Should toturing be allowed?

[DrWho]

U.S. Government tortures Americans

Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago, was a whistle-blower who tipped off the F.B.I. to suspicious activity at the company where he worked, including possible weapons trafficking. He was arrested and held for 97 days — shackled and blindfolded, prevented from sleeping by blaring music and round-the-clock lights.

Read more here


Should it be allowed?

The link did not work. I have my doubts that the FBI tortured a US citizen as is implied in the OP.

Should we torture terrorists? Only if the damage to our reputation is outweighed, as in a 'nuclear ticking bomb' scenario.

Otherwise I would stick the the tried and true morals as defined by the rules of war.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I dunno, Pale, I just can't see the Might is Right philosophy that you advocate. You want to have the right to torture people--just the ones you think are guilty of course--and you want to have the right to dictate to everybody else what murder is acceptable and which is not. Good murder is capital punishment, war, torture that often ends in murder, eating flesh of course, but I still don't hear you saying anything about our country's policies that contribute to the deaths of millions of children for lack of food and clean water, are those good murders? It's just mostly little brown children in other countries so maybe you think that's okay? You haven't said what we should do with all the unwanted children--like most hypocrites you probably aren't signing up to adopt a housefull of undesirable babies--all you want to do is force other people to accept murder when YOU think it's okay.

I'm not like that. I don't think men should have the right to tell a woman what she can do with a baby inside her body. A legal husband should have standing, but no one else. I'm against war, I think we should stop our empire building and our exploitation of people around the world. I think people should stop cutting down rainforest and forcing the indigenous people out of their traditional homes just so that we can graze more cattle to kill and eat. Of course abortion is murder, but until women are given good options, free-birth control, prenatal care, and law is changed so that the Fathers of those babies are required to provide REAL TIME ADEQUATE CARE for their offspring, then women will continue to have abortions. I hate it, but I know what the picture looks like from the female side and men like you are part of the problem.

 

[DrWho]

I believe that men should not make the choice for women. I think that hypocrites who would torture and who support capital punishment should not be in a position to dictate to others on the subject of taking the life of another. Your selective indignation removes you from the pool of rational people with whom I might seriously discuss this subject.

I think that you are pretty much a hysterical nutbar (just my opinoin after reading a lot of your posts) and that you aren't capable of a calm, rational discussion on the subject of taking life. One of the things that brings me to this conclusion is that without prior complete examination of the subject you have been trying to get me to pass judgment on abortions. I can't do it that way, Pale, this is one of those subjects that only a stupid person would try to reduce down to a black and white issue--I know better, I won't play that game.

I think our social intercourse here is about at an end because you refuse to answer honest, straight forward questions put to you, while at the same time trying to bring in other subjects that have not been developed adequately to be part of the discussion. You are obviously miserable about the number of babies that are killed every day by abortion, but yet you've made no comment about the tens of thousands of children who die every day around the world from starvation and lack of clean drinking water--deaths that could be prevented by simply changing government policies. Nor have you proposed what should be done with the millions of unwanted babies that banning abortions would dump on an obviously unwilling world. You show no evidence of having thought through the consequences of your arguments so there is little point in my trying to disuss them with you.

Is it true that you think that abortion is murder and that you think that women should be allowed to make that choice?

 

[palerider]

... but I still don't hear you saying anything about our country's policies that contribute to the deaths of millions of children for lack of food and clean water, are those good murders?

No mare, they are not good murders. They are lies. Millions of children don't die in this country for lack of food and clean water. Making stuff up is lying mare and here, you have been caught at it again.

It's just mostly little brown children in other countries so maybe you think that's okay? You haven't said what we should do with all the unwanted children--like most hypocrites you probably aren't signing up to adopt a housefull of undesirable babies--all you want to do is force other people to accept murder when YOU think it's okay.

I am not a citizen of any country but this one so I really don't have a say in what they do.

And suggesting that it is OK to kill our children because I am not adopting them is one of the stupidest arguments that one can put forward. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

I'm not like that. I don't think men should have the right to tell a woman what she can do with a baby inside her body.

Are you OK with men telling women that they can't kill the neighbor because he lets his dog dig in her flower garden? Are you OK with men telling women that they can't drive at high speeds through school zones? Are you OK with men telling women that they can't put on a ski mask and rob a bank? Or is killing their unborn children the only thing you have a problem with men telling women not to do? Do you make a habit of disregarding any law made by men?

