Deadman talking

[DoYouKubuntu]

You've lost me, GG. I said--and when you quoted me, you left out the most important, pertinent line:

No, it's not...really. Its ability to "live" is wholly dependent on its mother's body; until it's capable of sustaining life on its own, outside its mother's body, it's not alive. You have to be BORN to be alive; see M-W's definition of alive and its related definition of life, which includes this:

5 a : the period from birth to death

It's that last line you left out, so your comment:

I will have to disagree.

You distinguish between lawful and unlawful killing, but in defining "lawful" killing you still have to use the word "killing". To avoid that conundrum one has to tamper with the definition of what life is. Your citations do not change the classic definitions of what is life and what is alive, so I don't understand your point on that one.

makes no sense. Merriam-Webster's definitions of "life" and "alive" make VERY clear that life begins at birth. So what is it you're not understanding about my point? The point is that life begins at birth and ends at death...

When an unborn baby's life is terminated I see that as executing the death penalty on the baby for the crimes or inconveniences of the parents. I cannot understand how the mother or father's failures to use contraceptive measures requires the death of the baby which was so conceived. Such deaths frequently turns out to be for no other reasons that inconvenience.

I can't disagree with any of that, as it's basically how I feel, too. It's just that--for me--I don't think it's my right to tell another female what she can or cannot do with an unwanted pregnancy. But as I've said, I'm NOT okay with elective [not medically necessary] abortion past the point of viability.

I cannot understand the logic that says allowing the baby's head to pass out of the birth canal into the free air, and then sticking a spatula into the hole in the base of the skull and squishing the baby's brain into pulp is not a direct, murderous assault. To me, it is identical to the propaganda that dehumanizes other human beings in order to justify their extermination.

But now you're talking anti-choice propaganda. The number of late-term abortions--or, as the anti-choicers prefer to call it, partial birth abortions--is minuscule. Late-term abortions are NOT frequent by any stretch of the imagine.

However, with that said, I have to add that I CANNOT figure out how a person can go through an entire pregnancy and THEN decide to have her baby--and it IS a baby by then--killed. WTF? At that point, why not just give birth and put the baby up for adoption?

Nor can I understand why the criminal act of a rapist is justification for making two victims instead of one.

And you've never been raped. Nor have you gotten pregnant by rape. Guess what? I have, on both counts. As a teenager. I didn't have to do the "abortion or no abortion" thing, as the pregnancy ended spontaneously with a miscarriage. However, the emotional impact of realizing I had been pregnant--with a rapist's baby--triggered a PTSD-type dissociative disorder that I still struggle with to this day. It affected every aspect of my life from that day forward. So, sorry, but the "two victims" argument makes my blood boil. The FEMALE who is raped is the innocent victim; if there's a pregnancy that results and she decides to terminate it, I TOTALLY get that. A blastocyst/zygote/embryo or even a fetus cannot compare with a LIVING human being who will have to deal with the emotional ramifications of giving birth to a rapist's baby for the rest of her life, regardless of whether she adopts it out or keeps it, the trauma is still there. (And, yes, I know some women do carry rapists' babies and give them up for adoption or keep them, and somehow manage to deal with it. Great! More power to them. Not all females can, or should have to, do that.)

My wife and I were, for several years, house parents for boys from 10 to 18 at a children's home. Forty years later one will occasionally drop by and share what has happened in their lives since we were their "parents". The most vivid memory I have in my life is the time when my mother accidently stepped on my hand as I slept on the concrete basement floor. She was leaving with my half brother (by her previous husband) and leaving behind one son (me) and two daughters by my father, whom she grew to hate. Being unwanted brings jarring and painful emotions, but being unwanted doesn't mean being unworthy of life. I grew up without my mother but she taught me one thing: your parents are the ones who raise you, not the sperm or egg donor.

Thank you for sharing that.

[GreyGeek]

....The point is that life begins at birth and ends at death...

Oh, OK, right in front of my nose and I didn't see it!

But, when I was taking Biology in college 50 years ago political correctness hadn't seeped into every nook and cranny of society, changing customs, history and facts. I am from the old school, a decade before Row vs Wade reached the supreme court. In Biology (Human Anatomy & Physiology to be exact) I learned this:

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

People from all philosophical backgrounds have concluded:

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.^” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

One of the most amazing photographs I have ever seen is of a surgery being performed on a 21 week-old fetus named Samuel Armas. The boy is having surgery performed in utero for his spina bifida. In the photograph, the unconscious boy’s hand is poking through the surgical incision in the uterus and is resting on the finger of the surgeon. I don't know if the surgeon had to use anesthesia for a 21 week old, but he had to anesthetize the mother.

