I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
im not in favor of the death penalty. i know you were not saying i was. just wanna put my view out there.
at the theory goes, the death penalty is used to put a price on human life. if you take money from me, that money can be replaced. if you take my life, my life cannot be replaced. what is the value of my life? if that person takes my life what can we take from them of equal value?
again, im not for the death penalty but i undertsand the concept and can see why people are for it.
I was not implicating anyone. I was asking a general question aimed at a general audience. I had no specific person in mind when I asked the question, because I have known so many conservatives who are for the death penalty in all cases, but who are also anti-abortion in all cases. I have never understood the conflict, and the hypocriticalviewpoint.
i know you werent implicating. it just seems like i needed to say that in case of a future misunderstanding by someone else. and it is an interesting duality. clearly this thread is losing its focus. that may or may not be a sign that we have beat the topic into the ground.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
"War is murder, sheer, bloody murder."
Michael Collins
However, many will argue that wartime allows men to kill each other without committing murder because it is "self defense".
I can see that if you come to my country with hostile intentions and I kill you that it could be argued as self defense. However if you come to my country with hostile intentions and you kill me that is murder. You came to MY country with hostile intentions... in court that is first degree murder.
My whole point here was to show that even people who say they are against abortion because it is murder, will justify the act of murder when the situation is more in line with their personal beliefs. I would hold a TON more respect for people who were against abortion because they thought it ws murder, if they also spoke out about killing during war time, under government license. So if you are not trying to stop ALL killings then I think you need to look at your personal moral compass because in effect you are only choosing what is murder and what is justified killing. That seems somewhat hypocritical in the larger picture no?
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
im not in favor of the death penalty. i know you were not saying i was. just wanna put my view out there.
at the theory goes, the death penalty is used to put a price on human life. if you take money from me, that money can be replaced. if you take my life, my life cannot be replaced. what is the value of my life? if that person takes my life what can we take from them of equal value?
again, im not for the death penalty but i undertsand the concept and can see why people are for it.
I was not implicating anyone. I was asking a general question aimed at a general audience. I had no specific person in mind when I asked the question, because I have known so many conservatives who are for the death penalty in all cases, but who are also anti-abortion in all cases. I have never understood the conflict, and the hypocriticalviewpoint.
i know you werent implicating. it just seems like i needed to say that in case of a future misunderstanding by someone else. and it is an interesting duality. clearly this thread is losing its focus. that may or may not be a sign that we have beat the topic into the ground.
No, it just means that, as so often happens, discussions both virtual and "real" evolve and change. The human mind likes to do that because we all associate so many things with so many other things. That's why formal debates require strict rules. This is informal conversation, and the discussions should ramble a bit.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
Long story short, yes... the government can go to war without "murdering" people. The biblical definition of murder in this instance boils down to premeditated killing of innocents or those not deemed deserving of capital punishment by other biblical law or those that are not engaged in a just war. Now, we can argue whether this war is just (or if any war has been for that matter), but from a biblical point of view, fighting in a war does not make you a murderer.
Then the firebombing of every major city in Japan or Germany, or London during WWII, often burning to death over 100,000 people (men women & children) in every single attack was not murder?
Once again, the argument is whether it was justified war or not. I don't know if some of our more extreme actions were justified or not. I am not God. I can merely state the criteria for murder, answer Laker's question, that no, not all war is murder.
On a side note, using loaded questions and slippery slope style arguments is intellectually dishonest and not conducive to the civil debate you want. I ignored it once when you inferred Christians believe mothers who misscarry are murderers. I am more than willing to debate and discuss, but I will not dance for your hyperbolic rhetoric.
Not taking sides either way here, but thought I'd just interject since the word Murder is being used rather freely. Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. I'm pretty sure that's right, it's been a while since I had to remember the PC codes. Have fun.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
Long story short, yes... the government can go to war without "murdering" people. The biblical definition of murder in this instance boils down to premeditated killing of innocents or those not deemed deserving of capital punishment by other biblical law or those that are not engaged in a just war. Now, we can argue whether this war is just (or if any war has been for that matter), but from a biblical point of view, fighting in a war does not make you a murderer.
Then the firebombing of every major city in Japan or Germany, or London during WWII, often burning to death over 100,000 people (men women & children) in every single attack was not murder?