And why should she not be told that she can't kill the child? Do you believe it is her property to do with as she wants as was the case with slaves?

Of course abortion is murder, but until women are given good options, free-birth control, prenatal care, and law is changed so that the Fathers of those babies are required to provide REAL TIME ADEQUATE CARE for their offspring, then women will continue to have abortions. I hate it, but I know what the picture looks like from the female side and men like you are part of the problem.

So it is fine to kill unborns so long as you are able to rationalize it? If this then it is ok to kill your unborn child. If that, then it is ok to kill your unborn child. If the other thing then it is ok to kill your unborn child?

There are all sorts of injustices in the world mare, do you support killing as an answer to all of them or just this particular case. There are poor folks, do you support allowing them to kill the rich to take their wealth? There are sick. Do you support allowing them to kill medical personel? What other social injustices do you think provide adequate reasons to kill genuine innocents?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is it true that you think that abortion is murder and that you think that women should be allowed to make that choice?

Yes, how not? Did you ever masturbate? If so you killed hundreds of thousands of potential lives that could have developed into human beings with the proper environment. Is that murder? Depends on your definition, I suppose.

My personal opinion is that killing a fetus is murder. I am not God however, and I don't feel like it is my place to tell another woman what she can do with something that is INSIDE her body any more than I can tell you never to masturbate again and kill the cells that were in your body and will die when you ejaculate them. You are a human being and you should hold sovereignty over your own body. Women should have that right as well. Even if I don't agree with your decisions.

Once a baby is viable outside the Mother's body it should have full legal rights, until then it is a part of the Mother and she should have control.

The really, truly stupid part of this endless argument is that we are working on the wrong end of the problem. If are tired of cow manure we should stop feeding the cow (so to speak). We should be trying to prevent pregnancies through education and free contraception, working to develop a culturally recognized value of the lives of children so that no one sees them as being expendable, we should have a living wage guaranteed to Mothers who stay at home to raise children, Fathers should be required to pay for their children, and medical care for children pre and post natal should be provided to all who cannot afford it. I think that we should stop blaming women because this culture has decided that children are expendable.

 

[DrWho]

Once a baby is viable outside the Mother's body it should have full legal rights, until then it is a part of the Mother and she should have control.

While I disagree with much of the other stuff you said I respect it as opinion so I did not reprint it.

However, this one line is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Unfortunatly it is wrong.

The unborn child is not a part of it's mother's body. It has different DNA and might even be a different gender.

It has it's own eyes, mouth, nose, blood, all different from the mother.

She might die while it survives and he/she might die while she survives. It might be awake while she is asleep and vice versa.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No mare, they are not good murders. They are lies. Millions of children don't die in this country for lack of food and clean water. Making stuff up is lying mare and here, you have been caught at it again.

They are dying around the world, silly, not in this country, but our policies contribute to those deaths. Now, are those good deaths or not since they take place "over there"? (I have to laught because you keep calling me a liar when you don't understand what I post. )

I am not a citizen of any country but this one so I really don't have a say in what they do.

Our country's policies contriubte to those deaths--do you vote?

And suggesting that it is OK to kill our children because I am not adopting them is one of the stupidest arguments that one can put forward. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

I am suggesting that you are a hypocrite for demanding a right for yourself that you would deny to others, that you are demanding that others solve a problem that YOU are unhappy about, and you top off that hypocrisy by not voluteering to do one of the most important jobs there is for anyone who wants to end abortions: adopt a child so that it doesn't get aborted. But you don't want to do that, instead you want to pass laws and force other people to do what you don't want to do. Nice attitude, but very ordinary--common even.

Are you OK with men telling women that they can't kill the neighbor because he lets his dog dig in her flower garden? Are you OK with men telling women that they can't drive at high speeds through school zones? Are you OK with men telling women that they can't put on a ski mask and rob a bank? Or is killing their unborn children the only thing you have a problem with men telling women not to do? Do you make a habit of disregarding any law made by men?

Sovereignty over one's own body. Is that too complex an concept for you? Read my post to Armchair.

And why should she not be told that she can't kill the child? Do you believe it is her property to do with as she wants as was the case with slaves?

See response above please.

