Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[bydand]

Actually no "mental gymnastics" here at all. If you simply take what I have written at face value and not read between the lines it is clear. When it comes to life, I am not opposed to taking it when it is within the law and based upon the actions of the life to be ended. I am not saving a life one time and ending it another, that is the individuals choice whose life it is. If a fetus cannot make the choice to do something that will end its life either directly or by breaking the laws which lead to a death penalty, then leave it alone. If an adult choses that path, then it is their choice and not mine. Simple. We could argue about this for an eternity because I am sure I am not going to change your mind and I know you are not going to change mine. So, lets be gentlemen about it and agree to disagree about this type of political stuff.

 

[rustyself]

conception is a miracle- a child is innocent, and has not broken any laws severe enough for the death penalty.

an adult has free will- if he chooses to break the law in that manner, and gets the death penalty, it is what he deserved.

the bottom line, he had a choice and free will to decide, a fetus does not get to decide. when an abortion happens, it is murder. find one scientific book, or medical book, that says life does not begin at conception- you cant.

im done

 

[heretic888]

the bottom line, he had a choice and free will to decide, a fetus does not get to decide. when an abortion happens, it is murder. find one scientific book, or medical book, that says life does not begin at conception- you cant.

Well, that's a moot point considering every cell in your body is "alive". Are we now going to try people for murder when they scratch their arms??

What still gets me is how people are so offended at the aborting of an unconscious blastocyst with less sentience than a leaf of grass, but have absolutely no problem with the "murder" and consumption of mammals (i.e., cows) that can actually feel pain.

Some people, I guess....

 

[michaeledward]

conception is a miracle- a child is innocent, and has not broken any laws severe enough for the death penalty.

an adult has free will- if he chooses to break the law in that manner, and gets the death penalty, it is what he deserved.

the bottom line, he had a choice and free will to decide, a fetus does not get to decide. when an abortion happens, it is murder. find one scientific book, or medical book, that says life does not begin at conception- you cant.

im done

A fetus is not a child. Find one medical book that says they are the same.

The death penalty is a man made construction, and therefore, subject to the failable nature of man. Show me the man who is infailable, and have him impose the death penalty, and we can talk.

Bye Bye

 

[Andy Moynihan]

"....The good guys and the bad guys....It's amazing how much they're a-like/
They both act sin-cere/
But they're so filled with fear/
They switch sides in the wink of an eye...

The good guys and the bad guys....well it ain't like ol' Wy-att and doc/
A man knew where he stood then/
what was e-vil and good then/
And the good guys always came out on top.

Now who's wearin' black hats and who's wearin white/
And who's on the side of justice and right/
The line is so fine between heaven and hell/
not even a hero can tell.


The good guys and the bad guys.......today neither one wants to fight fair/
They keep changin' the rules/
Makin' all of us fools/
Till finally....no-bo-dy caaaaares

The good guys and the bad guys...don't count nei-ther one as your friennnd/
When the goin' gets rough/
Well they won't back ya up/
And you'll stand all a-lone in the eeeeend

Now who's wearin' black hats and who's wearin white/
And who's on the side of justice and right/
The line is so fine between heaven and hell/
not even a hero can tell.

The good guys.....from the bad guys....."

 

[crushing]

A fetus is not a child. Find one medical book that says they are the same.

The death penalty is a man made construction, and therefore, subject to the failable nature of man. Show me the man who is infailable, and have him impose the death penalty, and we can talk.

Bye Bye

Correct. Fetus is a term given to a mammal during an early stage of life. More specifically, the fetal stage of life is often considered as starting from the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy until birth. During delivery the fetus magically tranforms from a fetus into a child (excuse me, neonate). While it may not be medical-speak, it isn't all that uncommon for people to say that a genetalian is 'with child'.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty, but if it's the people's choice to impose the death penalty, who are we to tell them they can't make that decision, independent of the stage of life the criminal or unwanted human is?

 

[michaeledward]

Correct. Fetus is a term given to a mammal during an early stage of life. More specifically, the fetal stage of life is often considered as starting from the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy until birth. During delivery the fetus magically tranforms from a fetus into a child (excuse me, neonate). While it may not be medical-speak, it isn't all that uncommon for people to say that a genetalian is 'with child'.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty, but if it's the people's choice to impose the death penalty, who are we to tell them they can't make that decision, independent of the stage of life the criminal or unwanted human is?

I think I was pointing out the inconsistance of taking a position self-described as 'pro-life' while favoring the death penalty. Wouldn't that position more accurately be described as 'Pro-Fetus'?

If a person were to hold the position that terminating a pregnancy is immoral or unethical, I have no objections to that, until such point as they try to impose that position upon another, who does not have the same moral or ethical beliefs. It kind of lines up with the saying, 'if you are against abortion, don't have one'.

