Abortion and Morality

[Coyote]

Should I put together a small list of people who were convicted of killing that were let out of prison only to kill again? It happens far too often. And life without the possibility of parole only means something as long as there are no bleeding heart liberals who are willing to convince someone that they are changed and rehabilitated and should be let out. In short, it means nothing.

Enforce or change the law so that life means life in prison. One can also argue that innocent people have been executed but that's a whole 'nother debate.

In the end - it still doesn't change the fact that the right to life is not always primary.

Maybe you should tell that to the families of victims of killers who were imprisoned and then let out. Explain to them how the idea of imprisioning and rehabilitating them is in the best interest of society.

Now who's throwing emotion into the debate?

Like I said, all rights are secondary to your right to live right up to the point that you threaten someone elses. If it is a flaw in my argument, by all means, do your best to exploit it.

UP TO A POINT. And that point isn't even just self defense anymore or even a direct threat to another life - just a possible threat. Incarceration for life would deal with the threat. There are exceptions to when the right to life is primary.

By the way, those "exceptions" as you like to call them, are enumerated in excruciating detail in the form of law legislated by our duely elected representatives. No such law has been written in the case of abortion.

I don't think it matters. It is still clear that there are exceptions to the primacy of the right to life. I think rape is another such exception.

 

[palerider]

Well then you have no grounds for killing in many allowed situations... of which just a couple of have been posted above. The innocent man wrongly put to death or the woman or the little child who dies from colateral damage isn't threatening anybody. It was a matter of......... what.............here it comes............CHOICE! )

If an innocent man has ever been executed by the state, he at least has had his due process.

And if a child dies in war when no one intended to kill him or her, then exactly who do you blame? If a soldier targets the child and kills it, then the soldier should rightly be charged for murder.

Don't you find it telling that you are reduced to comparing unborns to casualties of war and convicted murderers in an attempt to make your invalid point? If I ever found myself in such a weak position that I had to make such comparisons, I would reconsider my position as it would obviously be indefensible.

 

[palerider]

Enforce or change the law so that life means life in prison. One can also argue that innocent people have been executed but that's a whole 'nother debate.

A change in the law is meaningless. Life is a long time (if your mother doesn't kill you that is) and the political landscape changes. There will always be a certain group working endlessly to let killers out of jail and they always succeed to a degree.

And the 14th amendment only promises due process. It doesn't promise that a jury will always make the right decision or that the evidence might make an overwhelming case against you.

In the end - it still doesn't change the fact that the right to life is not always primary.

Of course it is; right up to the time you become a threat to someone else's life.

Now who's throwing emotion into the debate?

Is the point true or not? Is it an appeal to emotion that has no bearing on the point it was to address? If so, then you have a valid complaint. If not, what are you complaining about?

UP TO A POINT. And that point isn't even just self defense anymore or even a direct threat to another life - just a possible threat. Incarceration for life would deal with the threat. There are exceptions to when the right to life is primary.

History makes it clear that incarceration for life doesn't prevent killers from getting out to kill again. And capital punishment is a just punishment for someone who has, with forethought and malice, taken the life of another.

And there are no exceptions coyote. Your argument has failed. If, for no other reason that you have been reduced to comparing unborns to convicted killers in an attempt to make some sort of point that I doubt that even you could describe accurately.

I don't think it matters. It is still clear that there are exceptions to the primacy of the right to life. I think rape is another such exception.

Look at the laws coyote. They answer your question and expose the weakness of your argument.

And I don't have a problem with making violent rape a capital crime. Killing a child for the crimes of his father, however, is not a rational response to the crime.

 

[top gun]

palerider;20659]If an innocent man has ever been executed by the state, he at least has had his due process.

Killing innocents is killing innocents. Trying to say it's the "procedure" to do that that makes it OK is more than weak it's perposterous... but you know that.

And if a child dies in war when no one intended to kill him or her, then exactly who do you blame? If a soldier targets the child and kills it, then the soldier should rightly be charged for murder.

