view the start of life at conception, and to me aborting it is saying its meaningless. If one doesn't feel its a start of life, well thats a discussion point and they should feel fine with aborting it if they choose. Because they don't view it as the start of life, then obviously the elderly argument is not relevant to them. Its that simple.

[HoustonGM]

Look, this is really, really, really, really simple.

I said:

I don't view a clump of cells with no nervous system, heartbeat, organs, etc. as equivalent to a fully-formed human life.
And you, in direct response, said:

Trying to justify it as a lump of cells is a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized.
I understand now that's probably not what you intended to have it come out like, but you seriously can't see the way it clearly as plain as day sounds? I justify it as a "lump of cells." You respond by saying that doing so is a few steps away from saying the elderly should be euthanized. Hence, you're saying I'm a few steps away from saying the elderly should be euthanized.

And yeah, I obviously was "clear on it", you know, considering I immediately replied to it saying that I don't see the connection whatsoever. :rolleyes:

I said "murder" because you said that the elderly SHOULD be euthanized. You didn't say the elderly that wish to die, or the elderly that are incapable of making decisions, etc. Sorry.

And, again, I did not say that it's insulting for you to believe that life is at conception and that aborting it is saying its meaningless to you. What's insulting is for you to tell me that my stance is a few steps away from saying that the elderly SHOULD be euthanized. And, again, that is what you originally said, and I find it very interesting that you refuse to admit to that even though it's as clear as day...and yet I'm the one that refuses to ever admit I'm wrong....Oh, what's that? When I do admit I'm wrong, you ****ing jump in and claim that I'm just pretending and actually don't think I was wrong but am rather trolling? Oh, yeah, that's right.

[free2131]

My question, as well as your statement that a fetus is 'a part of the woman's body', both assume something as fact, which may not be fact.

A fetus isn't a part of the women's body? Really? Have you had physiology?

Now, if you wanted to agrue that just because the fetus is part of the mother doesn't mean that it should'nt be treated as an individual human, then you can make that argument (that I disagree with). But to say that it is not physically a part of the woman's body is incorrect.

As for if my mom knows if I'm gay, you'd have to ask Kowboy Koop, as he spends the most time with(in) her...

[dickay]

Look, this is really, really, really, really simple.

I said:

And you, in direct response, said:

I understand now that's probably not what you intended to have it come out like, but you seriously can't see the way it clearly as plain as day sounds? I justify it as a "lump of cells." You respond by saying that doing so is a few steps away from saying the elderly should be euthanized. Hence, you're saying I'm a few steps away from saying the elderly should be euthanized.

And yeah, I obviously was "clear on it", you know, considering I immediately replied to it saying that I don't see the connection whatsoever. :rolleyes:

I said "murder" because you said that the elderly SHOULD be euthanized. You didn't say the elderly that wish to die, or the elderly that are incapable of making decisions, etc. Sorry.

And, again, I did not say that it's insulting for you to believe that life is at conception and that aborting it is saying its meaningless to you. What's insulting is for you to tell me that my stance is a few steps away from saying that the elderly SHOULD be euthanized. And, again, that is what you originally said, and I find it very interesting that you refuse to admit to that even though it's as clear as day...and yet I'm the one that refuses to ever admit I'm wrong....Oh, what's that? When I do admit I'm wrong, you ****ing jump in and claim that I'm just pretending and actually don't think I was wrong but am rather trolling? Oh, yeah, that's right.

there is so many things wrong with your interpretations its not worth yet AGAIN going through them. you know what I meant when I said it...and proof of that is you not saying you were insulted until after someone who wasn't involved in the initial discussion took what was said out of context and the wrong way. He later stated that my subsequent posts corrected his misunderstanding yet you continue to bark about..i dont' know what to be honest. Its evident you never were insulted and are yes...trolling just to continue a long since dead argument.

i've already made my points abundantly clear. its very clear nothing derrogatory was said towards you. get over yourself and go find someone else to start a flame war with. :rolleyes:

[dickay]

A fetus isn't a part of the women's body? Really? Have you had physiology?

Now, if you wanted to agrue that just because the fetus is part of the mother doesn't mean that it should'nt be treated as an individual human, then you can make that argument (that I disagree with). But to say that it is not physically a part of the woman's body is incorrect.