As for the death penalty, again, here I know I am in the minority. But even with the most heinous crimes, I believe it is possible to restrict the freedom of the offender in such a way that does not jeapordize his life. If an innocent is convicted, we would be able to rescind the sentence. This is not possible when the death penalty is invoked.

If a pro-death-penalty advocate could argue cogently that a convicted offender could not have his freedom restricted (protecting society from his behavior) for the rest of his natural life, I would take a position supporting capital punishment.

As long as it is possible to restrict the freedom of a convicted offender for the rest of his natural life, capital punishment is vengence, not justice.

 

[crushing]

I think I was pointing out the inconsistance of taking a position self-described as 'pro-life' while favoring the death penalty. Wouldn't that position more accurately be described as 'Pro-Fetus'?

Maybe 'pro-innocent life' or 'anti-fetus killers'? I really don't know the best description for the belief that prenatal people shouldn't be killed.

 

[mrhnau]

Maybe 'pro-innocent life' or 'anti-fetus killers'? I really don't know the best description for the belief that prenatal people shouldn't be killed.

They tend to chose their terminology carefully... Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion sounds alot better than Anti-Choice, and Pro-Choice sounds alot better than Anti-Life, Anti-Fetus or Pro-Abortion...

just a matter of terms, the intent is the same...

 

[heretic888]

They tend to chose their terminology carefully... Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion sounds alot better than Anti-Choice, and Pro-Choice sounds alot better than Anti-Life, Anti-Fetus or Pro-Abortion...

just a matter of terms, the intent is the same...

I disagree. I believe this falls under the colloquial, 'the politics of language'.

The fact of the matter is that proponents of ideological positions chose descriptions in such a way so as to equivocate their position with morality and justice, while simultaneously equivocating their opponenets' position with immorality and injustice. This isn't just a matter of semantics, it is politics at its core.

This is similar to what Michael described earlier with the equivocation of any of the stages of prenatal development (blastocyst, zygote, fetus, and so on) with a new-born infant, often by the disingenuous use of terminology such as "baby" or "child" to describe the prenatal. In essence, it is a "trick" to fool others into emotionally equating the prenatal with the neonatal.

That being said, given that a significant number of these persons support state-sponsored murder of adults, the most accurate description of their position would be "anti-abortion". Likewise, "pro-choice" is an accurate description of their opponents because they hold that the decision as to whether one should have an abortion or not is a personal choice.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

If a person were to hold the position that terminating a pregnancy is immoral or unethical, I have no objections to that, until such point as they try to impose that position upon another, who does not have the same moral or ethical beliefs. It kind of lines up with the saying, 'if you are against abortion, don't have one'.

We could probably apply that logic to almost anything "If you're against {insert phrase} don't do it.

As for the death penalty, again, here I know I am in the minority. But even with the most heinous crimes, I believe it is possible to restrict the freedom of the offender in such a way that does not jeapordize his life.

Is the goal to restrict the freedom of the offender in a way that his life is not jeapordized? Is the goal to eliminate the possiblity of another similar crime? Is it punishment? Is it rehab? While I know I'm taking a snippet which probably doesn't adequately represent a very complex and well thought-out position that you hold, you're words seem to (in my mind) minimize the seriousness of the crime.

 

[crushing]

I disagree. I believe this falls under the colloquial, 'the politics of language'.

The fact of the matter is that proponents of ideological positions chose descriptions in such a way so as to equivocate their position with morality and justice, while simultaneously equivocating their opponenets' position with immorality and injustice. This isn't just a matter of semantics, it is politics at its core.

This is similar to what Michael described earlier with the equivocation of any of the stages of prenatal development (blastocyst, zygote, fetus, and so on) with a new-born infant, often by the disingenuous use of terminology such as "baby" or "child" to describe the prenatal. In essence, it is a "trick" to fool others into emotionally equating the prenatal with the neonatal.

That being said, given that a significant number of these persons support state-sponsored murder of adults, the most accurate description of their position would be "anti-abortion". Likewise, "pro-choice" is an accurate description of their opponents because they hold that the decision as to whether one should have an abortion or not is a personal choice.

Laterz.

I agree with your statement about the politics of language.

However, I disagree with your calling capital punishment murder. Like abortion, the state-sponsored killing is not murder. Murder is the illegal killing of another person. Both abortion, and in some states the death penalty are both legal procedures that end a life.

People may use the terms 'child' and 'baby' differently, but I don't think is very often used disengenuously. It is not at all uncommon to call a woman that is genetalian as being 'with child'. Are humans that are born premature not babies? Do they need to reach the age of a normal full term to be considered so?

