namelesstavern.net

Zanchief wrote:I was speaking factually.

So was I, just a matter of opinions. You think that there is a magical moment when a child becomes a person, and I think that it is a person as soon as the child is conceived. You think that someone deserving a death penalty is still a person, and I think that once they crossed that threshold, they are no longer.

Both are people.

What is the definition of human life? Brainwaves? Heartbeat?

It staggers me that especially as a parent one could think that an unborn child is not a child. Abortions at times when babies are viable is way too common in the US. Abortions past 12 weeks where there are brainwaves, heartbeats, and a living person likewise is the norm. It's really tragic.

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

I can be a parent and still adhere to a scientific definition of a person, 39 week abortions notwithstanding. And Ganzo, I don't think a person as religious as you are should be accusing others of believing in magic.

Zanchief wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

I can be a parent and still adhere to a scientific definition of a person, 39 week abortions notwithstanding. And Ganzo, I don't think a person as religious as you are should be accusing others of believing in magic.

Don't twist my words, I did not accused you of believing in magic, I said you believe in a specific or "Magic"™ moment when child becomes a person - be it birth or a specific week or a brainwave or a heartbeat or whatever.

As far as trying to discredit my opinion by equating my faith with believe in magic, that is weak and at the same time funny as you are linking one logical fallacy while committing another in the same post.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem - your standard mode of arguing on NT.

You are Lyion always bring that up but I'm not discrediting your argument with a personal attack. I'm discrediting your argument and making a personal attack (more like a joke). There's the difference.

.

Tikker wrote:

Lyion wrote:What is the definition of human life? Brainwaves? Heartbeat?

when it can survive outside the mother on it own

In the U.S. that seems to be about 22 years old nowadays....

I believe life begins at conception. Science indicates to me something with a beating heart and brain activity is a human being. Science also is changed for political reasons. Dr Goebbels would approve of our lackluster regard for our most helpless in the name of womens freedom. I find murdering humans disturbing. Be it via Death Penalty or a 20 week old 'fetus' that is 'killed'. The baby actually is more frightening as despite the fact it can survive outside of the mother, it's ok for it to be murdered. Rarely is it done for medical reasons.

Sigh... why did this have to turn into an abortion debate?

I've never understood the "life at conception" idea. Statistically, a woman somewhere in this world is flushing out a fertilized eggs ever fucking minute of every day. Do those not count as 'life' simply because of timing? Wrong time of the month, your dividing cellular structure DIES IN THE JOHN. Conception = the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine lining and... still gets flushed out for some natural reason. Okay, so conception = a fertilized egg that attaches to the wall, stays viable long enough to... what? At what point does this collection of bio-matter become life? And why are you okay with the NATURAL destruction caused by monthly mensies to these fertilized eggs? Wait... No, conception is when a fertilized egg is firmly implanted into the uterus and is viable. Viable for delivery? Okay, 28-30 weeks (or so, with a ton of care). Viable to go on to create a baby? How do you know? Is it about cell count? Because, I mean, my cousin had a freaking 7 week old fetus that (at the cellular level) sure seemed like a viable candidate, if not for the fact that it was growing inside a fallopian tube. When that ruptured, she very nearly died. Conception is about placement, timing, cell count? Marriage? Happiness?

So conception equals a NORMAL, happy and married heterosexual couple who carefully plan a cute & tiny little addition to their family. They schedule out the perfect evening to properly make sweet passionate love on ovulation day and... whoohoo! A giant wad of sperm finds its way to the egg and one lucky tadpole enters it JUST at the correct point in its transit! It makes its way down to the uterus and firmly attaches to the wall! Success! CONCEPTION. Life! Hooray!! Let's legislate that.

Does "life begins at conception" also apply to 11 year old girls raped by some psycho? She has life growing in her tiny womb. LIFE. How about victims of incest? What if the mother's life is in serious danger? If abortion is murder then it's murder in all forms.

You know my response Vonk. But I will keep religion out of this post or it will be derailed further

The death penalty is easy. You are for or against it. It's pretty black and white. Abortion is much greyer due to so many who do not consider in utero to be a real person. It's a simple fact that at conception a new life is created. People die every day. That does not mean we should actively kill them or A=B as your analogy suggests equates things are ok, Vonk.

At conception that 'baby' is a distinct person. Accidents happen and life is a cycle, but that doesn't justify flushing human life for convenience sake. Anyways, I said my 'middle ground' would be to keep abortion legal under 10 weeks, and illegal after except for strict medical reasons, even if personally I feel that's wrong. I think like many European countries there is simple common ground. I think the many second trimester abortions really are sad and it's too bad it's such a political wedge issue and not something we look to solve and to promote the sanctity of life.