As for if my mom knows if I'm gay, you'd have to ask Kowboy Koop, as he spends the most time with(in) her...

now this is going to get good. i love the way filihok has framed this. :p:D

[HoustonGM]

there is so many things wrong with your interpretations its not worth yet AGAIN going through them.
It's not an interpretation. It's plain as ****ing day. I justify it as a "lump of cells." You directly respond saying that justifying it as a lump of cells is "not far off from saying the elderly should be euthanized." There's only one damn way to interpret that.


you know what I meant when I said it...and proof of that is you not saying you were insulted until after someone who wasn't involved in the initial discussion took what was said out of context and the wrong way. He later stated that my subsequent posts corrected his misunderstanding yet you continue to bark about..i dont' know what to be honest. Its evident you never were insulted and are yes...trolling just to continue a long since dead argument.

i've already made my points abundantly clear. its very clear nothing derrogatory was said towards you. get over yourself and go find someone else to start a flame war with. :rolleyes:
Or, you know, you could admit when YOU are wrong instead of always insisting that I never do.....which, of course, is flat out false...you just never accept it when I do.

Your subsequent posts have corrected it and I know now what you intended to say, but it's unbelievable that you can't even bear to admit that your original statement was very clearly not what you intended to say.

[dickay]

It's not an interpretation. It's plain as ****ing day. I justify it as a "lump of cells." You directly respond saying that justifying it as a lump of cells is "not far off from saying the elderly should be euthanized." There's only one damn way to interpret that.


Or, you know, you could admit when YOU are wrong instead of always insisting that I never do.....which, of course, is flat out false...you just never accept it when I do.

Your subsequent posts have corrected it and I know now what you intended to say, but it's unbelievable that you can't even bear to admit that your original statement was very clearly not what you intended to say.

HGM, stop it already. You know full well you're taking it out of context just to continue your whining trolling rant. Here's the full text;


Clump of cells??? Its still life, innocent life which will undoubtedly develop into a functioning human. Trying to justify it as a lump of cells is a few steps away from trying to say the elderly are a drain on society and should be euthanized. Its still life.

Obviously i'm talking of my viewpoint, which is that "its still life" which I stated twice in the same post you continue to take out of context. I view it as life which to me, if saying its ok to terminate it because its a "clump of cells" than its only a few steps away from saying the elderly who are a drain on society should be euthanized. Euthanization to me, and i believe is clear in the definition is not mandatory but a choice, and that is clearly what i was referring to. If you want to ask for a more detailed explanation of what i meant by "should" thats fine..which i've provided multiple times. If you don't view it as life, clearly you can have a different opinion on the issue thus the statement is irrelevant. Because I do view it as life, i can only draw one conclusion. But to say I was wrong in my post, misspoke, or whatever you want to claim is BS. Furthermore, again...you're merely trolling because you know damn well what i meant when i said it and only got mad when someone else misread it and took it another way giving you the idea that whining may be justified. They were man enough to see that they misunderstood the post...you continue to act like a child merely to try to prove a rediculous point.

lord knows nobody can have the last word with you...so go ahead and again spew your trolling garbage. its obvious and clear what your sole intent has been the past couple pages.

[kenny1234]

I am ok with the choice of abortion for medical reasons or in case of rape, incest or other severe extenuating circumstances. I am not ok with it for other reasons.

This position is not uncommon, but I am interested in understanding the logic behind it. You claim that human life starts at conception, and this is the basis for your generally pro-life stance. However, you suggest two specific circumstances in which terminating an innocent human life is acceptable, even when there is no special medical risk (rape and incest). In each case the unborn child is no different than any other unborn child - why does the circumstances of conception make one life worth less than another?

[dickay]

This position is not uncommon, but I am interested in understanding the logic behind it. You claim that human life starts at conception, and this is the basis for your generally pro-life stance. However, you suggest two specific circumstances in which terminating an innocent human life is acceptable, even when there is no special medical risk (rape and incest). In each case the unborn child is no different than any other unborn child - why does the circumstances of conception make one life worth less than another?

excellent question. to me its not just the physical harm that can be put onto the mother but the mental and psychological harm. from personal experiences with woman i have been close with I know somewhat what that entails, but don't think anyone who hasn't been raped can truly understand it. I can understand in those rare circumstances giving the woman the choice to abort as carrying a child conceived during rape is cruel and unusual punishment IMO. Thats not the best way to put it, but I hope you can understand where i'm trying to come from. That isn't easy either, becuase you are correct I do still view it as human life. but honestly i couldn't fathom being a woman and having to carry a baby conceived during such an incident. I do think its harmful for her, or at least could be.

as for incest...pretty much the same but i guess there are variables. i'm pretty naive on the subject to be honest, but first i thought there were significantly increased risks of health risks and if its two concenting cousins...while it kind of makes me gag i guess that its obviously different than a father who impregnates his daughter. again...i'm taking the worst case scenario and am thinking about the psychological state of the woman. if she's strong enough to birth the child and put it up for adoption or care for it, more power to her.

while possibly unpopular....the "extenuating circumstance" for me may even include if they were able to know for sure or even close to it i guess that the baby had significant disabilities. i'm honestly undecided on that and have not formulated a complete opinion. everyday I thank the lord i didn't have to deal with that possibility during the births of my two children.

