My opinions tend to be...inflammatory at best, albeit not deliberately so. So let's hear what other people think about the absurdity of these people's attitudes...and about abortion in general.
It really makes you wonder if these people are able to think for themselves, or behave like sheep doing what they're being told to with no questionning.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-24-2008 18:05
The woman at the end is the architype for the religious IMHO and experience.
No clue about the consequences of what would happen if they indeed got their way, and after being faced with something that shakes their world, an immediate retreat into the Prayer to re-program the mind and will.
It is an interesting question, isn't it?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I liked the bit where a religious woman said that God called her and immediately retreated after being asked about when that had happened.
What's wrong with people who say they act on behalf of God's will or who claim to have had personal communication with God? Why is that not considered insanity or blatant lie that it is? If you're religious at least respect the good intentions and 'spirit' of that religion and don't invent additions to it from the top of your head, don't lie with a straight face while claiming the be on the 'good' side and don't mix your own culture with your particular flavor of religion.
Sorry about that outburst but sometimes I need to get things of my chest.
I have stood outside abortion clinics (Planned Parenthood) here in Houston, Texas to defend the unborn. Its peaceful, all we do is pray, pray, pray for the victim and the mothers who will kill or have killed their potential offspring human embryos.
To me the tragedy of the century is ?holocaust of the innocents? as described in scripture by King Herod in the New Testament.
There was along tread awhile back on abortion. I think I was the only one defending life of the new to be born. So I will not elaborate much more than to say I think the human that was sent to cure cancer, was probably terminated in pregnancy already
There's obviously a huge difference between 'praying for others' and claiming to speak directly with God...
I'm torn between considering most of humanity as unprocessed meat-puree, over-populating a planet to which it is effectively cancerous, and being concerned for the reasons a lot of young women have for aborting. Of course, if it wasn't for religious morons becrying the use of contraceptives and/or appropriate sex education, this wouldn't be such a concern.
On the flip-side, I wonder how many murderers, rapists, drug-pushers, and child-molesters weren't aborted by parents clearly incapable of raising a child in a manner befitting a 'proper' member of society.
I digress; how can someone with a passion for the subject not consider the full picture? This demonstrates a lack of through-thought - obviously the agenda is remove freedom of choice first, then let someone else deal with the subsequent issues.
This a very complex issue we're dealing with here. The interviewer in the video was asking the people to follow their thinking to its logical conclusion, and only the girl in the dark blue cap and glasses (second from the end) had the guts to do that. If you're going to make abortion a legal matter, you can't then turn around and say that the punishment is a moral or spiritual issue. If you're going to bring it into the legal world, there has to be a legal punishment. I think the girl in the dark blue cap provided the best answer she could possibly provide (and I was glad to see that the interviewers included it; it shows that they weren't just picking and choosing what they wanted to hear). As with murder, there are often extenuating circumstances, and not all murderers receive life sentences (some murderers aren't even convicted, but that's a failure of the legal system).
If you want to look at abortion from a moral standpoint alone, though, I think that people should have the right to protest peacefully. We protest wars and other things we feel are wrong, do we not? The demonstrations that Jade has participated in seem well within the bounds of what is reasonable.
The problem, though, is this: if you are going to claim that abortion is murder, then it is both socially and morally irresponsible of you not to seek a law against it. No civilized person would ever dream of doing away with laws against murder, so why would we not have a law against abortion if it is indeed murder? Unlike the killing of a non-fetal human being, abortion can never be considered manslaughter. It is always murder because it is always premeditated--if you go to a clinic or even have someone do a less-than-safe procedure, that's premeditation. If there's no premeditation, then it's not really abortion, it's accidental miscarriage (say, for example, in a fit of hysteria or depression you strike the womb and cause a miscarriage). So abortion would always be murder, and should be treated as such legally.
What I'm saying is this: while it would appear that one way of avoiding the hard question asked in this interview is to keep one's protest against abortion out of the legal realm, it is in fact very difficult to separate the morality and legality of the issue. If you believe abortion is immoral, you need to ask yourself why you believe so. If your answer has anything to do with the taking of a human life, then you have both a moral and social obligation to treat the issue legally. You can't simply say, "Well, it's between the woman and God" and leave it at that. The protesters went part of the way toward that, but except for the girl I mentioned above, none of them had the guts to follow their convictions through to its logical conclusion. Either you think abortion is morally and legally wrong, or you don't.
I have a hard time with this question. It is easy to judge in the abstract, when the idea of having an abortion is merely a philosophical exercise, but what happens when you are faced with the reality of an actual situation? Things that once seemed black and white can begin to look pretty gray.