Nice wiggle but you're not citing what I said... but you know that. When the military plans a bombing raid they have a predetermined "assessment" (keep in mind my wife ex-US Army Military Intelligence). That "assessment already has factored in collateral damage and loss of life to innocent civilians.

There is nothing unforeseen about it... but you know that too. Again you cite the procedure to kill as you like as an allowable reason.

And we haven't even got to the situation where drafted soldiers adamantly against war some who even tried but were denied conscientious objector status have been forced by the government to kill. And of course the list of good examples goes on... but you know that.

Don't you find it telling that you are reduced to comparing unborns to casualties of war and convicted murderers in an attempt to make your invalid point? If I ever found myself in such a weak position that I had to make such comparisons, I would reconsider my position as it would obviously be indefensible.

I think what we find telling for all to see is the leaking sieve of your reasoning. The picking and choosing of just how and who you think should be in your words "killed". It appears as long as you are allowed to be the arbitrator of death things are fine.

Innocent wrongly convicted people... fine. The women and little children unfortunate enough to be in the proximity of a bombing run... fine. People forced to kill by the government when they absolutely do not want to... fine. And of course this is just the short list.

It would be a much more obtainable goal and much fairer to women to fight your overwhelming temptation to dominate and control women with your wish list of female control policies over what they are allowed to do with their own bodies, and maybe focus on some man decisions of killing of innocents... as you like to put it.

It's not hard to see the irony. You would immediately pull the Birth Control Pill off the market if you could ever have your way because it prevents the progress "kills" 2 cells. Bombing and killing a 2 year old, a young mother or an old lady you brush off with... Well, even if we know it's going to happen in advance as we weren't specifically targeting them alone it's fine.

Weak my brother... very, very weak.

 

[palerider]

Nice rant. But completely irrelavent. It does nothing to invalidate any part of my position, that being:

Unborns are human beings.

Human beings have a right to live.

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Your whole statement is nothing more than an hysterical appeal to emotion. Let me know when you develop a real argument.

Comparing war to one woman deciding to kill her child. That isn't even a good try top gun.

And you should stay away from any comparisons to the judicial system. There is no question with regard to a woman's guilt if she has an abortion, and no doubt that she may do so without legal consequence because of an unconstitutional decision that in essence said that she could do so because what she was killing was not a human being.

 

[top gun]

Nice rant. But completely irrelavent. It does nothing to invalidate any part of my position...

So sad. You're all over the place, just look...

Killing is killing... life is life... Oh wait a second not always. Sometimes it's fine if I get to pick when. It's those bad, bad women. They're the bad ones. Not that other stuff that's all OK. Besides Roe wasn't about comparisons... yada, yada, yada...

Hey my friend all I'm doing is pointing out that all that life is life no matter how small stuff you want to spread doesn't even hold up to living breathing people. There's precedent all over the place for abortion to be a legal exception.

Sorry...

 

[Coyote]

A change in the law is meaningless. Life is a long time (if your mother doesn't kill you that is) and the political landscape changes. There will always be a certain group working endlessly to let killers out of jail and they always succeed to a degree.

Of course there will but why should that affect what is just and right?

If the right to life is paramount and a method exists that will limit the threat to society that does not involve killing the person aren't we legally obliged to use that method?

I also wonder: of those convicted killers who get life in prison, what percentage get freed to kill again? What percentage of the population is that? Is it statistically greater than the possibility of mortality from pregnancy?

In addition - there are innocent people on death row and innocent people have been executed. What about their right to life? Not only are they losing it, but they know it and they know exactly what is happening to them and they know they are innocent.

And the 14th amendment only promises due process. It doesn't promise that a jury will always make the right decision or that the evidence might make an overwhelming case against you.

Does due process mean a thing if you are innocent and falsely sentanced to death? Shouldn't the right to life trump due process?

Is the point true or not? Is it an appeal to emotion that has no bearing on the point it was to address? If so, then you have a valid complaint. If not, what are you complaining about?