Can not a person's unwillingness to refer unborn humans anything but in sterile latin medical terms also be considered disengenuous? Well, with all due respect, maybe not as disengenuous as equating an abortion with the medical procedure of scratching one's arm.

Best,
crushing

 

[mrhnau]

That being said, given that a significant number of these persons support state-sponsored murder of adults, the most accurate description of their position would be "anti-abortion". Likewise, "pro-choice" is an accurate description of their opponents because they hold that the decision as to whether one should have an abortion or not is a personal choice.

Ummm... How I see the use of the verbage is as follows. The term "pro-choice" is rather ambiguous. Are you for the choice of someone to have coffee? Drugs? The choice of gay marriage? Abortion? What choice are you refering to? The issue is that there is no term that is descriptive of abortion that does not spark emotions in people. Using the non-connective term of "choice", where people know the meaning indirectly, sure sounds better. I don't hear anyone using the term "pro-abortion" or "pro-termination" or anything of the like. If I had my way, I'd chose "pro-abortion"

For the conversative, the term "anti-abortion" is a bit more logical, since it actually refers to the act in progress. It is also designed to create an emotional spark I believe. The term "pro-life" is a bit more ambiguous, since this could refer to the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia... If I had my choice, I'd chose "anti-abortion"

that being said, the choice of verbage is designed to either create or repress emotion. political, yes... but effective... I'd prefer a precise definition so 1) there is no ambiguity 2) there is no hiding what is happening.

This is similar to what Michael described earlier with the equivocation of any of the stages of prenatal development (blastocyst, zygote, fetus, and so on) with a new-born infant, often by the disingenuous use of terminology such as "baby" or "child" to describe the prenatal. In essence, it is a "trick" to fool others into emotionally equating the prenatal with the neonatal.

that being said... what are your views on partial birth abortion? The child is essentially alive at this point, completely viable and ready to roll... I don't see much difference between this and having the child and quickly strangling it... Do you think someone is trying to "trick" someone in this circumstance?

 

[donald]

michaeledward-


"What is your stance on the Death Penalty?"

I am against this form of punishment.

By GOD's Grace,
(1stJohn1:9)

 

[michaeledward]

We could probably apply that logic to almost anything "If you're against {insert phrase} don't do it.

Yes, you could. I believe we should, in all instances, evaluate positions according to personal morality. As an athiest, I see no other way.

Is the goal to restrict the freedom of the offender in a way that his life is not jeapordized? Is the goal to eliminate the possiblity of another similar crime? Is it punishment? Is it rehab? While I know I'm taking a snippet which probably doesn't adequately represent a very complex and well thought-out position that you hold, you're words seem to (in my mind) minimize the seriousness of the crime.

I learned the following from George Will.

Society has two ways to impose punishment/justice; Loss of Freedom and Loss of Property.

In my opinion, society should take the least restrictive form of punishment/justice that accomplishes the required objectives. If the offense is so great that the offender must permanently be removed from society, for the protection of the society, I believe that can be done with life-long incarceration. I do not think 'vengence' is an appropriate objective for society.

If our society was such that life-long incarceration was prohibitive, I could turn in favor of the death penalty.

Now, I do believe that rehabilitation should be part of any criminal justice system, but, even if we were to discard that objective, in favor of an objective of protecting society. This can be accomplished with 'From Now On' detention.

If our obective is 'punishment', I believe a 'Loss of Property' approach is more appropriate - pay a fine, repossess an asset.

Well ... that's the short answer. Hope it helps.

 

[heretic888]

Like abortion, the state-sponsored killing is not murder. Murder is the illegal killing of another person.

I define murder as the premeditated killing of another human being when it is unnecessary to do so. However, that is just my definition.

People may use the terms 'child' and 'baby' differently, but I don't think is very often used disengenuously.

But it is.

I have consistently heard pro-life proponents refer to the abortion of a zygote as ending the life of an "unborn child". This is intellectual dishonesty, an attempt to emotionally equivocate a single-celled organism with a newborn human infant.

It is, as I said before, the politics of language.

Can not a person's unwillingness to refer unborn humans anything but in sterile latin medical terms also be considered disengenuous?

Not, but it can be considered scientifically accurate.

Well, with all due respect, maybe not as disengenuous as equating an abortion with the medical procedure of scratching one's arm.

Unfortunately, I am not the disingenous one here.

Actually read the post where I stated that in the context of the thread discussion. At no point did I equate abortion with scratching one's arm. Rather, I pointed out the silliness of stating "life" begins at conception, as most of the cells in your body are alive right now.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Ummm... How I see the use of the verbage is as follows. The term "pro-choice" is rather ambiguous. Are you for the choice of someone to have coffee? Drugs? The choice of gay marriage? Abortion? What choice are you refering to?