WS: perhaps you could clarify what question it is that you want Jade to reply to (and why you feel Jade should reply). You never actually asked a question in your post. (Unless you mean, "It's an interesting question, isn't it?" In which case, the reply will probably be, "Yes." )
Suho,
I actually like the answer that the girl in the blue cap gave least of any. I think the point you are trying to make about her is that she is the only one on the video who seemed to actually think about the question and was prepared to try to give an answer that was not a knee-jerk reaction. However, her answer in essence said when a woman has an abortion we have to ask here what her state of mind is or in some other way determine her state of mind and if we like the answer she gets off and if not she gets punished. You can't make that into a law!
I agree that she did take the time to think about the question, but I don't think she really thought her answer through. Of course, that's very hard to do in front of a camera. But, that's where she got caught up in the consequenses of her answer and decided to back down on her stance.
I think the question WebShamon wants jade to answer is "If abortion should be illegal, what should be the punishment for it?" which I think is an unfair question to ask since she never stated that she thinks it should be illegal. She only said she had prayed for people while standing outside an abortion center. I suppose we can infer from that that she wishes those people would choose not to have an abortion, but I would not jump to the conclusion that she thinks it should be illegal until she says so.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-30-2008 09:00
The question is "If abortion should be illegal, what should be the punishment for it?" - and I think it is perfectly fair to ask such.
I think EVERYONE should ask it of themselves, and answer it.
As Master Suho has pointed out, if Abortion is going to be illegal, then it should be considered a pre-meditated act. That makes it more punishable under the law.
So the real question would boil down to if it is illegal because it is the killing of a human life, or not. If so, then Master Suho is right - we are talking about pre-meditated Murder here, and the punishment for it is about the highest there is.
Since I do not personally see how it can be made illegal based on Morality and be somehow punishable, I tend towards the above.
And for the record, I am against making Abortion illegal.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
hyperbole: the point I was trying to make about the girl in the blue cap was that she was the only person who gave an answer consistent with the position that abortion should be illegal. As the interviewer was trying to point out, you can't say that abortion should be illegal and then decide that there should be no punishment for it. If it's illegal, there has to be punishment, period. Whether or not abortion should be illegal is another story entirely, of course.
quote:However, her answer in essence said when a woman has an abortion we have to ask here what her state of mind is or in some other way determine her state of mind and if we like the answer she gets off and if not she gets punished. You can't make that into a law!
First of all, she didn't say that "if we like the answer she gets off and if not she gets punished." She said that the ruling and punishment should take into account the woman's state of mind. This is most certainly not without legal precedent--how many times have we seen someone accused of murder deemed mentally unfit to stand trial? So it is rather common to take into account a person's state of mind when considering sentencing for capital crimes. This is probably why she waffled at the end, because she realized that her choices were going to be: 1) punishment commensurate with murder or 2) being committed to a mental hospital.
I'm curious as to why you like that answer least, though. She was the only one who thought seriously about what she was saying. All of the other people interviewed dodged the logical conclusions of the position they maintained. Are you saying that you liked their answers better? I understand that if you don't agree with the premise they begin with, blue cap girl's answer is the least palatable, but at least it attempts to be intellectually honest.
WS: Ah, OK, sorry. I didn't realize that you were referring to the question asked in the video. Don't know why I didn't pick that up. I guess I've already given my answer, huh?
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-30-2008 13:54
quote:WS: Ah, OK, sorry. I didn't realize that you were referring to the question asked in the video. Don't know why I didn't pick that up. I guess I've already given my answer, huh?
Ermmm...no?
I assume from what you posted, that if Abortion was made illegal, then your position is that it is pre-meditated Murder, and should be punished as such?
Is that correct?
If so, then yes, you did answer it.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
This is an easy question?for me. If abortions were declared illegal, any woman who chooses to and the doctor who does the procedure for her should be punished as well with jail time & maybe huge fines. Whatever the courts decide. To kill with intent to take away human life is murder and they should be prosecuted. Are we going to guess that the baby in the womb is human or not? Mental state could considered if she was insane or retarted. Emotionally unstable would be determined and considered.
You break the law you pay the price.
Consider this:
If a pregnant woman is attacked, and her unborn child is killed as a result, what should be the attacker?s punishment (for the death of the unborn child and not for either harm to the mother or the lack of opportunity for parenthood)? (Scott Peterson was charged with two deaths). Stacy and her unborn.
A. Should the punishment be different depending upon whether the pregnant woman intended to have an abortion? If so, what should that different punishment be?
B. Should the punishment be different depending upon how developed the unborn child is? If so, what are those differences in development and what should the different punishment(s) be?
C. If the woman was attacked during a partial birth abortion, and the baby?s body (but not the head) had been delivered, should the punishment be different and, if so, what should it be?