Well, what I notice is that when others appeal to emotion - for example in the issue of rape and pregnancy - you call them on it. But I've seen you do it as well. In some cases the point is true, in others the emotion is obscuring what is probably a weak case. I think that in the issue of "right to life" and capital punishment your case is weaker. You are killing a person based on a statistical possibility that he will be freed and will commit another crime. Yet that same statistical point is not given to a woman who is forcably impregnated against her will, and faces the prospect of bearing a child against her will, and facing attendent risks including mortality.

History makes it clear that incarceration for life doesn't prevent killers from getting out to kill again. And capital punishment is a just punishment for someone who has, with forethought and malice, taken the life of another.

Again - what proportion of truely dangerous ones do get out and commit more killings? We tend to hear about them because they are sensational - but how many really in relation to the entire population of our country? Is it enough to take their life? If so, then why should a woman have to face the unwanted statistical risk of mortality from an forced pregnancy?

And there are no exceptions coyote. Your argument has failed. If, for no other reason that you have been reduced to comparing unborns to convicted killers in an attempt to make some sort of point that I doubt that even you could describe accurately.

Now see - here you are the one making an appeal to emotion by accusing me of comparing unborns to convicted killers. I am not. I am looking at two things: right to life and humans and I unlike you, in this particular example I am not distinguishing any one group of humans from another and dehumanizing them.

 

[palerider]

So sad. You're all over the place, just look...

Killing is killing... life is life... Oh wait a second not always. Sometimes it's fine if I get to pick when. It's those bad, bad women. They're the bad ones. Not that other stuff that's all OK. Besides Roe wasn't about comparisons... yada, yada, yada...

Hey my friend all I'm doing is pointing out that all that life is life no matter how small stuff you want to spread doesn't even hold up to living breathing people. There's precedent all over the place for abortion to be a legal exception.

Sorry...

It appears that your inability to actually understand what you have read hs brought you down further than I ever could.

Tell you what, why don't you bring forward quotes by me that illustrate contradictions in my position to illustrate your point. You sound like mare, gibbering like a monkey and never proving a bit of it.

 

[palerider]

Of course there will but why should that affect what is just and right?

So which are you saying? That killing the unborn is just and right or that whatever hardships that you have claimed that women endure during pregnancy are irrelavent because allowing them (unborns) to have their one and only chance at life is just and right?

If the right to life is paramount and a method exists that will limit the threat to society that does not involve killing the person aren't we legally obliged to use that method?

Name it. Name a method that will assure that no killer ever kills again, and I include among his potential victims people who have been incarcerated for lesser crimes.

I also wonder: of those convicted killers who get life in prison, what percentage get freed to kill again? What percentage of the population is that? Is it statistically greater than the possibility of mortality from pregnancy?

If you want to make such an argument, wondering does'nt cut it. Lets see some figures. And we know from the time of conviction that a murderer represents a real and present threat to the rest of society, we don't know any such thing about all unborns.

In addition - there are innocent people on death row and innocent people have been executed. What about their right to life? Not only are they losing it, but they know it and they know exactly what is happening to them and they know they are innocent.

I have looked and can find no evidence of an innnocent being executed. Statistically, it is possible, but hard evidence? I haven't found it. Each and every one who has been executed, however, has had their due process. I could accept some percentage of error in evidence and proceedure if each and every unborn got his or her day in court before they were found unworthy of living.

Does due process mean a thing if you are innocent and falsely sentanced to death? Shouldn't the right to life trump due process?

Would you be willing to toss out due process in favor of the sort of legal system that unborns live and die under? If due process doesn't mean a thing, then you should answer emphatically, yes.

You are killing a person based on a statistical possibility that he will be freed and will commit another crime. Yet that same statistical point is not given to a woman who is forcably impregnated against her will, and faces the prospect of bearing a child against her will, and facing attendent risks including mortality.