It blows my mind that anyone thinks sticking a spike through this babys head is a ok because it's not really a person. Except to me and to common sense it is a person, and people such as myself feel this is akin to murder, much worse than the death penalty as this baby is really a pure innocent.

i disagree with these:

Lyion wrote:It's a simple fact that at conception a new life is created.

Lyion wrote:At conception that 'baby' is a distinct person.

Lyion wrote:to common sense it is a person

but i agree with these:

Lyion wrote:Abortion is much greyer

Lyion wrote:Accidents happen and life is a cycle, but that doesn't justify flushing human life for convenience sake.

Lyion wrote:keep abortion legal under 10 weeks, and illegal after except for strict medical reasons

Lyion wrote:I think the many second trimester abortions really are sad and it's too bad it's such a political wedge issue and not something we look to solve and to promote the sanctity of life.

IMO the real goddamn tragedy is that extreme conservatives have a raging hard-on for shutting down science-based sex ed, free condoms, and contraception when ALL OF THOSE FUCKING THINGS LOWER ABORTION RATES YOU FUCKING MORONS

.

hahahahahahah

Lyion wrote:I think the many second trimester abortions really are sad and it's too bad it's such a political wedge issue and not something we look to solve and to promote the sanctity of life.

IMO the real goddamn tragedy is that extreme conservatives have a raging hard-on for shutting down science-based sex ed, free condoms, and contraception when ALL OF THOSE FUCKING THINGS LOWER ABORTION RATES YOU FUCKING MORONS[/quote]

This is basically it. You can't solve the issue when half the people at the table don't want to have a rational discussion. I've never been a black or white person on abortion, but if you're going to basically say "abstinence is the only answer" and walk away from the table, other solutions need to be presented. If you don't like the answers, well too late bud.

Can we avoid the sentimentality of showing prenatal pictures and saying anyone who wants to drive a spike through that innocent child's head is a monsters?

Conception doesn't create a person. It creates the POTENTIAL for a person. As Vonkaar mentioned, there's any of a myriad number of reasons why a fertilized egg will never result in an actual person being born.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a xygote or blastocyst to be a person yet, any more than I consider individual gametes prior to fertilization to be persons. The potential is there, but that's it. I'm sorry, but a potential person does not, nor should it have, the same rights as a fully grown adult individual.

As for later term abortions, well, the later it gets, the less I agree with it. That said, I can certainly understand why someone would want to abort a pregnancy where there are massive birth defects involved, that would greatly degrade the quality of life of that potential person. Most of the testing for that (from what I have read) doesn't even happen until the 2nd trimester (16-18 weeks is ideal, from what I understand).

As for the death penalty, like I said, I can not and will not ever support it while there is any chance whatsoever that innocent people will be executed. Furthermore, I don't think that it's an actual deterrent, nor do I think the government should be in the revenge business, which is what executions are, ultimately.

-Arlos

For every person against the death penalty because of the "just in case" factor...

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/161149/twisted_mom_dads_deviant_parenting

Explain to me how these 3 people should not be castrated, disemboweled, and drawn and quartered rather than serving LIFE in prison on our dollar?

/driveby troll

people who support the death penalty always seem to bring up the cost of life imprisonment on our dollar yadda yadda. what they fail to acknowledge is that the cost of execution and the cost of the capital trial is also on our dime which exceeds the cost of life imprisonment.

cost is not a relevant factor in the capital punishment debate because if we are discussing cost, that alone favors being against the death penalty. the death penalty is all about eye for an eye, period.

what people also fail to acknowledge is that most people who commit crimes heinous enough to justify the death penalty could give a shit less if they die. they have nothing to lose. personally, i'd rather them live a shitty life for the rest of their days than peacefully put them to sleep with better treatment than most animals get. and for the people who inevitably get imprisoned wrongfully and put on death row, i'd rather not have it on my conscience that they died when they could've fought for their innocence and gotten a chance to get their lives back. see: troy davis and cameron todd willingham.

brinstar wrote:i disagree with these:

Lyion wrote:It's a simple fact that at conception a new life is created.

Lyion wrote:At conception that 'baby' is a distinct person.

Lyion wrote:to common sense it is a person

but i agree with these:

Lyion wrote:Abortion is much greyer

Lyion wrote:Accidents happen and life is a cycle, but that doesn't justify flushing human life for convenience sake.

Lyion wrote:keep abortion legal under 10 weeks, and illegal after except for strict medical reasons

Lyion wrote:I think the many second trimester abortions really are sad and it's too bad it's such a political wedge issue and not something we look to solve and to promote the sanctity of life.