Once again, the argument is whether it was justified war or not. I don't know if some of our more extreme actions were justified or not. I am not God. I can merely state the criteria for murder, answer Laker's question, that no, not all war is murder.
On a side note, using loaded questions and slippery slope style arguments is intellectually dishonest and not conducive to the civil debate you want. I ignored it once when you inferred Christians believe mothers who misscarry are murderers. I am more than willing to debate and discuss, but I will not dance for your hyperbolic rhetoric.
Do as you choose. I consider my question to be legitimate, and I did not refer to Christians or to any other group. If life begins at conception, then a legitimate argument can be made that miscarriage is indeed murder. With all due respect, using the Bible to justify the firebombing of innocent men women and children in wartime is, in my view, a very slippery slope. There are many whould use the Bible to justify the Hollocoust as well. I find justification for either acts in Bibical text to be a bit disturbing.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
Long story short, yes... the government can go to war without "murdering" people. The biblical definition of murder in this instance boils down to premeditated killing of innocents or those not deemed deserving of capital punishment by other biblical law or those that are not engaged in a just war. Now, we can argue whether this war is just (or if any war has been for that matter), but from a biblical point of view, fighting in a war does not make you a murderer.
WOW!!! HOLY BAT *** !!! The Bible lays out the proper war method!!! Really? Guess that makes the Bible as violent as the Quran has been declared by westerners. Huh who knew? Governments, at least in some people eyes have the ability to grant morality or even side step it entirely when needed. (shaking head)
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
very interesting point there. are you saying that abortion is murder and the government is taking away the label? or are you saying that war is murder and the government is taking away the label? i mean, in either case there is very compelling argument.
as far as war goes, i feel that the only truely justifiable war is a defensive one. as far as abortion goes, ive stated my view. im not sure were that mass of cells becomes a person. therefore im not 100% sure when to take the rights of the baby into account. i mean, is the morning after pill murder? i have a hard time saying yes. is that a human when it is a dozen cells? iduno.
I think it was very clear what I was saying and I don't agree at all that a compelling case could be made for both. WAR IS MURDER. ABORTION IS A WOMANS RIGHT AND CHOICE. Just for clarification. I was more asking how a person who is against abortion can support killing in war as anything other then murder. If a government can remove any moral constraints a person has about committing murder just by declaring a war, then I would suggest that that person did NOT have much conviction in his so called beliefs and found that they could be tossed aside like a unused coat when not needed. What kind of moral compass is that?
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
"War is murder, sheer, bloody murder."
Michael Collins
However, many will argue that wartime allows men to kill each other without committing murder because it is "self defense".
I can see that if you come to my country with hostile intentions and I kill you that it could be argued as self defense. However if you come to my country with hostile intentions and you kill me that is murder. You came to MY country with hostile intentions... in court that is first degree murder.
My whole point here was to show that even people who say they are against abortion because it is murder, will justify the act of murder when the situation is more in line with their personal beliefs. I would hold a TON more respect for people who were against abortion because they thought it ws murder, if they also spoke out about killing during war time, under government license. So if you are not trying to stop ALL killings then I think you need to look at your personal moral compass because in effect you are only choosing what is murder and what is justified killing. That seems somewhat hypocritical in the larger picture no?
The isssue I have with this is equivocating two very different things. The unborn are innocent, and thus every measure should be taken to protect them. You are right, it is very hard to determine what killing, if any, is just. It is the narrowest of narrow lines, and even self defense would be argued against by some...who are you to say your life is more valuable than your agressors? (Please note, I do not agree with this.)
For me, it comes down to faith. Yes, I believe that governments are instituted over us by God...but being run by men, are fallible. No, this point of view doesn't make me very popular, especially on the internet. I can't say everything we as a country, as a people, or even as myself has been just. Heck, I will say very little any of us do is just and righteous. All I can say is I try, and trust in God's grace when I inevitably fall short.