No, that person is being killed according to the laws that have been legislated and passed by the duely elected representatives of the people. As I have said before, if such laws existed that denied the right of unborns to live for explicit reasons, we would not be having this discussion at all. My argument has nothing to do with statistics, it has to do with the law and the constitution.

Again - what proportion of truely dangerous ones do get out and commit more killings? We tend to hear about them because they are sensational - but how many really in relation to the entire population of our country? Is it enough to take their life? If so, then why should a woman have to face the unwanted statistical risk of mortality from an forced pregnancy?

A quick search yielded these results and this is just talking about serial killers which are a very small percentage of the population of killers:

http://books.google.com/books?id=si...ts=24eYF2uHRV&sig=l5WzYzz4f3g4xc96XRYHS2P20Ig

2% continue to kill behind bars with guards, fellow inmates, and even visitors being among thier victims.

5% have managed jailbreaks

30 serial killers have been released to kill again.

A frightening number manage to get paroled because our legal system allows them to plea down the charges in order save the taxpayer's money.

And then there is the fact that juvenile killers nearly always get out at age 18 or 21 with their juvenile court records sealed.

And lets not forget the "insanity" plea by which any killer can eventually get free.

I don't think that you will be able to make a case out of this angle coyote but feel free to try.

Now see - here you are the one making an appeal to emotion by accusing me of comparing unborns to convicted killers. I am not. I am looking at two things: right to life and humans and I unlike you, in this particular example I am not distinguishing any one group of humans from another and dehumanizing them.

This discussion is about abortion and killing unborns without legal consequence. In order for convicted killers to even enter the conversation, a comparison must be made. I made no appeal to emotion, I only pointed out how flawed your argument was in that you are now comparing unborns to killers. I suppose it brought out some emotion on your part, but that really isn't my fault.

 

[Coyote]

So which are you saying? That killing the unborn is just and right or that whatever hardships that you have claimed that women endure during pregnancy are irrelavent because allowing them (unborns) to have their one and only chance at life is just and right?

I have never said that killing a fetus is "just" or "right". That has never been my contention.

My position is simple: No one has the right to force a woman to become pregnant against her will and carry the pregnancy. Our constitution and our laws don't state don't say that. Sure, the fetus has a right to life but pregnancy creates conflicting rights - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn fetus. You have stated that this reasoning creates a special class of humans for whom some rights don't apply but I contend that your argument also creates a separate class of humans - pregnant women for whom some rights don't apply.

Name it. Name a method that will assure that no killer ever kills again, and I include among his potential victims people who have been incarcerated for lesser crimes.

First off - nothing is guaranteed 100% fool proof. Is that what you are looking for? Is there any method of enforcing the death penalty - in practice - that will make 100% sure that no innocent people are killed and all violent criminals are? I doubt it. Either way - innocent end up getting killed. At least with incarcerated criminal we are only talking possibilities - that they might do something. If an innocent man is executed, it is a certainty.

If you want to make such an argument, wondering does'nt cut it. Lets see some figures. And we know from the time of conviction that a murderer represents a real and present threat to the rest of society, we don't know any such thing about all unborns.

Do we really? Incarceration for murder covers people who may have committed a crime in the heat of the moment and may never do so again to hardened gang killers and psychopaths. It's a matter of probabilities. I agree it's more likely a higher probability then the probability that an unborn will turn out to be a criminal but it is still probabilities. Just like mortality in pregnancy.

I have looked and can find no evidence of an innnocent being executed. Statistically, it is possible, but hard evidence? I haven't found it. Each and every one who has been executed, however, has had their due process. I could accept some percentage of error in evidence and proceedure if each and every unborn got his or her day in court before they were found unworthy of living.

Part of the problem is that once they are executed - the process to prove them innocent comes to a halt. In addition - many on death row are poor and their families don't have the resources to pursue it. Given the large number of people that are being exonerated based on new forensics techniques I would say that it is pretty near a certainty that innocent people have been executed. It is no less a compelling argument then your argument of birth control pills killing unborns where there is a similar lack of hard evidence (it's theoretically possible but there is no evidence that it HAS happened).