There was a case where two teens killed their unborn in a motel room and put him in a dumpster to alleviate their problem. I forgot how they did it. They were both caught and charged with murder.
And the prosecutor wanted to get the death penaty for them.. I will have to research to find the case. Because I don't remember what the pushisment for the crime was.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-31-2008 00:02
Soo...you support Capital Punishment for Abortion, should it be made illegal?
Or are you saying that the punishment should be that for Pre-meditated Murder according to the State where it is being tried in? (Often Capital Punishment, but also Life Imprisonment, etc).
Either way, are you absolutely sure that is what you support?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 01-31-2008 03:01
I don't know if that one girl was the camera person showing they interviewed several different people. I'm sure most people who do these things are there for their "religious duty." Like a pastor or priest asked them to do it. But I hardly think that video was a good sampling. It is sad tho...even if a few people are doing it and not knowing why. Maybe they'll think about it now.
Gideon's answer: If abortion is made illegal it should get the same penalties as that of murdering an infant.
Another question: is abortion the same as euthanasia of elderly, terminally ill, and the mentally/severally physically handicapped? In my mind it is the same type of killing that says, "This person is too much of a burden to live."
And to be fair to these people, I was asked on my Eagle scout board of review as a 16 year old whether I thought abortion should be illegal or not. I had no clue then. After that question, tho, I have thought many, many hours on the subject.
I assume from what you posted, that if Abortion was made illegal, then your position is that it is pre-meditated Murder, and should be punished as such? Is that correct? If so, then yes, you did answer it.
This is correct. Which is why I have a problem with making abortion illegal. (The phrase "premeditated murder," by the way, is legally redundant, because it is not murder without "malice aforethought." I know you know this, but I just wanted to make it clear because we're dealing with some tricky issues.)
But let's be clear here: the issue of how abortion should be treated if it is considered a crime and the issue of how capital crimes should be punished are too entirely separate subjects. Many people oppose the death penalty no matter what the crime, even cold-blooded murder (which is also probably a redundant phrase). Saying that you think abortion should be treated the same as murder does not necessarily mean you support the death penalty for it. I have no statistics to back this up, but we know that not all murderers are executed, and I would imagine that there are a good number who don't serve life sentences. So we have to understand that we're talking about two separate issues. In that regard, asking what sort of punishment should be attached to the crime of abortion if it were made illegal is something of a trick question, because you're leaving out the middle step. A better question would be to ask: "What sort of crime should abortion be considered if it is made illegal?" Punishment is part of sentencing and thus up to the judge in each particular case. There is indeed a recommended range of punishments for each class of crime, but ultimately punishment is decided by the court.
Of course, the interviewer asked the question in that way to make it more real, and to make people think about what they were saying, but it's still something of a trick question.
I kind of addressed White Hawk's statement above, but I would like to follow up: do you think, then, that Christians should oppose the death penalty? Do you consider legal execution un-Christian? (Also, if abortion were to be made legal and people were to be executed for it (shudders), it wouldn't be murder because it would be legally sanctioned. What a discomforting thought.)
Gideon: interesting point about euthanasia. That raises a number of issues, but I think I need to think about it some more. On the one hand, I would say that it assumes that unborn fetuses are sentient human beings, but on the other hand there is still a fuss about euthanasizing(?) people who are no longer sentient but existing in a vegetative state. Hmm.
quote:MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
First-degree murder in California includes a killing that is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated," or that is committed in the perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate, certain felonies, including burglary, and not including the petty offense of shoplifting. Cal. Penal Code S 189.
quote:In 1976, contemporaneously with Woodson and Roberts, the Court decided Gregg v. Georgia, 153 428 U.S. 153 (1976) and upheld a procedure in which the trial of capital crimes was bifurcated into guilt-innocence and sentencing phases. At the first proceeding, the jury decides the defendant's guilt; if the defendant is innocent or otherwise not convicted of first-degree murder, the death penalty will not be imposed. At the second hearing, the jury determines whether certain statutory aggravating factors exist, and whether any mitigating factors exist, and, in many jurisdictions, weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in assessing the ultimate penalty ? either death or life in prison, either with or without parole.
The 1977 Coker v. Georgia decision barred the death penalty for rape, and, by implication, for any offense other than murder. The current federal kidnapping statute, however, may be exempt due to the fact that the death penalty applies if the victim expires in the perpetrator's custody, not necessarily by his hand, thus stipulating a resulting death, which was the wording of the objection. In addition, the federal government retains the death penalty for such non-murder offenses as treason, espionage and crimes under military jurisdiction; there has been no challenge to these statutes as of 2007.)