So it is fine to kill unborns so long as you are able to rationalize it? If this then it is ok to kill your unborn child. If that, then it is ok to kill your unborn child. If the other thing then it is ok to kill your unborn child?There are all sorts of injustices in the world mare, do you support killing as an answer to all of them or just this particular case. There are poor folks, do you support allowing them to kill the rich to take their wealth? There are sick. Do you support allowing them to kill medical personel? What other social injustices do you think provide adequate reasons to kill genuine innocents?

Try to calm down, for a man who thinks it's okay to tear people apart under torture you really get into a swivet about babies. I understand your point, babies are innocent and cute and harmless and our culture doesn't value them to speak of--it's too bad, but like you say there are injustices in the world. One of those injustices is that men can't get pregnant, another one of them is that ego maniac men want to force women to behave the way the men think they should. I'm sorry Pale, but I come down on the side of a woman having sovereignty over her body just like you have over yours. Another one of the injustices in the world is that women who want to abort their babies will find a way to do so unless you can pass a law to require them to be locked into farrowing cages from conception until birth. Once a baby is viable outside its Mother's body it should be considered a legal person and accorded full rights (until such time as we discover that it is gay and then we can restrict its rights once again), but until then I have to grant women the right to own their bodies.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

While I disagree with much of the other stuff you said I respect it as opinion so I did not reprint it.

However, this one line is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Unfortunatly it is wrong.

The unborn child is not a part of it's mother's body. It has different DNA and might even be a different gender.

It has it's own eyes, mouth, nose, blood, all different from the mother.

She might die while it survives and he/she might die while she survives. It might be awake while she is asleep and vice versa.

It was stated as my opinion of when a fetus should be granted legal status, you support my position in your last paragraph. Once the baby can live if the Mother dies, then it's a legal person, until then it is dependent on her life and the fact that it has a nose is irrelevant because it cannot live if she dies.

 

[DrWho]

It was stated as my opinion of when a fetus should be granted legal status, you support my position in your last paragraph. Once the baby can live if the Mother dies, then it's a legal person, until then it is dependent on her life and the fact that it has a nose is irrelevant because it cannot live if she dies.

I was referring the a baby that might remain alive in it's mother's womb while she may have died (perhaps in a car accident). In this case the baby could be delivered and survive.

Many unborn babies can be delivered before term and survive. Based on this I would assume that you do not support abortion after the point at which a baby could be delivered and live. As medical science advances we will be able to permit prematurely delivered babies to live further and further back. Who knows maybe we will be able to offer life to embryos in the first few hours of life. Would you then only support abortion further and further back until you would eventually not support it at all?

But why? Even after birth the baby is dependent on its mother for life. Newborns are helpless and need to be cared for.

Why is viability the definition of humanity. If you lose your viability and end up on life support can someone shoot you and it's OK?

Is it really just a question of sovereignty over viability and even if it is murder you weigh the value of sovereignty higher than a human life?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I was referring the a baby that might remain alive in it's mother's womb while she may have died (perhaps in a car accident). In this case the baby could be delivered and survive.

That's my case right there. If the baby can live outside the Mother's body it's a person.

Many unborn babies can be delivered before term and survive. Based on this I would assume that you do not support abortion after the point at which a baby could be delivered and live. As medical science advances we will be able to permit prematurely delivered babies to live further and further back. Who knows maybe we will be able to offer life to embryos in the first few hours of life. Would you then only support abortion further and further back until you would eventually not support it at all?

Yes, as long as the Mother could have it delivered and adopt the baby out at the time of viability--whenever that time is.

But why? Even after birth the baby is dependent on its mother for life. Newborns are helpless and need to be cared for.

It isn't dependent on the Mother, the Father can be required by law to care for the infant. If the Mother doesn't want the baby and the Father doesn't want the baby, can we as a culture force them to do the right thing for the child? There would be no way to enforce that kind of a law. Sad as it is, Dr., I think it is far more humane to kill the fetus than to expose the child to the abuse of unwilling parents. Look at the statistics on child abuse and tell me that we need a million more unwanted babies in this country every year.

Why is viability the definition of humanity. If you lose your viability and end up on life support can someone shoot you and it's OK?.

I really don't think it makes sense to mix these two very different issues together. A person may have put money away or have provided insurance or something to prepare for this contingency--too many variables to equate this with a fetus. If you follow along the way you're headed we could get into the viability of soldiers on battlefields too--let's not.

