US Election thread

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Blackface, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. So. Let me get this straight as to your viewpoint:

    Right from the point that cells are joined and the dna is there. To you its a human being. No development necesary. And purely due to its potential to grow into a "human" adult? even in the absence of any organs.

    and it is terrible to "kill" it.

    Somone on a respirator might not be developing, but they dont have far to develop. Also the development is not necesairly them but the technology that'll "bring them back". So someone that can develop back to independant functionality shouuld never ever be killed but somone who cant develop back to independant functionality due to technological limitiations, its ok to pull the plug on them?


    So if its 1000% guarenteed that they are a repeat offender you are happy with capital punishment? Without attempting rehabilitation/ learning/ growing advancing a human being?
     
  2. So. Let me get this straight as to your viewpoint:

    Right from the point that cells are joined and the dna is there. To you its a human being. No development necesary. And purely due to its potential to grow into a "human" adult? even in the absence of any organs.

    and it is terrible to "kill" it.

    Somone on a respirator might not be developing, but they dont have far to develop. Also the development is not necesairly them but the technology that'll "bring them back". So someone that can develop back to independant functionality shouuld never ever be killed but somone who cant develop back to independant functionality due to technological limitiations, its ok to pull the plug on them?


    So if its 1000% guarenteed that they are a repeat offender you are happy with capital punishment? Without attempting rehabilitation/ learning/ growing advancing a human being?
     
  3. yeah. and not purely due to its potential of anything. to me, sperm + egg = human life.

    pulling the plug on someone on a respirator isnt directly killing them. and the circumstances are different from a fetus, so i dont know why you're drawing such a close parallel. if someone braindead cant breathe to stay alive, they would have died w/out artificial life support anyway, so if that's the only way they'd stay alive, it would be a natural death to pull the plug. a human fetus isnt on artificial life support, so artificially terminating a pregnancy isnt a natural death; ergo, killing.

    i should have been more specific previously- i didnt say just because they're a repeat offender that they should be executed. i was simply addressing that one aspect of your question and didnt tie it in to my other related points. however, regardless of the punishment, there should never be leniency on repeat offenders.
     
  4. So if a fetous is not inside a women and being kept alive and raised by a machine you could turn that off? and that'd be ok because it isnt being kept alive by natural means?

    Pulling the plug on a respirator isnt direcly killing them? wtf? shooting someone in the head isnt directly killing them? Its a natural death pulling the plug? why? what if they are in that state due to unnatural causes e.g. being shot. but you pulling the plug is natural and not directly killing them?....

    So someone dies with cancer because you wont treat them isnt directly killing them becasue they would of died anyway even though you could of prevented them from dieing?

    bs.
     
  5. It's not the babies fault they were raped, there are plenty of people willing to take a child for adoption.

    If you deny that a kid in a mother isn't alive, you have a lot of research to start on. This all started back in 9th grade biology.
     
  6. If a women is raped, and when she isn't allowed to have an abortion, you've basically telling her she's forced to carry around a fetus for 9 months because she was a victim of a brutal crime. That's when you start to get into her rights. All of you who aren't pro-life have obviously never met someone who was impregnated by rape. It's obviously very traumatic for this to happen to someone. I know 3 women who were raped, all 3 were younger than 18, and two of them were impregnated and decided to have abortions.

    I know, let's start handing out booklets on how to shove a pistol up your vagina, or how to commit suicide. A child that's not brought up into depression, or in a wrong environment is better than a child that is.
     
  7. #257 Dazzlarr, Oct 27, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  8. oh man, always obnoxious to hear the ignorance line. like we dont know any better.

    i knew a girl in high school who got raped and pregnant, and a family friend. that does absolutely nothing to change my stance. because the woman was raped, that doesnt make the child a victim? the child is a double victim if it's aborted. rape is a horrible thing, but aborting the unfortunate child that is the residual is just as messed up.
     
  9. Sure, it's messed up. If the women isn't ready to carry a fetus for nine months, it could not only jeopardize her future, but her health as well, she's shouldn't be forced to.