So, as long as Abortion is made illegal because it is Murder, then of course Capital Punishment will come into question, to be decided by the Jury.
IMHO, the social and economical consequences of such an event would be catastrophic, especially if the crime of illegal Abortion was actively policed; the number of criminals would soar, and the system would be overburdened by additional court cases and either lengthy legal processes, or life-time sentences behind bars (barring the Death Sentence).
quote:While most previous deterrence investigations examine the relation between the objective probability of arrest or imprisonment and the official crime rate among states or counties, the present research examined the same relation among ten types of crimes in the same jurisdiction--Tucson, Arizona. We also consider the public perception of the certainty of arrest for eacy type of crime, and the public disapproval of each type of crime is introduced as a control variable. Consistent with two basic premises of the deterrence doctrine, the crime rate varies inversely with both the objective certainty of arrest and the perceived certainty. However, none of the relations are more than moderately close. Contrary to the premises of the deterrence doctrine, the findings indicate that the objective certainty of punishment is not related to the crime rate through perceived certainty. No less important, when the social condemnation of crime is controlled, there is no significant relation between the perceived certainty of punishment and the crime rate.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
What a fantastic idea! Some crackhead shoots someone in a drug-crazed stupor, and he gets help for his addiction. A woman with no means to support a child has her pregnancy terminated, and sits on Death Row.
___
It's interesting, Gideon, that you raise the issue of euthanasia; I'm a strong believer in my right to be free from suffering, and I'd happily grant that right to my anyone else that wishes it.
If your dog was so badly afflicted by injury or illness that every moment it lives is unbearable suffering, you'd put the poor little sod out of its misery, right?
Yet, modern medicine seems to be geared to prolong life regardless, rather than easing suffering. It seems perfectly reasonable to keep someone alive, even while they suffer every moment they live, because it would be murder to aid their request to die.
In short, a dog (or a murderer, essentially) has more rights than a suffering human.
If I were to be paralysed from the neck down tomorrow, and there was no chance I could ever regain sensation and movement, my father would be kind enough to put a pillow over my face. He has promised me this, as I have him. He would not be a murderer, but simply granting me the right to be freed from a useless body in a pointless life; it is a freedom I would demand, and feel I have every right to.
Simply put, I would rather spend years in prison for murder, than visit such an evil fate upon another as to force them to live against their wishes. I feel as strongly about this as you may your God, and it sickens me when I see what sort of life some have had thrust upon them in a world where nature's controls are regularly and thoughtlessly circumvented.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-31-2008 13:36
Hmmm...
This brings up a recent experience for my family.
My brother-in-law on my wife's side commited suicide a week ago.
And though I feel that was soley within his rights to end his existence, most of the family is having a very hard time dealing with this experience currently.
Especially his wife (although they were in the process of seperating because she had another) and his son (9 years old).
I can understand the wife and son having problems coping - I think it is natural for a child to have problems coping with loosing a parent. The wife (sister of my wife) is another thing, and that doesn't need to be discussed here.
I have never understood the logic behind not legally allowing Suicide or Euthanasia. I mean, if someone wants to do it, they are going to do it - it is kind of difficult to stop them. Only someone who is physically incapable of doing so is reliant on outside help.
I just do not see why they (really those left behind, to be honest) are penalized, legally, by such a thing.
If we are truly in control of ourselves and have rights over our bodies, then the right to end our existence should be one of them!
As I see it, it is yet another case of the Religious forcing their beliefs on others, wrapped up in a legal binding.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I'm torn between considering most of humanity as unprocessed meat-puree, over-populating a planet to which it is effectively cancerous, and being concerned for the reasons a lot of young women have for aborting. Of course, if it wasn't for religious morons becrying the use of contraceptives and/or appropriate sex education, this wouldn't be such a concern
The over-populated earth theory is such hogwash. The world will never ever be over-populated with persons. Simply because lots of persons die everyday. And the world it just too big with a bunch of empty land mass all over. Whoever started this idea/theory/excuse never really researched.
A human baby shouldn?t have to be murdered because the mother will not take accoutabiltiy for what she conceived for lack of planning.
quote:On the flip-side, I wonder how many murderers, rapists, drug-pushers, and child-molesters weren't aborted by parents clearly incapable of raising a child in a manner befitting a 'proper' member of society.
I guess Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy or Charles Manson?s parents knew their sons would become monsters. So they should of aborted them just in case. See how silly your statement sounds.
quote:Soo...you support Capital Punishment for Abortion, should it be made illegal?
I am against capital punishment period. I believe a human person does not have a right to take another human life with intent. Even when he is a meance to society. I only believe it be necessary and ok in self defense in protection of self or others.
quote:Or are you saying that the punishment should be that for Pre-meditated Murder according to the State where it is being tried in? (Often Capital Punishment, but also Life Imprisonment, etc).