Would you be willing to toss out due process in favor of the sort of legal system that unborns live and die under? If due process doesn't mean a thing, then you should answer emphatically, yes.

No. Due process is important. But if an innocent person is executed then due process has failed. However - when you have competing rights to one body the inhabitant of that body has greater rights - absolutely no other human has a right to a woman's body against her will.

No, that person is being killed according to the laws that have been legislated and passed by the duely elected representatives of the people. As I have said before, if such laws existed that denied the right of unborns to live for explicit reasons, we would not be having this discussion at all. My argument has nothing to do with statistics, it has to do with the law and the constitution.

The constitution and law grants no human rights to use another human's body. There are also exceptions where the right to life is superceded. This means it's not always paramount. You also have a unique situation with pregnant women and unborn children with clearly competing rights. I concede a woman does not have a right to kill her unborn child for "convenience". Birth control exists to prevent that. I am uncertain about the pill at this point.

I absolutely do not concede however, that when a woman is impregnanted through rape that the resulting fetus' rights over rule hers. If there are exceptions to the right to life that include the execution of innocent "criminals" then surely there is an exception in the case of a criminal act of rape.

 

[Coyote]

A quick search yielded these results and this is just talking about serial killers which are a very small percentage of the population of killers:

http://books.google.com/books?id=si...ts=24eYF2uHRV&sig=l5WzYzz4f3g4xc96XRYHS2P20Ig

2% continue to kill behind bars with guards, fellow inmates, and even visitors being among thier victims.

5% have managed jailbreaks

30 serial killers have been released to kill again.

A frightening number manage to get paroled because our legal system allows them to plea down the charges in order save the taxpayer's money.

And then there is the fact that juvenile killers nearly always get out at age 18 or 21 with their juvenile court records sealed.

And lets not forget the "insanity" plea by which any killer can eventually get free.

I don't think that you will be able to make a case out of this angle coyote but feel free to try.

That is still a small number of all, and laws can certainly be changed and tightened up.

If you are a 40 year old woman, you face a 5.3% chance of mortality in pregnancy or childbirth.

This discussion is about abortion and killing unborns without legal consequence. In order for convicted killers to even enter the conversation, a comparison must be made. I made no appeal to emotion, I only pointed out how flawed your argument was in that you are now comparing unborns to killers. I suppose it brought out some emotion on your part, but that really isn't my fault.

You made an appeal to emotion. If a "convicted killer" is innocent - nothing is going to change that fact. I am comparing an unborn to an innocent born human being. I am also pointing out that the right to life is inconsistent.

 

[top gun]

It appears that your inability to actually understand what you have read hs brought you down further than I ever could.

Tell you what, why don't you bring forward quotes by me that illustrate contradictions in my position to illustrate your point. You sound like mare, gibbering like a monkey and never proving a bit of it.

And just when you think it couldn't happen... an even more sad response.

You clearly have acted out in your preachings as if there are no situations where the right to live doesn't take precedent... yet clearly there are now many that have been posted.

It all makes the reality just that much more clear that Roe and/or legislation to protect women's rights will always prevail.

Your combination of fanatic religious doctrine (although adamantly denied for the sake of your posts) and your relatively low self esteem driving your need to dominate women isn't as scary as it once was... now it's just seems... comical I guess.

 

[palerider]

And just when you think it couldn't happen... an even more sad response.

I notice that you didn't bring forward any quotes from me in which I contradict myself. Not that I ever expected you to, but I just thougt that I would point that out.

And since my position is based in the law and reason, any situation in which one is required to forfiet his life because of crimes committed is fully covered by the law. Abortion is unconstitutional and can not be defended by either reason or the law. It was a decision made by a bare majority of a panel of 9 unelected judges who fabricated rights that don't exist in the constitution.

 

[palerider]

I have never said that killing a fetus is "just" or "right". That has never been my contention.