I can't disagree with any of that, as it's basically how I feel, too. It's just that--for me--I don't think it's my right to tell another female what she can or cannot do with an unwanted pregnancy. But as I've said, I'm NOT okay with elective [not medically necessary] abortion past the point of viability.

And I am OK with an abortion that is medically necessary to save the life of the mother, unless the mother herself agrees to the risk of going term. But, as a society, we pass regularly pass laws which tell individuals what they can and cannot do. So, while I may disagree with the choice a woman makes to terminate her pregnancy, she is legally allowed to do so, regardless of what I think. That's a trade off that living in a free society requires. We are certainly not a theocracy and I wouldn't want to live in one ruled by a fallible man, even if he claims he is God's mouthpiece. That said, even though the SCOTUS and Blackmun ruled that the "fetus" was a non-person to avoid violating the 14th Amendment, that doesn't make the SCOTUS right, it merely makes their ruling law in our democracy. After all, the SCOTUS also ruled 1857 that Dred Scott was not a person but a "property". What kind of mental gymnastics does it take for one person to look at another person and not see a human being? A person who is saturated in a society that gained economically and politically by maintaining that fiction. But 100 years later we paid a price, although a small one, for that ruling. Many believe that this country will pay a severe price for the death of so many innocents.

But now you're talking anti-choice propaganda. The number of late-term abortions--or, as the anti-choicers prefer to call it, partial birth abortions--is minuscule. Late-term abortions are NOT frequent by any stretch of the imagine.

True, partial birth abortions are not common, and it would take unique individual to perform them on a regular basis. I only bring it up because support for it is often given by those who favor abortion.

However, with that said, I have to add that I CANNOT figure out how a person can go through an entire pregnancy and THEN decide to have her baby--and it IS a baby by then--killed. WTF? At that point, why not just give birth and put the baby up for adoption?

Exactly. There are a LOT of childless parents who'd love to adopt. In a similar vein, why those that shoot their spouse rather than just leaving, unless they were left with no choice and acted in self defense, is another head shaker.

And you've never been raped. Nor have you gotten pregnant by rape..

The experiences that an event like that had on one I love isn't something I can share here, but more than 50 years later its effects are still being felt. And, I can understand why a woman carrying the child of a rapist may not want to carry it to full term, but some have, and were thankful they did. Not everyone reacts alike to the same events.


We all knew, when this discussion started, that eventually we'd agree to disagree, without becoming disagreeable. But, one frequently encounters new thoughts and perspectives, so an amicable discussion is worth the exchange.

[bsniadajewski]

@GG +10 (or is that +1010) I could not have said it any better.

[sixthwheel]

I am very much for the death penalty.
As a matter of fact, murderers should die the way they murdered their victim.

You tie someone to the back of your pickup, and drag them to their death, this is how you should die.

You rape someone, then cut them into little pieces, then this should be your fate as well.

[DoYouKubuntu]

I am very much for the death penalty.
As a matter of fact, murderers should die the way they murdered their victim.

You tie someone to the back of your pickup, and drag them to their death, this is how you should die.

You rape someone, then cut them into little pieces, then this should be your fate as well.

I've had the same thoughts over the years. Yeah, I have. *shrug*

[HalationEffect]

I am very much for the death penalty.
As a matter of fact, murderers should die the way they murdered their victim.

You tie someone to the back of your pickup, and drag them to their death, this is how you should die.

You rape someone, then cut them into little pieces, then this should be your fate as well.

I'd be absolutely fine with that if the justice system was infallible, and never convicted an innocent person. Someone that's been wrongfully imprisoned can be released and even compensated. It's a bit trickier when they're dead.

[GreyGeek]

You rape someone, then cut them into little pieces, then this should be your fate as well.

Just who would you hire, or who do you think would volunteer, to rape someone who wouldn't be as depraved as the rapists?

[DoYouKubuntu]

Just who would you hire, or who do you think would volunteer, to rape someone who wouldn't be as depraved as the rapists?

Just a guess here, but based on reactions I've seen from victims' families/friends, maybe one of them? Not the rape part...I can't imagine anyone WANTING to do that, even if the criminal did it to their loved one. But I've heard many victims' family members say they'd like the "pleasure" of performing the execution themselves.

[Snowhog]

I've closed this thread, as it is moving into an area that isn't appropriate here. This is not an admonition of the members who have participated. I hope you all understand.

Snowhog
KFN Administrator