In the case of a woman who chooses to harm another human be it in her womb, I believe she is destroying a unique created part of herself which can never be duplicated or re-created. She is in a sense destroying herself in the spirit/conscienceness which has attached itself to her. She knows not what she does to the body human when she exterminated the beating heart of the life she was given to co-create, to protect and to nuture. Because she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, she harms in most painful brutal way a defenselss tiny creature that means her not harm. She violates his right to be born, to live, to procreate and contribute to humanity. Therefore she murders with free will intentionly to harm not just anyone but someone who belongs to her in body, mind and spirit from day one. This is why the act is a most tragic deed.
If the act of abortion would be become illegal, the punishment would be prosecuted in a different way in regard to a case compared to a rapist/murderer. You cannot compare the two. One would be judged in regard to the convienence of the mother. Because to bring her child into the world would inconvience her. The doctor would be judged in regard to performing the act with the assistance of the mother. So I presume they would be judged as co-defendants in the act.
In general regard all capital cases of murder in regard to the death penalty, chances for rehabilitation(let there always be hope and not throw away the key). A life prision term or a jail term to pay for the degree of crime would be the way. As it is now.
quote:As I see it, it is yet another case of the Religious forcing their beliefs on others, wrapped up in a legal binding.
As I see it you always try to base your view to counter the opionions or views in regard to religion or faith issues. Lets take God/Religion out of the picture in the act of Abortion. Morally, it is a wrong and bad thing to do to destroy potential humanity. How can we live in a society and expect to prosper as a race when we kill/murder our own race of people? Are we no better than the Mayans, Aztecs, Nazis, Tutsi/Hutus, etc who massacared, mudered and wiped out in genocides for a common purpose?
And in the rights of aborting babies, the most defenseless, is the right to defend our freedoms in regard to our own bodies, worth the murder of millions & millions of unwanted babies murderd since 1973. I don't believe so.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-31-2008 21:41
First of all :
quote:The over-populated earth theory is such hogwash. The world will never ever be over-populated with persons. Simply because lots of persons die everyday. And the world it just too big with a bunch of empty land mass all over. Whoever started this idea/theory/excuse never really researched.
The exhaustion of resources in an environment is a prime example for why species can go extinct. You really need to brush up more on your science before you try to debunk something like that. In your case, your position is ludicrous.
quote:A human baby shouldn?t have to be murdered because the mother will not take accoutabiltiy for what she conceived for lack of planning.
Agreed. And when a mother murders her baby, she is tried under the law.
But when we talk about Abortion, that is not the same case here, Jade. YOU and a bunch of religous nuts would like it to be considered the same, yes. But it is not the same. We are not talking about a human baby. We are talking about something else.
quote:As I see it you always try to base your view to counter the opionions or views in regard to religion or faith issues. Lets take God/Religion out of the picture in the act of Abortion. Morally, it is a wrong and bad thing to do to destroy potential humanity. How can we live in a society and expect to prosper as a race when we kill/murder our own race of people? Are we no better than the Mayans, Aztecs, Nazis, Tutsi/Hutus, etc who massacared, mudered and wiped out in genocides for a common purpose?
*yawn* Emotional appeal without substance or evidence. You seem to convienently forget that Murder and Killing is actually allowed, lawfully, under certain conditions of the law (War, Self-Defence, Police, etc).
I live in the real world. In the real world, one is often sattled with a decision between something negative, and worse. Even in your bible, your god sanctioned the killing and murder of others, and even supposedly actively helped armies accomplish just that.
As for "are we no better than X" - you forget the genocide that was practiced by the European settlers of America against my People, Jade. So no, no better, certainly not!
As usual, beneath your emotional appeal, are huge holes in your logic, facts, and reasoning.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:As for "are we no better than X" - you forget the genocide that was practiced by the European settlers of America against my People, Jade. So no, no better, certainly not!
WHO IS YOUR PEOPLE???
ARE YOU STILL PROFESSING TO BE OF NATIVE AMERICAN ANCESTRY AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ABORTION?
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-01-2008 00:43
I am of Native American decent - I am Cherokee Indain.
As for what it has to do with Abortion? Nothing at all - you brought up
quote:How can we live in a society and expect to prosper as a race when we kill/murder our own race of people? Are we no better than the Mayans, Aztecs, Nazis, Tutsi/Hutus, etc who massacared, mudered and wiped out in genocides for a common purpose?
I answered to that.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
WS: Thanks for the legal info. I agree with what you said in that post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for a lengthier reply at the moment.