Witrh all due respect, your conclusions are not accurate. I have refrained from getting personal, and I have not impilcated or personally insulted anyone on this forum. With all due respect, there are many people in the GOP who see no difference between abortion and contraception, and who view contraception as something that should not be encouraged, and who oppose it's use, and who would remove it from public access if they could. There is no statement that I have made that is aimed at anyone personally on this forum. I do, however, have deep oppositions to much of the social agenda of the GOP, and those who suppor the Evangelical agenda of the GOP. If you find my views offensive, I appologize, but I will not refrain from stating them.
if i make a racial slur, even if it is not about a specific person on the board it is still uncivil. just saying.
the group of people that want no contraception is so incredibly small (and shrinking) that the argument is hardly worth bringing up. i mean, i went to a catholic high school and they went at it with the attitude of "abstinence is the best way to stay safe and prevent unexpected children, but if you are gunna do it, use protection"
thats a religious institution. if there was a legit concern about a "war on contraception" then the trojan man would be waging war on the government.
Kuzi, sounds like you went to the only Catholic High School that advocated the use of condoms if you were not practicing abstinence. Never have I heard that sentiment from s Catholic School. This school was located in what state?
ohio.
Really. I knew you lived there now but was unsure as to where you went to high school. Is Ohio not considered one of the more conservative states? Are the views of this school well known in the community? Just seems so out of place.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
We have many people who have been released from our prisons, many of whom were on death row because they were found to falsely convicted. Until we can devise a system that can gurantee without failure that no person will be falsely convicted of a crime punishible by death, then I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Apples/apples. Oranges/oranges.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
Is it really that black and white for you? I would have thought that if you really believe that it is wrong to kill a fetus, it is because it is wrong to kill period. Could you explain how it is alright to kill in one situation and not another? How does morality work in these different situations? Is it OK to kill a criminal in order to extract a measure of revenge, while it is not OK for a woman to terminate a fetus. Many don't see the difference. Is killing OK or not? That is the question. As soon as we start to justify it in some areas while condemning it in others... we are heading down that slippery slope.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?
While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
Long story short, yes... the government can go to war without "murdering" people. The biblical definition of murder in this instance boils down to premeditated killing of innocents or those not deemed deserving of capital punishment by other biblical law or those that are not engaged in a just war. Now, we can argue whether this war is just (or if any war has been for that matter), but from a biblical point of view, fighting in a war does not make you a murderer.
Then the firebombing of every major city in Japan or Germany, or London during WWII, often burning to death over 100,000 people (men women & children) in every single attack was not murder?
Once again, the argument is whether it was justified war or not. I don't know if some of our more extreme actions were justified or not. I am not God. I can merely state the criteria for murder, answer Laker's question, that no, not all war is murder.
On a side note, using loaded questions and slippery slope style arguments is intellectually dishonest and not conducive to the civil debate you want. I ignored it once when you inferred Christians believe mothers who misscarry are murderers. I am more than willing to debate and discuss, but I will not dance for your hyperbolic rhetoric.
Do as you choose. I consider my question to be legitimate, and I did not refer to Christians or to any other group. If life begins at conception, then a legitimate argument can be made that miscarriage is indeed murder. With all due respect, using the Bible to justify the firebombing of innocent men women and children in wartime is, in my view, a very slippery slope. There are many whould use the Bible to justify the Hollocoust as well. I find justification for either acts in Bibical text to be a bit disturbing.
You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent?
Also, the Bible doesn't justify firebombings, it says it is not murder if they are justified. Whether it was a justified action is certainly open to debate... and deserves to be debated. It is like how owning a car doesn't mean you can drive legally, but if you have a license, you can. Personally, I almost always fall into the as little killing as possible camp, and stay out of other countries affairs.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
Is it really that black and white for you? I would have thought that if you really believe that it is wrong to kill a fetus, it is because it is wrong to kill period. Could you explain how it is alright to kill in one situation and not another? How does morality work in these different situations? Is it OK to kill a criminal in order to extract a measure of revenge, while it is not OK for a woman to terminate a fetus. Many don't see the difference. Is killing OK or not? That is the question. As soon as we start to justify it in some areas while condemning it in others... we are heading down that slippery slope.
If a corporation is found guilty of killing a human being, should the corporation not also bne killed, if you are in favor of the death penalty?
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
"...Also, the Bible doesn't justify firebombings, it says it is not murder if they are justified. ..."
