Good news - Killing babies no different from abortion

PrintSmith wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Rehabilitation is possible in some circumstances, as is permanent isolation from the rest of society, so no, capital punishment is not the only means of protecting society.

Need I remind you that the leader of the "Texas 7", the man alluded to in my earlier post, was isolated from society to punish him for his previous crime and escaped that isolation prior to stealing thousands of dollars in an armed robbery and killing the law enforcement officer? And how would you punish one sentenced to life with no possibility of parole for the killing of one person who then kills someone in the penitentiary in which that sentence is being served? Give them another life sentence without possibility of parole for that murder? There is in actuality no additional penalty imposed in such a circumstance for the additional crime that they have committed since they were never getting out of the penitentiary to begin with. There's some ink on a paper which says they have received additional punishment, but that is the extent of the additional punishment that they have received. Additionally, any governor can grant clemency for any State offense and any president can grant clemency for any federal offense. Thus even a sentence of permanent isolation is not as able to guarantee to the society that this individual will do it no further harm as capital punishment is.

If one is unable to afford $3 for a pack of condoms, one is equally unable to afford a child and should not be indulging their sexual desires in a manner which opens up the possibility of a pregnancy resulting from their indulging their sexual desires. Greater access to, new speak from "progressives" for "free", contraception is no more of a guarantee that they will properly use that contraception than paid for access to it is and in fact, if history of "free" in other areas is taken as prelude, more likely to result in it not properly being used. "Free" housing in publicly financed housing has not been shown to result in greater care being taken of the housing that others are providing - in fact the opposite is true. When a teenager is given a car for "free" instead of having to work and save for it, they are much less likely to be interested in taking proper care of the car than they are when it was bought and paid for with their money.

And as far as the Sanger inspired mandatory contraception argument goes, well, all I have to say about that is that it might have taken a while for the "progressive" intent to finally reappear and show itself after decades of being denied, but many of us were convinced that this was the ultimate end game all along. Decrease the undesirable population, ie the poor, by convincing them it is in their best interest, and society's, for them to voluntarily agree to sterilize themselves so that they are unable to breed more poor people. Entice them to voluntarily destroy the life that they do create via the repugnant process of abortion and then suggest that this tragedy can be avoided if they willingly sterilize themselves if they prove resistive to sterilizing themselves initially in order to accomplish the end goal of sterilizing them for the good of society. It's all insidious SC, and all so predictable. They are going to have sex anyway because they are incapable of restraint, so we might as well encourage them to indulge their desires and simply protect ourselves from the consequences by getting them to voluntarily sterilize themselves without letting on that this is our intent. Fairly routine SOP for despotic governments. At least China is up front about it and tells their citizens that they don't have a choice in the matter - that they will be punished for having more than a single child because the central governing authority has determined that society will be better off if this is done. I'd really rather that our "progressive" population would be equally up front about what it is they are trying to accomplish rather than continuing with all this pretense.

Have you ever heard of the internet short hand TLTR (to long to read).

In my opinion your verbosity simply goes right over the head of a lot of people, and diminishes the points you are trying to make. It's really simple. These sort of medical ethicists revel in their little philosophical thought experiments, but the bottom line is you don't kill a child after birth for any reason. Try the simple approach next time.

Hey writer-boy, "to long to read," means you're really anxious or excited to read something. "Too long to read," means you're lazy. Crazy how one little letter can make such a difference, eh?

Bottom line: a fetus and a newborn are not the same; morally, ethically, physically; there are distinct differences. The argument posits an interesting theoretical, but ignores the reality that a fetus is not a self sustained and sentient being (yet). Again we see an example of why an argument constructed with a false premise cannot produce a valid conclusion.

*for the record, I am completely opposed to abortion and if I ever become pregnant, I promise you, I would not have one.

However, I respect my neighbors enough that I would defend their right to make their own choices about their own business!

1. So I just want to be clear, if you were born 20 years and 3 months ago you are 21 years old and can drink beer without being arrested?