[Edit: Ah, I agree with everything except the part about the jury deciding on capital punishment. If I'm not mistaken, the jury simply decides whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime, and the judge does the sentencing, no? At any rate, my point in the post above yours was that asking people how abortion should be punished if it were made illegal leaves out a step in the process.]
Jade, you once again make this conversation completely pointless to continue.
quote:The over-populated earth theory is such hogwash. The world will never ever be over-populated with persons. Simply because lots of persons die everyday. And the world it just too big with a bunch of empty land mass all over. Whoever started this idea/theory/excuse never really researched.
I can't even begin to fathom your logic if you think that makes any sense. Why not do your research? I'll answer you more fully when I've got over my incredulity at that statement.
As for my wondering how many murderers weren't aborted being silly; a big flaming DUH to that. Why don't you cast your mind back to the stupefyingly daft statement that was originally in response to?
That you post these things in sincerity is enough to make me want to self harm, it really is.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-01-2008 09:47
quote: Suho1004 said:
WS: Thanks for the legal info. I agree with what you said in that post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for a lengthier reply at the moment.[Edit: Ah, I agree with everything except the part about the jury deciding on capital punishment. If I'm not mistaken, the jury simply decides whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime, and the judge does the sentencing, no? At any rate, my point in the post above yours was that asking people how abortion should be punished if it were made illegal leaves out a step in the process.](Edited by Suho1004 on 02-01-2008 03:01)
I will look into the exact proceedure according to law, but what I found out so far is
quote:In 1976, contemporaneously with Woodson and Roberts, the Court decided Gregg v. Georgia, 153 428 U.S. 153 (1976) and upheld a procedure in which the trial of capital crimes was bifurcated into guilt-innocence and sentencing phases. At the first proceeding, the jury decides the defendant's guilt; if the defendant is innocent or otherwise not convicted of first-degree murder, the death penalty will not be imposed. At the second hearing, the jury determines whether certain statutory aggravating factors exist, and whether any mitigating factors exist, and, in many jurisdictions, weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in assessing the ultimate penalty ? either death or life in prison, either with or without parole.
I do not know if that is still done, so I will research it and get back to you on it.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Well I am a descendent of Mexican/Spanish ancestery, but I don't go around calling the Mexican/Spanish people, past, present or future "my people" I am an American and embrace the American culture, even though the land I am standing on (Texas) was once Mexico. So, as you say "my people" never migrated or went anywhere. As far as culture, I do practice certain rituals and eats of that culture in regard to family and spirituality.
This is way off the subject but how do you determine that you are of Cherokee ancestery? Most anglos at my husband's job claim to be of different kinds of Indian descent by percentage and I don't understand how they can determine that. They are so proud that thier forefathers came from real Americans, but we are all mutts. I am no way in position to determine how much Mexican or Spanish I am by percentage. I really have never cared. There was intermingling of many different countries in past histories here in the states from abroad. So can you tell me how much Cherokee you are and what else you are? If you are a lot of Cherokee why do you choose to live out of American reservations?
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-01-2008 14:49
quote:Well I am a descendent of Mexican/Spanish ancestery, but I don't go around calling the Mexican/Spanish people, past, present or future "my people" I am an American and embrace the American culture, even though the land I am standing on (Texas) was once Mexico.
You are entitled to identify yourself as you see fit, of course. As am I. If you do not wish to go around calling the Mexican/Spanish people, past, present, or future "your people", that is your right to do so. How you identify yourself, however, in no way, shape, or form has anything whatsoever to do with me, how I identify myself, or with who I am. That is soley something that concerns you and only you, and not me.
It also does not give you any leeway to judge others on.
You identify yourself as an American (generic). That is fine. Continue to do so. I identify myself as a Native American Indian, more appropriately of Cherokee descent.
As for why I identify myself as an American Indian of Cherokee descent? Because in my case it is documented, and can be traced back on my Father's side of the family, that is how, Jade. It is part of what I am, who I am, and I accept that readily.
As for the percentage question, aside from figuring out who was of full-blooded descent (in my case, my Grandfather on my Father's side) and then halfing it from there with every non-indian union (for example, my Father was half - his mother was of full-blooded Italian descent), therefore that makes me a quarter (one could say I am 1/4 Cherokee, 1/4 Italian, and 1/2 European Other (a mix of various other European races - swedish, german, etc from my mother's side), I really do not know of any other way.
Truth be told, I really do not think about such things, nor do I really consider whether or not a fraction is important or not. How much of a fraction is considered to be a part? I consider it a personal identity issue, to be decided upon by the individual and to be respected as such.