The reason to go with viability is that we need to find SOME point and viability seems reasonable since that's when the fetus can survive if the Mother is dead. If you have a better point, then I am willing to hear about it, but if you are going to go to conception and declare that the fetus controls the Mother's body from that moment on, then you need to grant that the Father is owned as well. Trust me, Dr., if the laws actually enforced equality in the issue of caring for children there would be a lot less men campaigning to ban abortions.

Is it really just a question of sovereignty over viability and even if it is murder you weigh the value of sovereignty higher than a human life?

This is a question of who owns the body. You seem to be saying that the fetus owns the body of the woman--from conception? Pony up here, Dr., how does this work? Is the Father owned as well? How do you enforce it? I asked some very pertinent questions in this post and if you are unwilling to address them, then our discussion will be over.

 

[vyo476]

Is it just me or did the "Torture" thread turn into the abortion thread and the "Abortion" thread turn into the torture thread?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is it just me or did the "Torture" thread turn into the abortion thread and the "Abortion" thread turn into the torture thread?

They got kind of mixed because both are issues dealing with the perceptions and definitions of the value of life. Many thorny issues will intertwine with many others.

I'm okay with trying to separate them.

 

[DrWho]

The reason to go with viability is that we need to find SOME point and viability seems reasonable since that's when the fetus can survive if the Mother is dead. If you have a better point, then I am willing to hear about it, but if you are going to go to conception and declare that the fetus controls the Mother's body from that moment on, then you need to grant that the Father is owned as well. Trust me, Dr., if the laws actually enforced equality in the issue of caring for children there would be a lot less men campaigning to ban abortions.


This is a question of who owns the body. You seem to be saying that the fetus owns the body of the woman--from conception? Pony up here, Dr., how does this work? Is the Father owned as well? How do you enforce it? I asked some very pertinent questions in this post and if you are unwilling to address them, then our discussion will be over.

Very simply the baby owns the right to live and the mother owns the right to live. Neither one has the right to kill the other.

The fact that their lives are intertwined does not change the fact that one should not have the right to kill the other.

If two twins are conjoined then they two are dependent upon each other. Especially if they share some vital organ. But I would never say that one has the right to kill the other even if one were not viable without the other.

And saying that the mother does not have the right to kill the baby does not mean that the baby controls the mother. The government should control her actions in so far as it does not allow her to kill people. The government controls men in the same way as it does not allow them to kill people either. Where did you get this idea that if it has a right to life that it owns the mother? It doesn't own the mother, it just should not be killed. People have responsibilities to each other and it does not mean that people own each other.

If we say that fathers and mothers both must be treated the same as it regards unborn baby's should a father be allowed to kill his unborn child? Even if the mother wants it to live?

So do I have a better point at which a baby has a right not to be killed? Yes. When it is a person.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Very simply the baby owns the right to live and the mother owns the right to live. Neither one has the right to kill the other.

So the baby of rape has a right to live as a parasite on an unwilling host. You also neglected to address my analogy of your cancer.

The fact that their lives are intertwined does not change the fact that one should not have the right to kill the other.

A parasite should not have the right to live on an unwilling host. You would not accept that for yourself, but yet you demand that of women.

If two twins are conjoined then they two are dependent upon each other. Especially if they share some vital organ. But I would never say that one has the right to kill the other even if one were not viable without the other.

Cojoined twins are equals, one is not necessarily a parasite on the other, but in a number of cases, the one that was least viable was sacrificed to save the life of the other. In all of this discussion there has been no recognition that the Mother may have other children and the weight of carrying another child--in a culture that allows the Father to escape--may endanger not only her ability to earn a living--in a culture that forces Mothers to fend for themselves while mouthing respect for life and all the stuff you've been saying--and care for her other children.

And saying that the mother does not have the right to kill the baby does not mean that the baby controls the mother. The government should control her actions in so far as it does not allow her to kill people. The government controls men in the same way as it does not allow them to kill people either.