    The whole subject of abortion is pretty brutal. There are justified arguments from both sides, but I feel preventing a child being born in the wrong circumstances is saving a child.
     
  10. Abortion is a decision best left to the individual and not the state?
     
  11. i respect your opinion, but i definately dont agree that there are any "wrong circumstances" here. it may really inconvenience the mother, which i pity, but i still dont see the justification. as ive said before, i know families who had a hell of a lot of trouble just adopting, and they were well qualified to do so. the system is bad, and i wish that they would reform it so that it would become a healthier option for mothers in this dilemma. cuz i understand how one could say that preventing a bad life could be seen as saving it, but it really doesnt have to be that way.
     
  12. Definately, I respect yours as well. It's not like I don't know where you're coming from. But I also argee with rixochet when he says "Abortion is a decision best left to the individual and not the state".
     
  13. What the hell? If I'm down in Miami and I kill some Cuban guy who just came over on his sailboat, I'm not going to be hearing about it from Havana. I'm going to be getting a visit from the Miami PD and a nice little prison cell in one of Florida's state prisons.

    I'll refresh your memory on what the 14th Amendment actually says...

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    You see what it's talking about? It's talking about the STATE taking your life, liberty, or property away. Abortion doesn't have anything to do with the STATE taking away anything, so the 14th Amendment really does not apply.
     
  14. Who ever it wins the elction, it won't be good for the rest of the world.
     
  15. To be honest, those are definitely not the two best candidates.But between Kerry and Bush, I prefer GWB.
     
  16. Exactly, he thinks it doesn't even matter what anybody thinks because the 14th amendment does not protect the rights of unborn babies and he also thinks that it is somehow set in stone that nobody else will ever be protected other than those in the amendment.
     
  17. Rape is an exception. Just about everybody (even anti-abortion people, including myself and President Bush) support abortion for mothers who were raped.
     
  18. 1. You know what he meant.

    2. When they said "born in the US" the point of that phrase was WHERE THEY WERE BORN, not that they had exited the womb. They said this to define where the person was born, not to exclude people who were not yet born. If they had known that abortion would ever take place, they might have worded it differently. Why would they write this to exclude people who had not been born yet when they didn't know abortion existed? They would have to have the ability to see the future and know that abortions would take place in order to word the amendment properly.

    3. We never ever meant that we should not hold true to the 14th amendment, just that we should amend it. So this still works in line with what you said about guns.

    I can't believe that you get your opinion on abortion from an amendment that was written before abortion was practiced. How moronic can you get?
     
  19. Plants have no brainwaves and no heartbeat, therefore they are not alive?

    You dumbass. Read the god damn topic, rape is an exception, and I've said this already. Even anti-abortion people believe that mothers who have been raped should be allowed to have abortions. So to answer, no, we are not going to force her to have that baby.
     
  20. Kerry voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions, so yes, he agrees with abortion in all stages of pregnancy.

    Bush does not agree with abortion except in cases of rape or when the mother's life would be endangered to have the baby.
     
  21. You've said you agree with it, so the statements "according to you" and "according to the 14 amendment" are the same thing.
     
  22. #272 bronxgurl, Oct 27, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Why the hell would you believe ANYTHING from John Kerry's site? That would be like saying that the war in Iraq was not a mistake and citing Bush's campaign site as proof.
     
  23. You're totally taking the "birth" thing out of its intent. When they said "born in the US" they were not thinking "these rights should only apply when they person has exited the womb" it was more like "these rights should only apply when the person was born here, instead of somewhere else." Being born is not the issue whatsoever, the issue is where it happens.
     
  24. I think you are quite moronic because we DID HAVE #$%#ING ABORTIONS IN THE MID 1800's. For the love of god, how dense can you be,
     
  25. Dude... the 14th amendment is VERY clear about who it protects. People born or naturalized in the US. Does a fetus fall into this catagory, obsoltuley not.
     

Share This Page