The only justification I can think of for the acts of war would be self defense, ( and then only if the nation involved had no choice but to defend itself) but I sure would't go looking to the Bible to sanctify or justify those acts.
the corporation did not kill in that situation. individuals kill, or are responsible for the death of.
example: BP oil spill. the corporation violated rights on many levels. they should be punished. who do you punish in the corporation? everyone that has anything to do with it? or the people who made the decisions that got to the point of the wrongful death?
more realistic example: someone comes into my restaurant to eat. a manager and a cook, after discussing if some chicken is still good or spoiled decide to serve it. someone eats it and dies. did the corporation kill someone or did the manager and cook kill someone? thats some scary *** right there. why should a dishwasher that had no part in the death be punished? (of course we are speaking legally, the PR of the restaurant is in the dumps at that point anyway) bust up the manager and the cook. they made a negligent decision that ended a life. they violated rights. the dishwasher just happened to be in the building.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
Is it really that black and white for you? I would have thought that if you really believe that it is wrong to kill a fetus, it is because it is wrong to kill period. Could you explain how it is alright to kill in one situation and not another? How does morality work in these different situations? Is it OK to kill a criminal in order to extract a measure of revenge, while it is not OK for a woman to terminate a fetus. Many don't see the difference. Is killing OK or not? That is the question. As soon as we start to justify it in some areas while condemning it in others... we are heading down that slippery slope.
Yes, it is that black and white...though not for me. I was merely showing they are not equal value items. I am actually with JDH on this issue, in that until we can prove 100% every time, capital punishment should always be off the table. I am, as I have said before, for least killing. However, at some point a line must be created between murder and a justified killing. Everytime someone kills someone, it can't be murder. In your own self defense scenario, when does it stop being murder and start being defense...when they enter your land?, When they make threats?, When they brandish a weapon?, When they show intent to use it?
And to respond to your statement about the Bible being as violent as the Quran... I have not had time to read to Quran to comment on if it is violent or not, and yes, that is my failing. However, there is a difference between commanding a people to go to war, and laying out rules to follow if you do go to war. The Geneva Convention is a list of rules to follow if you go to war, and it is not an inherently violent document.
the corporation did not kill in that situation. individuals kill, or are responsible for the death of.
example: BP oil spill. the corporation violated rights on many levels. they should be punished. who do you punish in the corporation? everyone that has anything to do with it? or the people who made the decisions that got to the point of the wrongful death?
more realistic example: someone comes into my restaurant to eat. a manager and a cook, after discussing if some chicken is still good or spoiled decide to serve it. someone eats it and dies. did the corporation kill someone or did the manager and cook kill someone? thats some scary *** right there. why should a dishwasher that had no part in the death be punished? (of course we are speaking legally, the PR of the restaurant is in the dumps at that point anyway) bust up the manager and the cook. they made a negligent decision that ended a life. they violated rights. the dishwasher just happened to be in the building.
If a manufacturer puts a product on the market with a design flaw that they are aware of, and that flaw results in the death of someone using its product, are they not guilty of murder?
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
the corporation did not kill in that situation. individuals kill, or are responsible for the death of.
example: BP oil spill. the corporation violated rights on many levels. they should be punished. who do you punish in the corporation? everyone that has anything to do with it? or the people who made the decisions that got to the point of the wrongful death?
more realistic example: someone comes into my restaurant to eat. a manager and a cook, after discussing if some chicken is still good or spoiled decide to serve it. someone eats it and dies. did the corporation kill someone or did the manager and cook kill someone? thats some scary *** right there. why should a dishwasher that had no part in the death be punished? (of course we are speaking legally, the PR of the restaurant is in the dumps at that point anyway) bust up the manager and the cook. they made a negligent decision that ended a life. they violated rights. the dishwasher just happened to be in the building.
If a manufacturer puts a product on the market with a design flaw that they are aware of, and that flaw results in the death of someone using its product, are they not guilty of murder?
someone approved it. that person should be punished. should the janitor be punished because of that decision?
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.
Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist
Which of these would these would you say fits a miscarriage? I go back to my previous example, if a son gives me his cold, and I die, he is not a murderer. You cannot redefine legal terms to win an argument.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.
Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist
Which of these would these would you say fits a miscarriage? I go back to my previous example, if a son gives me his cold, and I die, he is not a murderer. You cannot redefine legal terms to win an argument.