[haveacigar]

excellent question. to me its not just the physical harm that can be put onto the mother but the mental and psychological harm. from personal experiences with woman i have been close with I know somewhat what that entails, but don't think anyone who hasn't been raped can truly understand it. I can understand in those rare circumstances giving the woman the choice to abort as carrying a child conceived during rape is cruel and unusual punishment IMO. Thats not the best way to put it, but I hope you can understand where i'm trying to come from. That isn't easy either, becuase you are correct I do still view it as human life. but honestly i couldn't fathom being a woman and having to carry a baby conceived during such an incident. I do think its harmful for her, or at least could be.

as for incest...pretty much the same but i guess there are variables. i'm pretty naive on the subject to be honest, but first i thought there were significantly increased risks of health risks and if its two concenting cousins...while it kind of makes me gag i guess that its obviously different than a father who impregnates his daughter. again...i'm taking the worst case scenario and am thinking about the psychological state of the woman. if she's strong enough to birth the child and put it up for adoption or care for it, more power to her.

while possibly unpopular....the "extenuating circumstance" for me may even include if they were able to know for sure or even close to it i guess that the baby had significant disabilities. i'm honestly undecided on that and have not formulated a complete opinion. everyday I thank the lord i didn't have to deal with that possibility during the births of my two children.

To me, aborting in that instance isn't any different than in the case of medical emergency. The fetus is at the same time it's own unique life AND and extension of the mother's life. The law (or morality) should never force someone to take a detriment to their own health for the sake of someone else's, although one who chooses to do so is certainly admirable.

[kenny1234]

Yet pregnancy and childbirth both constitute risks to the mother. So why should the law require a person to accept the potential detriment to her own health, for the sake of someone else's?

Anyway, in my opinion it is pointless to attempt to define a line in the sand, where people that are deemed sufficiently risky are on one side of it and abortion is legally acceptable. There is no good reason to place the line at any specific point, and we can't judge, with sufficient accuracy, when people belong on one side of the line or the other. Given that situation, I don't see any valid method to defining and enforce an abortion law, unless one was going to make abortion illegal in all situations - which I think would be a grave mistake.

[guidi2009]

I'm a firm believer in that we can cut down the rate of abortions in this country, we can argue all day but the fact is a life is being terminated. I'd like to ask people from the religious point of view about condoms and other birth control and the churches stand on them. Why is there such oppositions to these methods?

I can understand from the religious point of view the opposition to the day after pill, but other than that I don't understand the reluctance to birth control. I know religion is in the business of trying to control "bad behavior" but the positives far out weigh the "negatives" with birth control.

On the flip side I think Planned Parenthood does need to include parents in this most important decision. I'm not saying give them the control, but they should at least be notified.

[filihok]

Yet pregnancy and childbirth both constitute risks to the mother. So why should the law require a person to accept the potential detriment to her own health, for the sake of someone else's?

Anyway, in my opinion it is pointless to attempt to define a line in the sand, where people that are deemed sufficiently risky are on one side of it and abortion is legally acceptable. There is no good reason to place the line at any specific point, and we can't judge, with sufficient accuracy, when people belong on one side of the line or the other. Given that situation, I don't see any valid method to defining and enforce an abortion law, unless one was going to make abortion illegal in all situations - which I think would be a grave mistake.

This is a really good post and everything that you say makes perfect sense.

That's why I find it so troubling that I disagree with you.

We define these lines in the sand all the time, for better and-often-worse.

[haveacigar]

Yet pregnancy and childbirth both constitute risks to the mother. So why should the law require a person to accept the potential detriment to her own health, for the sake of someone else's?

Anyway, in my opinion it is pointless to attempt to define a line in the sand, where people that are deemed sufficiently risky are on one side of it and abortion is legally acceptable. There is no good reason to place the line at any specific point, and we can't judge, with sufficient accuracy, when people belong on one side of the line or the other. Given that situation, I don't see any valid method to defining and enforce an abortion law, unless one was going to make abortion illegal in all situations - which I think would be a grave mistake.

I really don't understand what you're talking about with the first paragraph.

In regards to the second paragraph, I think we are plenty capable of coming up with a good place to draw the line, especially considering the vast majority of people support choice in the case of immediate health risk, rape, or incest.

[dickay]

Yet pregnancy and childbirth both constitute risks to the mother. .