It was the only part of my upbringing that was documented, until much later in my life where I was able to trace back other parts of my racial heritage (like my german heritage going back to relatives living in Kessel, Germany, for example). Living on an Indian Reservation, though not one containing my People, gave me a unique look and insight into the Native American Indian side of me, and how such things are regarded from outside and inside.
As why I choose to live off a Reservation...what does that have to do with anything? I live where I choose to live. Why should I live on a Reservation? It is true that I have lived on an Indian Reservation (this was in Northern California, the Hoopa Indian Reservation). No, I am not Hoopa Indian. As to why we were living there, that is personal and not something I want to post here.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I'm curious as to why you like that answer least, though. She was the only one who thought seriously about what she was saying. All of the other people interviewed dodged the logical conclusions of the position they maintained. Are you saying that you liked their answers better? I understand that if you don't agree with the premise they begin with, blue cap girl's answer is the least palatable, but at least it attempts to be intellectually honest.
Suho,
Sorry to take so long to answer you. I've been too busy and tired this week get back to you. I don't want you to think I've been ignoring you.
The thing I dislike about the girl in the blue cap is that her presentation makes it look as if she has thought the answers through. From the answer she gives, I would guess that she is intelligent and quick on her feet. Thus, her immediate comeback with "Yes, they should be punished", makes it appear that she has put some thought into her position. But, when pressured on this, she starts to back peddle. I feel that her initial response was not based on thinking the issue through, but a reaction of "This person is shoving a camera in my face. I'd better be on guard. I'll answer the questions in a manner consistent with the position I'm purporting: Abortion should be illegal". This makes it appear that she has thought the issue through and only under a little more questioning do we find that she hasn't really thought about the consequences of what she's doing at all.
In many ways the other people in the interview were more honest with the interviewer because they immediately said they had not thought about the question.
As a matter of fact, it became quite clear that blue cap girls answers became unpalatable to her very quickly and I think that's what bothered me about her the most. Even when faced with the fact that her actions might lead to situations she would not be comfortable with, she was still not willing to consider a more lenient position. However, I don't think we can fault her or any of them for not immediately swinging around to the interviewer's point of view. This is an important complex question and they should take some time to think about the questions before reaching conclusions. Whether they will think more about the question or not, I don't think we can say.
As a matter of fact, I am against abortion. I don't think I would ever be likely to decide that an abortion was an appropriate solution. However, I also don't feel that it is my place or anyone's place to force that opinion on anyone else. I'm guessing here, but it seems to me that the people who are trying to make abortions illegal for everyone are saying that they know the right answer for everyone and everyone has to conform to their way of behaving.
I also am totally opposed to making abortion illegal. When you make anything illegal, you loose the ability to regulate it. Both Bobbins and I are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal in this country and we each had friends who died from getting abortions from people who didn't know what they were doing, but were willing to perform an abortion for enough money. This is a slow. horrible way for a young girl to die. As soon as abortion became legal, the number of back alley abortions dropped way down and you very rarely hear of people thinking that they need to go to an uncertified practitioner. The legalization of abortion has rather, than increasing the number of abortions, made them much safer.
The only thing that making it illegal again will do is open the door for back alley abortions. It will not decrease the number of abortions performed. It will only make them dangerous again.
There are other professions where this has happened as well. We have had children born in Virginia, California, and Indiana. In California and Indiana there are laws making it illegal to practice as a mid-wife. The only thing this does is remove all safety regulations from those people in those states who are practicing mid-wifery. They still practice. In Virginia and Ohio (next door to Indiana) it is legal to be a mid-wife and because the state allows mid-wives to practice there, they also have the ability to enforce certain regulations making the practice safer for the baby and mother. It is only possible to e a mid-wife in states where it is legal after receiving certain training and certification. In the states where it is illegal, anyone who wants to can be a mid-wife.
I think the reason I immediately dis-liked blue cap girl is that I got the feeling she was giving a performance and was probably less willing to think about the issues being discussed than the other people who at least were honest enough to say, I haven't thought about that before.
WS: Thanks for the info, again. I had just assumed that murder would be treated like other crimes. Shows how much I know about the law.
If this is the case, then the jury has more power over sentencing in capital crimes than I had imagined.
hyperbole: OK, I see your point. I didn't get the impression that she was putting on a show, necessarily--to me it looked like she was at least trying to think it through. I will grant you that the other people were more honest when they said that they hadn't thought about it, but what bothers me about them is that I'm pretty sure they're not going to think about it in the future, either. They've been doing this for years, and they've never thought about the logical conclusion of their claims? If that is the case, that says to me that these are the type of people who are never going to think it through. At least blue cap girl made the effort.
But again, I see your point, and I understand why you disliked her. I guess I just saw it a little differently.