Since I am not a lawyer, I will have to ask my lawyer to respond.
"...You have yet to respond to my previouse comment on it, so I will ask...how is miscarriage murder? Where is the intent? ..."
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
this is EXACTLY what i am talking about. great example here on how we, as a society have difficult questions that are impossible to answer. if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger. very interesting argument.
Thank you.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
Suppose the mother was found to be guilty of drinking alchol, or excercising too virorously while pregnant, and is therefore negligant and contributed to the misscarriage. I see a lot of legal problems that will come out of this definition of "life".
"...Also, the Bible doesn't justify firebombings, it says it is not murder if they are justified. ..."
The only justification I can think of for the acts of war would be self defense, ( and then only if the nation involved had no choice but to defend itself) but I sure would't go looking to the Bible to sanctify or justify those acts.
Once again, the Bible itself doesn't justify, it lays out law to show our sins and how we fall short. It does not tell you your war is just, it tells you what is not just. As I have said, an arbitrary line must be drawn at some point and from there it is both of us rationalizing why our line is better. Who is right? No clue. I, once again, advocate little or no killing of humans, but I trust in grace when I do inevitably mess up...and hope that I never do so as badly as to lead to the death of another.
the corporation did not kill in that situation. individuals kill, or are responsible for the death of.
example: BP oil spill. the corporation violated rights on many levels. they should be punished. who do you punish in the corporation? everyone that has anything to do with it? or the people who made the decisions that got to the point of the wrongful death?
more realistic example: someone comes into my restaurant to eat. a manager and a cook, after discussing if some chicken is still good or spoiled decide to serve it. someone eats it and dies. did the corporation kill someone or did the manager and cook kill someone? thats some scary *** right there. why should a dishwasher that had no part in the death be punished? (of course we are speaking legally, the PR of the restaurant is in the dumps at that point anyway) bust up the manager and the cook. they made a negligent decision that ended a life. they violated rights. the dishwasher just happened to be in the building.
If a manufacturer puts a product on the market with a design flaw that they are aware of, and that flaw results in the death of someone using its product, are they not guilty of murder?
someone approved it. that person should be punished. should the janitor be punished because of that decision?
Remember when all those Ford Pintos would just explode, and those explosions killed a lot of innocent people. Ford was found tohave known about the designflaw and the inherint danger to the public, but nobody at Ford was prosecuted criminally. Some money changed hands, but that's about all. I think that's wrong. Shouldn't the men on Wall St who caused so may people to loose so much be criminally prosecuted for their crimes? Why do corporations get a pass when they kill or cause so much harm?
the corporation did not kill in that situation. individuals kill, or are responsible for the death of.
example: BP oil spill. the corporation violated rights on many levels. they should be punished. who do you punish in the corporation? everyone that has anything to do with it? or the people who made the decisions that got to the point of the wrongful death?
more realistic example: someone comes into my restaurant to eat. a manager and a cook, after discussing if some chicken is still good or spoiled decide to serve it. someone eats it and dies. did the corporation kill someone or did the manager and cook kill someone? thats some scary *** right there. why should a dishwasher that had no part in the death be punished? (of course we are speaking legally, the PR of the restaurant is in the dumps at that point anyway) bust up the manager and the cook. they made a negligent decision that ended a life. they violated rights. the dishwasher just happened to be in the building.
If a manufacturer puts a product on the market with a design flaw that they are aware of, and that flaw results in the death of someone using its product, are they not guilty of murder?
someone approved it. that person should be punished. should the janitor be punished because of that decision?
Remember when all those Ford Pintos would just explode, and those explosions killed a lot of innocent people. Ford was found tohave known about the designflaw and the inherint danger to the public, but nobody at Ford was prosecuted criminally. Some money changed hands, but that's about all. I think that's wrong. Shouldn't the men on Wall St who caused so may people to loose so much be criminally prosecuted for their crimes? Why do corporations get a pass when they kill or cause so much harm?
thats actually what i am saying. the individuals responsible SHOULD be punished.
those who are part of the corporation but had no influence should not be.
in the ford example, i agree that the "solution" was not acceptable.
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.