My position is simple: No one has the right to force a woman to become pregnant against her will and carry the pregnancy. Our constitution and our laws don't state don't say that. Sure, the fetus has a right to life but pregnancy creates conflicting rights - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn fetus. You have stated that this reasoning creates a special class of humans for whom some rights don't apply but I contend that your argument also creates a separate class of humans - pregnant women for whom some rights don't apply.

Either killing an unborn is just and right or killing an unborn is not just and right. Which is it?

First off - nothing is guaranteed 100% fool proof. Is that what you are looking for? Is there any method of enforcing the death penalty - in practice - that will make 100% sure that no innocent people are killed and all violent criminals are? I doubt it. Either way - innocent end up getting killed. At least with incarcerated criminal we are only talking possibilities - that they might do something. If an innocent man is executed, it is a certainty.

An executed killer has a likelyhood of 0% of killing again, therefore execution is 100% guaranteed to prevent him or her from killing again.

Do we really? Incarceration for murder covers people who may have committed a crime in the heat of the moment and may never do so again to hardened gang killers and psychopaths. It's a matter of probabilities. I agree it's more likely a higher probability then the probability that an unborn will turn out to be a criminal but it is still probabilities. Just like mortality in pregnancy.

"May" never do so again? That is, unless some other "heat of the moment" situation comes up again and he or she reacts the same way.

Part of the problem is that once they are executed - the process to prove them innocent comes to a halt. In addition - many on death row are poor and their families don't have the resources to pursue it. Given the large number of people that are being exonerated based on new forensics techniques I would say that it is pretty near a certainty that innocent people have been executed. It is no less a compelling argument then your argument of birth control pills killing unborns where there is a similar lack of hard evidence (it's theoretically possible but there is no evidence that it HAS happened).

Actually, there is hard evidence for the FACT of birth control pills being abortificents. Your whole executed innocent line of reasoning is theoretical.

No. Due process is important. But if an innocent person is executed then due process has failed. However - when you have competing rights to one body the inhabitant of that body has greater rights - absolutely no other human has a right to a woman's body against her will.

I see. You certainly want to retain your right to due process, but have no problem denying due process to "them". I have understood your position from the very beginning but it is nice of you to finally articulate it so clearly.

The constitution and law grants no human rights to use another human's body. There are also exceptions where the right to life is superceded. This means it's not always paramount. You also have a unique situation with pregnant women and unborn children with clearly competing rights. I concede a woman does not have a right to kill her unborn child for "convenience". Birth control exists to prevent that. I am uncertain about the pill at this point.

The constitution or law grant no rights at all. The constitution acknowledges rights and the law protects them. The founding documents recognized that we come into being with an inalienable right to live and the constitution is supposed to protect that right. Clearly it has failed when a woman can take it upon herself to kill her child without legal consequence.

I absolutely do not concede however, that when a woman is impregnanted through rape that the resulting fetus' rights over rule hers. If there are exceptions to the right to life that include the execution of innocent "criminals" then surely there is an exception in the case of a criminal act of rape.

Simply tell me what the child has done that it should forfiet its one and only chance at life. Make the case for killing the child if you can, otherwise this line of reason fails.

 

[palerider]

That is still a small number of all, and laws can certainly be changed and tightened up.

I asked how and you had no answer.

If you are a 40 year old woman, you face a 5.3% chance of mortality in pregnancy or childbirth.

If a woman can show a real and present threat to her life or long term health, then she has the right to defend her life.

You made an appeal to emotion. If a "convicted killer" is innocent - nothing is going to change that fact. I am comparing an unborn to an innocent born human being. I am also pointing out that the right to life is inconsistent.

I can accept that if each and every unborn were given due process, that there would be a certain number of cases in which doctors and mothers might fabricate a case for abortion and a child that shouldn't be terminated would be terminated. But by the same token, if such evidence were fabricated, then there would be the possibility of finding that out and bringing them to justice for their crime.