IMO the real goddamn tragedy is that extreme conservatives have a raging hard-on for shutting down science-based sex ed, free condoms, and contraception when ALL OF THOSE FUCKING THINGS LOWER ABORTION RATES YOU FUCKING MORONS

this is where i'm at, too, for the most part.

also troubling to me is how people can mewl about "the sanctity of life" but then once the kid's born, it's "welp, you're on your own, you lazy degenerate. don't come crying to me for handouts!"

.

I wrote a paper on it many moons ago and don't have the resources I used back then, but one of the things I remember from researching that paper was that the cost of the capital trial alone was something like double the cost of life imprisonment, though I'm pretty sure that depends on the state.

Can't attest to the greatness of this site, but a quick google search has heaps of info pertaining to the costs of capital punishment over life imprisonment. Not exactly new information. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The dog isn't going to bite if caged, either, except perhaps if you cage him with another dog, so I'm not sure that's entirely relevant.

The remedy for all this is of course is to make a running man reality show out of it. Then the imprisonment / death of the death row inmates not only pays for itself but also profits since it would probably be the #1 show on tv

Death Row Dynasty!

Reynaldo wrote:The remedy for all this is of course is to make a running man reality show out of it. Then the imprisonment / death of the death row inmates not only pays for itself but also profits since it would probably be the #1 show on tv

Death Row Dynasty!

.

Trielelvan wrote:For every person against the death penalty because of the "just in case" factor...

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/161149/twisted_mom_dads_deviant_parenting

Explain to me how these 3 people should not be castrated, disemboweled, and drawn and quartered rather than serving LIFE in prison on our dollar?

Because you don't sound like you actually want justice. You sound like an angry villager from medieval times.

Death penalty is such an archaic way of thinking and doesn't serve any purpose other than satisfying our personal bloodlust. Justice means doing the right thing even at great personal cost, which as Gypsiyee pointed out is actually monetarily more efficient. Truthfully I always assumed that keeping someone incarcerated cost more than executing them (which I think most assume), but that never mattered to me. I could never justify giving any group of people the power of life and death in which that choice is based on an imperfect system. Even under the assumption that it cost more to incarcerate someone for life, I felt that it was society's burden to do the right thing and mete out justice while still leaving room for correcting mistakes.

As for culling the gene pool, I mean, really dude? By your logic we should execute the killer's parents after we get the killer. Just in case they are still poppin out murder babies. While we're at it, get the siblings too and possibly aunts and uncles. Also, in case you didn't understand this, when they're convicted for murder, chances are they won't be reproducing in jail. As for repeating the crime, it's unlikely. It's certainly possible, but unlikely and far more uncommon than an episode of Oz would suggest.

As for the pay per view TV thing, sure, I get that you're joking or maybe you aren't. I can't tell with you guys sometimes. What I do know is that anyone who is serious about that proves my point for me. They'd rather satisfy a personal bloodlust, grudge, vengeance than to actually see justice.

Jay wrote:

Trielelvan wrote:For every person against the death penalty because of the "just in case" factor...

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/161149/twisted_mom_dads_deviant_parenting

Explain to me how these 3 people should not be castrated, disemboweled, and drawn and quartered rather than serving LIFE in prison on our dollar?

Because you don't sound like you actually want justice. You sound like an angry villager from medieval times.

Death penalty is such an archaic way of thinking and doesn't serve any purpose other than satisfying our personal bloodlust. Justice means doing the right thing even at great personal cost, which as Gypsiyee pointed out is actually monetarily more efficient. Truthfully I always assumed that keeping someone incarcerated cost more than executing them (which I think most assume), but that never mattered to me. I could never justify giving any group of people the power of life and death in which that choice is based on an imperfect system. Even under the assumption that it cost more to incarcerate someone for life, I felt that it was society's burden to do the right thing and mete out justice while still leaving room for correcting mistakes.

As for culling the gene pool, I mean, really dude? By your logic we should execute the killer's parents after we get the killer. Just in case they are still poppin out murder babies. While we're at it, get the siblings too and possibly aunts and uncles. Also, in case you didn't understand this, when they're convicted for murder, chances are they won't be reproducing in jail. As for repeating the crime, it's unlikely. It's certainly possible, but unlikely and far more uncommon than an episode of Oz would suggest.

As for the pay per view TV thing, sure, I get that you're joking or maybe you aren't. I can't tell with you guys sometimes. What I do know is that anyone who is serious about that proves my point for me. They'd rather satisfy a personal bloodlust, grudge, vengeance than to actually see justice.

what he said!