A Great-Opportunity For The "Pro-Life" Folks!

[Dr.Who]

I am not talking about that

The death penalty means that innocent people will get executed.

This should be enough for pro lifers to want it abolished.

But they don't and that is pro hypocrisy.

They should oppose war because of the huge number of civilians that get killed.

But they don't and that is pro-hypocrisy.

The goal of executions is to eliminate the guilty. I personally would get rid of it because of the errors but I understand that we do not get rid of all sorts of things because there are errors. By that kind of thinking we would get rid of prisons because some people are accidentally imprisoned. The major argument in favor of progressive taxation is that some rich people got rich by taking advantage of others. Punishing all people who worked hard and got rich because a few were greedy is exactly what you are arguing against. What we need to do is to intentionally try to punish those that got rich illegaly while allowing all the law abiding citizens to keep their hard earned cash.

Just about everyone is opposed to war and just about all of them would give as a reason that bystanders can get killed. But sadly war is a necessary fact of life. We can't just get rid of it or we will just end up as the victims of some other leaders war against us. What we need to do is to intentionally try to avoid war and intentionaly try to avoid killing bystanders - things we do.

In the same way we need to try to intentionally try to stop killing babies one day before their due dates, or one month before, or two months before...

 

[BigRob]

Only a "conservative" could manage to consider facts a biased-opinion.

Deathpenalty.org (an organization openly against the death penalty) is your unbiased source? OK.

If anyone quotes FoxNews you scream about it, but quoting an openly bias lobbying group is now unbiased analysis?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think Shaman was talking about the facts stated in the quote from the site as opposed to the site itself.

Maybe addresssing the point would be a good idea BigRob.

How can you consistently support the deth of ionnocents in war and execution but demand the right to life of the foetus?

 

[BigRob]

I think Shaman was talking about the facts stated in the quote from the site as opposed to the site itself.

Yes, facts indeed. If by facts you mean slanted commentary.

Maybe addresssing the point would be a good idea BigRob.

How can you consistently support the deth of ionnocents in war and execution but demand the right to life of the foetus?

I did address the point. I put my faith in the court system we have set up. Is it flawed, yes, but does it work the majority of the time, yes.

As for war, why do you only care about people who die in wars and not the innocents who are slaughtered under oppressive regimes? Seems a bit inconsistent.

As for executions, I have already answered that, when you commit murder you forfeit your right to life.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hiding behind pseudo spohistry does not get you off the hook.

If you don't object to the kiling of actual people then you cannot consistently defend the alleged right to life of the foetus.

That is why you skirt the issue, will not give a straight anawer and have been comprehensively thrashed in argument.

You are a spectacular hypocrite.

 

[Sihouette]

I am saying people have the right to life. That right can be forfeited in the court system if they are found guilty of taking away the right to life of another person. ~BigRob

Now let's see...hmmmm

Following that logic to its natural end, then if a fetus poses an imminent threat to a mother's loss of life then that fetus may have its life taken away? OK, that would be like manslaughter instead since the fetus isn't knowingly taking her life. And yet does it make the loss of mother's life, and established citizen, loved by many, depended on by many, any less of a tragedy weighed against a fetus that has no established contact is known by none and will be a burden on society for at least 15 years until it is able to provide for itself, let alone for others depending on it?

Who gets to live? The mother or the fetus, if the pregnancy means the certian loss of one or the other (or both in the case of premature death of fetus born to a coma or dead mother)....and why?

Annnnndddd... if a soldier in war knowingly bombs a village or building or any other area where innocent civilians are known or highly suspected to get caught up in the fallout, is that soldier then guilty of the murder of any women or children or non-combat people who die as a result of his premeditated actions? Don't give me any nonsense about military law superceding God's law, cuz I'm not buying it. Follow the law of God first, Country second...always..

Now, answer those two scenarios por favor..

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Don't hold your breath

BigRob has a view for all seasons.

When his views get inconsistent he answers questions you didn't ask.

 

[BigRob]

Now let's see...hmmmm

Following that logic to its natural end, then if a fetus poses an imminent threat to a mother's loss of life then that fetus may have its life taken away? OK, that would be like manslaughter instead since the fetus isn't knowingly taking her life. And yet does it make the loss of mother's life, and established citizen, loved by many, depended on by many, any less of a tragedy weighed against a fetus that has no established contact is known by none and will be a burden on society for at least 15 years until it is able to provide for itself, let alone for others depending on it?

Who gets to live? The mother or the fetus, if the pregnancy means the certian loss of one or the other (or both in the case of premature death of fetus born to a coma or dead mother)....and why?

Annnnndddd... if a soldier in war knowingly bombs a village or building or any other area where innocent civilians are known or highly suspected to get caught up in the fallout, is that soldier then guilty of the murder of any women or children or non-combat people who die as a result of his premeditated actions? Don't give me any nonsense about military law superceding God's law, cuz I'm not buying it. Follow the law of God first, Country second...always..

Now, answer those two scenarios por favor..

I do not have a problem with abortion to save the mothers life. That example is about 1/2 of 1% of all abortions however.

As for the soldiers, in today's world if the civilians are targeted intentionally with no military value, then yes, it is murder, but if they are used as human shields or surrounded by military targets, then no, the soldiers are not murderers.

 

[Sihouette]

Even if the civilians have no say-so in the matter?

Interesting. So if those civilians are being held hostage by the "enemy" [read the people who want to retain their sovereignty from the US], then they're "legal-kills" eh?

In the eyes of God or Dubya? Or are they both the same in your eyes?

 

[BigRob]

Even if the civilians have no say-so in the matter?

Are you suggesting that we forgo war out of the possibility that the enemy will use human shields? That is not a human rights problem of the United States, that is a human rights problem of the people who are doing that to begin with.

I am not willing to sacrifice US global interests out of fear that "a civilian might be caught in the crossfire." Such is the nature of war, and we need to accept that.

Interesting. So if those civilians are being held hostage by the "enemy" [read the people who want to retain their sovereignty from the US], then they're "legal-kills" eh?

Obviously your jest does not apply in the majority of situations, however in general, yes, civilian deaths are terrible and should be avoided, however, we should sacrifice the war out of fear that someone not involved might be killed.

We do not target civilians, our military goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians. No wants wants them to die, but on the same hand we need to win the war if we get involved in it.

In the eyes of God or Dubya? Or are they both the same in your eyes?

I am not interested in having a moral debate over war. I am interested in the practical application of force. People die in a war. End of story.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Don't hold your breath

BigRob has a view for all seasons.

When his views get inconsistent he answers questions you didn't ask.

You noticed that, as well, huh?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am not interested in having a moral debate over war. I am interested in the practical application of force. People die in a war. End of story.

Well....the ones that actually participate, anyhow.....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

....but if they are used as human shields or surrounded by military targets, then no, the soldiers are not murderers.

.....Even if someone (in some other country) has decided their homeland is the "official-battleground" for the War Against Terrorism....without any input from the people living there???

 

[BigRob]

.....Even if someone (in some other country) has decided their homeland is the "official-battleground" for the War Against Terrorism....without any input from the people living there???

Yes...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes...

No. That's murder......but, what should anyone really expect, from someone who's used to making his own "rules".