We are all aware that the designation refers to the issue of abortion. You're just obfuscating the subject.

The issue is that there is no term that is descriptive of abortion that does not spark emotions in people. Using the non-connective term of "choice", where people know the meaning indirectly, sure sounds better. I don't hear anyone using the term "pro-abortion" or "pro-termination" or anything of the like. If I had my way, I'd chose "pro-abortion"

Well, your way is the way of intellectual dishonesty and duplicity, then.

The term "pro-abortion" is a deliberate denigration of a proponent's position, because it implies that they universally support the aborting of the unborn (an argument that has actually been used by anti-abortion proponents, by the way). When, in reality, their position is actually that the choice to abort or not abort a pregnancy is a personal one that should not be imposed by the federal government.

So, in this context, "pro-choice" is indeed the apt descriptor.

For the conversative, the term "anti-abortion" is a bit more logical, since it actually refers to the act in progress. It is also designed to create an emotional spark I believe. The term "pro-life" is a bit more ambiguous, since this could refer to the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia... If I had my choice, I'd chose "anti-abortion"

No disagreement here.

that being said, the choice of verbage is designed to either create or repress emotion. political, yes... but effective... I'd prefer a precise definition so 1) there is no ambiguity 2) there is no hiding what is happening.

Exactly.

that being said... what are your views on partial birth abortion?

I believe the existing laws are appropriate.

The child is essentially alive at this point, completely viable and ready to roll... I don't see much difference between this and having the child and quickly strangling it... Do you think someone is trying to "trick" someone in this circumstance?

No.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

How about granting 'Top Secret' clearance to the worst of the bad criminals in the world? Who in their right mind would do that?

As I understand it - when the state grants one access to restricted information - 'Classified', 'Secret', or 'Top Secret' - the ability share that information is prohibited as part of the granting that allows one access to the information.

As I recall, Irving 'Scooter' Libby, is currenty under indictment because he could not clearly recall this requirement in reference to the 'Secret' information about who was working under the Directorate of Operations in the CIA.

Well, now the United States Government is trying to grant the worst prisoners in American detention - those guys who were held for years in those undisclosed secret CIA prisons all over the globe - the same restrictions with information as is they received 'Top Secret Clearance'.

The U.S government is petitioning the courts to prohibit these prisoners from discussing the treatment they received at the hands of the United States Government with anyone, even their attorneys.

Wait a second ... weren't we the country of 'Rule of Law'. Isn't one of the basic tenents of law is that a defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense. How can a defendant prepare a vigorous defense if they are restricted from freely talking to an attorney.

It boggles my mind. My country is dissolving in front of my eyes.

 

[michaeledward]

Today we learn the Republican President has unleashed the National Security Agency on illegal monitoring of United States citizens.

The former Majority Leader in the House of Representatives is under indictment for money laundering.

The Senate Majority Leader is being investigate by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading in his families company... a publicly traded firm over which is Senate position wielded influence.

A long-time Republican Congressman has pleaded guilty to receiving more than 2 million dollars in bribes.

Add to these charges the secret prisons, the exploding deficit, the war on 'Happy Holidays', the abuse inside Public Broadcasting, libraries.

Is there anyone who can proudly proclaim being a Republican?

Many exit polls from yesterdays elections showed that American Voters were angry with the scandalridden Republican party. Of course these original scandals from this thread have had some significant additions since the thread was started; Bob Ney, Mark Foley, David Savafian, Jack Abramoff.

It may be that when the Democrats take power the scandals will be on the other side of the aisle. Time will tell.

But for now, I am pleased to see the American voter demands integrity from their elected officials.

 

[michaeledward]

An interesting turn this past week.

Harriet Miers was President Bush's choice for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Her nomination had to be recalled because of an uproar among conservative Republicans.

She has since retired from her position of White House Council (President Bush's professional lawyer).

This week, amid claims of 'foul play' in the dismissal of eight United States Attorney's, the White House attempted to use Ms. Miers as their scapegoat and fall-person.

This brings to mind the old saying .... "With friends like these ..."


Alas, evidence continues to come out, showing that Ms. Miers is less culpable than the original insinuation. As of yesterday, President Bush's spokesperson was claiming that 'hazy memories' are limiting a full accounting of genesis of the plan for removing these U.S. Attorneys.

A good description of the job of an U.S. Attorney was given recently in a radio program - to persue the law without fear or favor. It seems that this definition did not meet the White House standards for those eight civil servants.


I guess we can all be glad that Ms. Miers nomination to the supreme court was withdrawn.