2. Seems to me that life starts even before conception, as the sperm and the egg are alive, so I propose we don't dance in this middle ground of talking about an unborn baby's life, I would prefer to accept it is alive along with the sperm and the egg and thus if you kill a man, you have killed him plus the number of sperm in his body (each counted as one human life or half if you prefer) and if you kill a woman that you have gilled her plus all the 1/2 humans as her eggs. Now a man does not have living sperm till he is in his mid teens so you can kill a man up to say 12 and get away with only one murder, but after that we are looking at a 20 year old male being killed and you have killed millions. Then if you kill a woman, it would be best to wait till she is past her mid 50's or you will be killing dozens or hundreds.

I wish the pro life people would stop messing around in the womb, life starts earlier and your womb talk just confuses the issue, drags it out, splits hairs and it is time to accept that any fertilization work done on eggs is just plain torture and that ejaculation of male sperm for any reason other than conception is not only immoral but also tantimount to mass murder....and as we have decided this is a societal issue and not a family, medical or personal issue, I take issue with a number of other aspects of your life that need to be fixed, if you manipulate eggs or sperm for any other reason than tradition sexual intercourse for the purpose of making a baby, you are just as bad as an abortionist - you are a taker of innocent life that was full of potential.

plaidvillain wrote: Hey writer-boy, "to long to read," means you're really anxious or excited to read something. "Too long to read," means you're lazy. Crazy how one little letter can make such a difference, eh?

Bottom line: a fetus and a newborn are not the same; morally, ethically, physically; there are distinct differences. The argument posits an interesting theoretical, but ignores the reality that a fetus is not a self sustained and sentient being (yet). Again we see an example of why an argument constructed with a false premise cannot produce a valid conclusion.

*for the record, I am completely opposed to abortion and if I ever become pregnant, I promise you, I would not have one.

However, I respect my neighbors enough that I would defend their right to make their own choices about their own business!

Did you read the article... troll-girl? Did you read the thread even? It's not about abortion, it's about killing babies AFTER THEY ARE BORN.... you're sick.

plaidvillain wrote: Bottom line: a fetus and a newborn are not the same; morally, ethically, physically; there are distinct differences. The argument posits an interesting theoretical, but ignores the reality that a fetus is not a self sustained and sentient being (yet). Again we see an example of why an argument constructed with a false premise cannot produce a valid conclusion.
i]

So is it ok to kill a baby that was born yesterday, but is not able to live on it's own yet due to complications. If it is on some kind of life support after not having supported itself on it's own yet, it seems that it would still meet your qualifications for being eliminated?

I too would not have an abortion, ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

I think one could make pretty good arguments that a baby is sentient, and I think one could make arguments that a baby is not. Perhaps "sentience", being even more vague than "alive", is not a good serrogate to resolve this issue. That is kind of like saying that we could resolve the debates around "Wars" by calling them "Conflicts" or debates around government marriage by talking about religion. .

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: Hey writer-boy, "to long to read," means you're really anxious or excited to read something. "Too long to read," means you're lazy. Crazy how one little letter can make such a difference, eh?

Bottom line: a fetus and a newborn are not the same; morally, ethically, physically; there are distinct differences. The argument posits an interesting theoretical, but ignores the reality that a fetus is not a self sustained and sentient being (yet). Again we see an example of why an argument constructed with a false premise cannot produce a valid conclusion.

*for the record, I am completely opposed to abortion and if I ever become pregnant, I promise you, I would not have one.

However, I respect my neighbors enough that I would defend their right to make their own choices about their own business!

Did you read the article... troll-girl? Did you read the thread even? It's not about abortion, it's about killing babies AFTER THEY ARE BORN.... you're sick.

It's easier to redirect than it is to discuss the actual topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... f=politics

And I thought I was alone.

"However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child,"

Masterbation prison. Masterbaters kill more unborn in one act than abortion doctors working their whole lives?

Slippery, er I mean lubricated, slope.