We have many people who have been released from our prisons, many of whom were on death row because they were found to falsely convicted. Until we can devise a system that can gurantee without failure that no person will be falsely convicted of a crime punishible by death, then I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Apples/apples. Oranges/oranges.
I also think that people that are wrongfully put in prison should be able to get some sort of recourse. I mean how it is now, sorry you were locked up for 25 years, good luck.
Comments
and it is an interesting duality.
clearly this thread is losing its focus.
that may or may not be a sign that we have beat the topic into the ground.
glad we can agree on that.
your mom jokes always have a place.
However if you come to my country with hostile intentions and you kill me that is murder. You came to MY country with hostile intentions... in court that is first degree murder.
My whole point here was to show that even people who say they are against abortion because it is murder, will justify the act of murder when the situation is more in line with their personal beliefs.
I would hold a TON more respect for people who were against abortion because they thought it ws murder, if they also spoke out about killing during war time, under government license. So if you are not trying to stop ALL killings then I think you need to look at your personal moral compass because in effect you are only choosing what is murder and what is justified killing. That seems somewhat hypocritical in the larger picture no?
On a side note, using loaded questions and slippery slope style arguments is intellectually dishonest and not conducive to the civil debate you want. I ignored it once when you inferred Christians believe mothers who misscarry are murderers. I am more than willing to debate and discuss, but I will not dance for your hyperbolic rhetoric.
For me, it comes down to faith. Yes, I believe that governments are instituted over us by God...but being run by men, are fallible. No, this point of view doesn't make me very popular, especially on the internet. I can't say everything we as a country, as a people, or even as myself has been just. Heck, I will say very little any of us do is just and righteous. All I can say is I try, and trust in God's grace when I inevitably fall short.
Also, the Bible doesn't justify firebombings, it says it is not murder if they are justified. Whether it was a justified action is certainly open to debate... and deserves to be debated. It is like how owning a car doesn't mean you can drive legally, but if you have a license, you can. Personally, I almost always fall into the as little killing as possible camp, and stay out of other countries affairs.
Intent is not necessary to be found guilty of murder in the United States. If life begins at conception, and a miscarriage occurs, then the mother would have to be protected by legislative language, otherwise she could be prosecuted for having committed some degree of murder or manslaughter, which carries very harsh penalties.
The only justification I can think of for the acts of war would be self defense, ( and then only if the nation involved had no choice but to defend itself) but I sure would't go looking to the Bible to sanctify or justify those acts.
example:
BP oil spill.
the corporation violated rights on many levels. they should be punished. who do you punish in the corporation? everyone that has anything to do with it? or the people who made the decisions that got to the point of the wrongful death?
more realistic example:
someone comes into my restaurant to eat. a manager and a cook, after discussing if some chicken is still good or spoiled decide to serve it. someone eats it and dies. did the corporation kill someone or did the manager and cook kill someone?
thats some scary *** right there.
why should a dishwasher that had no part in the death be punished? (of course we are speaking legally, the PR of the restaurant is in the dumps at that point anyway)
bust up the manager and the cook. they made a negligent decision that ended a life. they violated rights. the dishwasher just happened to be in the building.
And to respond to your statement about the Bible being as violent as the Quran... I have not had time to read to Quran to comment on if it is violent or not, and yes, that is my failing. However, there is a difference between commanding a people to go to war, and laying out rules to follow if you do go to war. The Geneva Convention is a list of rules to follow if you go to war, and it is not an inherently violent document.
if we cant answer 100% we MUST revert back to the rights based off of what we do know. and with abortion it is that a woman clearly has rights. does a mass of cells that got fertilized 3 weeks earlier have rights?
very interesting example there JDH.
the woman did not intend to have a miscarriage, just like a good driver didnt intend on hitting that car killing its passenger.
very interesting argument.
that person should be punished. should the janitor be punished because of that decision?
Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist
Which of these would these would you say fits a miscarriage? I go back to my previous example, if a son gives me his cold, and I die, he is not a murderer. You cannot redefine legal terms to win an argument.
Something else to consider would be an entirely new realm of legal investigation by the state surrounding all misscarriages, taking these acts of nature out of the supervision of the medical community, and putting them in the hands of legal community.
God forbid.
those who are part of the corporation but had no influence should not be.
in the ford example, i agree that the "solution" was not acceptable.