Right here you jumped from a parasite inside a person's body to a fully realized human being able to live without its biological Mother. You jumped from a non-viable fetus to a viable person. We end up discussing two different things. You should read about the Romanian dictator, he felt much the same way as you are writing here. Women were breeders and bore all the responsibility for children--whether by consentual sex or rape, it made no difference. Men got a free-pass, and here you are saying the same thing. Maybe you will begin to realize why women would never pass a law condemning them to breeder servitude as you seem to be demanding.

Where did you get this idea that if it has a right to life that it owns the mother? It doesn't own the mother, it just should not be killed. People have responsibilities to each other and it does not mean that people own each other.

When you are raped and then required to carry the baby of that assault for 9 months in your body and then go through the pain of birth and care for that child until it can be adopted, then you can talk to me about ownership, until then you are a virgin lecturing on sex.

If we say that fathers and mothers both must be treated the same as it regards unborn baby's should a father be allowed to kill his unborn child? Even if the mother wants it to live?

If the Mother wishes to keep the child and isn't requiring the Father to carry it inside his body for 9 months, then no, I don't think he does have the right to kill it. There is no way to get equality in this situation, there is a biological barrier that we can as yet not breach and THAT IS WHY THE WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY instead of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about. Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it. Father's throw babies out of their lives every single day and the only reason that those babies don't die is that their Mothers are there to save them--however reluctantly. And you think this is ok, women should be required to clean up after men's fun--even if it is rape.

So do I have a better point at which a baby has a right not to be killed? Yes. When it is a person.

But you neglected to say when that happens. Conception?

 

[palerider]

Yes, how not? Did you ever masturbate? If so you killed hundreds of thousands of potential lives that could have developed into human beings with the proper environment. Is that murder? Depends on your definition, I suppose.

Simply amazing. If you don't understand developmental biology, why would you base an argument on the subject. Alone, both sperm and eggs are simply cells from our bodies. They are unique in that they are the only cells in our bodies that have only a half set of chromosomes and do represent the "potential" to create life, but they are still simply cells from our bodies and alone, they are of no more consequence than your toenail clippings.

Once fertilization has taken place, however, the "potential" of sperm and egg have been realized and you no longer have "potential" life, you have ACTUAL life. From that point on, you have potential baseball players, or potential concert pianists, or potential serial killers but you DO NOT have potential human beings.

The fact, mare, is that there is no environment in which a sperm cell can develop into a human being.

My personal opinion is that killing a fetus is murder. I am not God however, and I don't feel like it is my place to tell another woman what she can do with something that is INSIDE her body any more than I can tell you never to masturbate again and kill the cells that were in your body and will die when you ejaculate them. You are a human being and you should hold sovereignty over your own body. Women should have that right as well. Even if I don't agree with your decisions.

You believe that killing an unborn is murder but you don't think it is your place to say that we can't do it. Tell me, do you have any problem telling everyone else that they can not kill their neighbors or wives or complete strangers either out of anger or while committing some other crime or do you only have a problem telling women that they can't kill their children?

Once a baby is viable outside the Mother's body it should have full legal rights, until then it is a part of the Mother and she should have control.

A child is never part of its mother. Again, if you don't understand the biology, don't attempt to use it in an argument. Your position seems to be based in biology but your understanding of it is flawed and therefore, your position, being based on a flawed understanding of developmental biology is also flawed. Be honest mare, simply state that you favor allowing women to kill their children for any, or no reason at all.

Life is simple if you are honest

The really, truly stupid part of this endless argument is that we are working on the wrong end of the problem.

When a man kills his wife because she did or said something that pissed him off, do you believe that charging the man with murder and punishing him is working on the wrong side of the problem. Should we have instead properly trained the woman to not do or say things that pissed the man off? We aren't talking about cow manure mare, we are talking about a million human beings being killed per year in this country alone. You address the issue of the killing in exactly the same way you address all killing. You make it illegal with the understanding that some will break the law and you go after, and properly punish those who break the law. Then if you want to address some "root cause" beyond a simple disrespect for life, then have at it but making the killing illegal is the first step.

If are tired of cow manure we should stop feeding the cow (so to speak). We should be trying to prevent pregnancies through education and free contraception..

You say that as if we haven't been bombarding our children with sex ed in school for the past 25 years and don't already have access to free birth control. They have it mare and still they are killing their children. If education and free birth control were the answer to the problem, then there would be no more problem. Education and birth control are not the problem, simple lack of respect for life is the problem and you address that by making law to protect life and punishing those who disregard the law.