I agree with your views on making abortion illegal, by the way. Although I personally am against abortion, I would not want to tell other people what to do. And you're absolutely right that making it illegal would just make the situation worse (as has been demonstrated in the past).
quote:This is a slow. horrible way for a young girl to die. As soon as abortion became legal, the number of back alley abortions dropped way down and you very rarely hear of people thinking that they need to go to an uncertified practitioner. The legalization of abortion has rather, than increasing the number of abortions, made them much safer.
I agree, but can you consider this? To die with a saline burning solution poured all over you in the womb when you an feel is a terrible way to die. To be picked and prodded and torn to pieces while you are alive is a horrible way to die. To have your head pulled out of a secure waram place and have a sharp object pierced behind your head is a terrible way to die. Sure the abortions are made much safer, but for whom, surly not the innocent child to be born. How do we make it safe for the person in the womb to be safe? Do you have suggestions?
The solution is to end abortions and encourage the mother to have the child and if they do not want the person, give it to someone who can love and care about the child. I wish I could open up a place where women who cannot care for their children can give it to me in this place where they can be loved, nourished and protected. And have society, and the community adopt them?like parents and godparents. That way they can have lots of love to make up for their mom not wanting them. Maybe in the future this can happen.
I really don't understand the mentality of persons who say "Yeah...I am against abortions (meaning I don't think its right to kill those innocent babies, but I cannot tell a mother what to do with her own body so I will just be content to just say " its not my problem, its hers, let her deal with it and if the baby dies as a result its on her conscience not mine" so I will not counsel her to have it and give it to someone that can care of the baby and love it like its own." If she says no, at least I tried to save the baby from a horrible death.
I don't understand how those doctors can just put those babies in trash bins who are human looking even if persons say they are not and not think the thought "should I be helping someone terminate a viable life who looks very human and just throw the corpse in the trash?"
And since it would be too hard, confusing and complicated to prosecute those in illegial abortion crimes, lets just keep it legal and make it easier for society but just killing the babies to make the system work easier.
In this article you will read how a father stomped his baby's head till he was dead. What is the difference between what he did and the act of a mother having her baby killed in a painful way? Its only 3 months difference.
Lets say this particualar baby she may have decided to abort before it was born but opted to give the baby life. But then the father decides to kill it anyway because he was in the way. Why are both acts treated different.
System of justice doesn't make sense in regard to how and when the baby should be killed in the womb. Both acts should be prosecuted. One baby you can't see being murdered till its done and disposed. The other its a horrible crime that we cannot even imagine how mean someone can be to an innocent child.
Dunno how long is abortion legal in the US, but in France it's legal until the 3rd-ish month. Sorry don't know the exact limit.
So to answer your last post with a 6 month difference in mind, because otherwise it would be either illegal or a medical abortion ( because the life of the child or the mum are compromised if the pregnancy is let going full term ). And there is a BIG difference. In one case the father murders his child, in the other case it's "just" an abortion which as far as science can tell does NOT induce pain to the fetus at all if done before the 5th month.
quote:Fetal pain debate:
The existence or absence of fetal sensation during abortion is a matter of medical, ethical and public policy interest. Evidence conflicts, with several physicians holding that the fetus is capable of feeling pain sometime in the first trimester, and medical researchers, notably from the American Medical Association, maintaining that the neuro-anatomical requirements for such experience do not exist until the 29th week of gestation.
Pain receptors begin to appear in the seventh week of gestation. The thalamus, the part of the brain which receives signals from the nervous system and then relays them to the cerebral cortex, starts to form in the fifth week. However, other anatomical structures involved in the nociceptive process are not present until much later in gestation. Links between the thalamus and cerebral cortex form around the 23rd week. There has been suggestion that a fetus cannot feel pain at all, under the premise that it requires mental development that only occurs outside the uterus.
I really do not wish to trivialise this debate, I think it is a good thing to discuss all aspects of life and death, and in this case birth control.
I like to look at each aspect of an argument/discussion and sometimes to consider the extremes they can lead to in order to gain some perspective on the matter.
This is one of those occasions.
Not only is life sacred, but potential life is too in the religion of my birth.You might want to read Sacred while you are watching this
I really do hope I don't offend anyone.....too much.
This thread and the anti-abortion rethoric makes me wonder what actually is a murder.
I mean aside the normal bind that comes with a desired pregnancy, at the end of the day, within the first 3-4 months the fetus does neither feel pain nor is self aware.
Is murder defined by what the victim would have been ? or by what it is / was ?
Tao: How can anyone be offended by the Flying Circus ? they are pure genius.
Thanks for sharing this one. I never saw Monthy Python stuffs in France and have a lot of catch to do.
posted 01-24-2008 15:01
you can see their head about to explode.
)