Agreed...and there are types of abortions that constitute risks as well. I won't go as far as saying they all do, because I don't know that for certain but i'd say many if not most do have risks physically and psychologically. Albeit the risks in most cases are likely less than pregnancy and childbirth.


So why should the law require a person to accept the potential detriment to her own health, for the sake of someone else's?

Anyway, in my opinion it is pointless to attempt to define a line in the sand, where people that are deemed sufficiently risky are on one side of it and abortion is legally acceptable. There is no good reason to place the line at any specific point, and we can't judge, with sufficient accuracy, when people belong on one side of the line or the other. Given that situation, I don't see any valid method to defining and enforce an abortion law, unless one was going to make abortion illegal in all situations - which I think would be a grave mistake

Fair question, but the life of the baby should also be taken into consideration IMO. I think it does involve a line in the sand though, based upon "significant risk" and "normal risk" for the mother because the risk to the baby is ALWAYS constant during abortion. I believe we are medically capable of a definition which does define black & white and I am not a fan of having no wiggle room so medical opinion case by case may be necessary.

That said, this issue to me has two parts. The moral part and the legal part. Morally, my stance is well documented. Legally, I have no problem if this was an issue state by state and each state made their own determination on their own laws. The Fed has no place here constitutionally IMO. If all states agreed to permit abortion at any time no questions asked, legally i'd be OK with it. Morally i'd find much of it abhorrent but I really don't care about what the law is to be honest. I'd rather see more education, relaxed adoption requirements, and a effort to humanize the unborn child throughout society. To me, when a young unwed woman is pregnant, often one of the first things heard is something like, "are you going to take care of it", or "have you thought about your options" obviously hinting towards abortion. To me, those comments makes my stomach churn. Its all merely about convenience with no true value given to the gift of life within the womb.

[kenny1234]

That said, this issue to me has two parts. The moral part and the legal part. Morally, my stance is well documented. Legally, I have no problem if this was an issue state by state and each state made their own determination on their own laws. The Fed has no place here constitutionally IMO. If all states agreed to permit abortion at any time no questions asked, legally i'd be OK with it. Morally i'd find much of it abhorrent but I really don't care about what the law is to be honest. I'd rather see more education, relaxed adoption requirements, and a effort to humanize the unborn child throughout society. To me, when a young unwed woman is pregnant, often one of the first things heard is something like, "are you going to take care of it", or "have you thought about your options" obviously hinting towards abortion. To me, those comments makes my stomach churn. Its all merely about convenience with no true value given to the gift of life within the womb.
I agree with most of this - my concerns were on the legal issue.

[HoustonGM]

HGM, stop it already. You know full well you're taking it out of context just to continue your whining trolling rant. Here's the full text;

Obviously i'm talking of my viewpoint, which is that "its still life" which I stated twice in the same post you continue to take out of context. I view it as life which to me, if saying its ok to terminate it because its a "clump of cells" than its only a few steps away from saying the elderly who are a drain on society should be euthanized. Euthanization to me, and i believe is clear in the definition is not mandatory but a choice, and that is clearly what i was referring to. If you want to ask for a more detailed explanation of what i meant by "should" thats fine..which i've provided multiple times. If you don't view it as life, clearly you can have a different opinion on the issue thus the statement is irrelevant. Because I do view it as life, i can only draw one conclusion. But to say I was wrong in my post, misspoke, or whatever you want to claim is BS. Furthermore, again...you're merely trolling because you know damn well what i meant when i said it and only got mad when someone else misread it and took it another way giving you the idea that whining may be justified. They were man enough to see that they misunderstood the post...you continue to act like a child merely to try to prove a rediculous point.

lord knows nobody can have the last word with you...so go ahead and again spew your trolling garbage. its obvious and clear what your sole intent has been the past couple pages.
Cut it the **** out with your god damn insults. I'm not trolling. I'm ****ing sick of your stupid accusations. It's really pissing me the **** off. If you seriously don't understand why your original comment was a poor choice of words, and you seriously don't understand how it sounds exactly like how I'm saying it sounded, than I don't know what to tell you. Stop trying to tell me what my own thoughts and motivations are. Contrary to your ****ed up wrong belief, I don't say **** just for the sake of arguing.

I apologize to everybody else in this thread for getting out of hand. I'm just absolutely fed the hell up with his constant accusations and nonsense in every single thread that I post in in Ejections.

[MeetDaMets]

you guys have certainly convinced me that abortion should always be an option.

[dickay]

you guys have certainly convinced me that abortion should always be an option.

lol :D;)

[acetoolguy]

you guys have certainly convinced me that abortion should always be an option.

retro?