The TWO most controversial issues in politics!!
 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0902/p...tml?mostViewed


Take a read and let's hear some thoughts.

Me being pro-life I don't advocate murdering anyone, I don't like that they do it in the name of God either. He is going to be in for a big wake up call on the other side. At the same time I'm not going to loose sleep over the fact that he offed a contract killer.

killing in the name of god..........i could've sworn that i heard it somewhere.

the fact that he admits to commiting the murder and then tries to justifies it just pisses me off.

he wants to be a martyr. all the more reason to not kill him.

There are lots of guys in prison that will love to meat a celebrity like him. (and yes I chose that spelling for meet because they're gonna butter his bread).

Killing is bad, killing and justifying it is just plain idiotic.

While I am Pro-Life, I'm also a law-abiding citizen and believe that we are all responsible for our actions.

This man committed a capital offense and deserves to be punished accordingly.

It is supposed to be a free society. This person you call a 'contract killer' was not breaking any law. So tell me what other freedoms would you like to take from other people, and would you be happier in a dictatorship / Nazi state.

The fact that a law is not broken does not suddenly make a behavior not immoral. I think it's interesting that you attempt to make a connection between protecting the rights of unborn children (that is what a fetus is, you know), to a Nazi state. No offense, but that is generally the response of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. I suggest doing some reading on the subject -- for instance, you could search this board for the 9834 abortion threads that have already been done to death, pardon the wording.

As for the admitted murderer, fry his ass and see what side of the afterlife he ends up on.

I am pro-choice. Every woman has a right to choose and the doctor that was murdered had a right to choose to practice medicine in whatever legal way he found fit. However, this murderer took away the choice of the doctor and many woman. That is wrong. I do think that making him live his life out in prison where his choices are limited may have been a more fit punishment.

You know who else wasn't breaking any laws? White Americans when we had slaves. Remember that... how did we justify that whole slavery thing? Oh yeah thats right the slaves weren't human, they were only 3/5's of a human, sounds familiar.

Yes abortion and slavery... practically the same thing. If abortion ever is outlawed the fetuses will still have a few hundred years of systemic and institutional oppression to deal with.

But you know, once they're born, whatever, who gives a fuck about 'em?
I don't as long as i don't have to pay taxes to subsidize someone else's mistake whom i forced to follow through with.

I read a quote from this christian murderer in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I can only paraphrase, but he basically said that god was going to reward him for ultimately giving his life to "save" these parasitic mushbags.

it seems like this guy may have a lot in common with suicide bombers in israel, and the 9/11 jackers. All murdered for rewards in the afterlife. Score one for martyrdom.

"contract killer" .
So what does that make all the people responsible for putting this man to death?

Unless it’s for medical circumstances IMO partial birth abortions are extreme. The female had plenty of time to decide (that’s a male perspective admit tingly. Why wait that far into it? Infact usually a female has known for several weeks before brain waves can even be recorded from the fetus (which is where part of me feels that at the point perhaps they should be counted as a person..?) As far as where the soul enters that goes into religion and when it’s forced I can’t see it ever being good. Especially when individuals take on that "holier than thou" perspective; really annoying. I hope this man is not considered a martyr. This is the first I’ve heard of this, but there’s something about this man that makes me want to slap the shit out of him a few hundred times.

Sorry didn’t mean to offend those that are pro-life; but I hat hypocrites; it appears he hasn’t studied the philosophy he claims to live by close enough. Again this is MO nothing more.

He knew exactly what he was doing. He equated it to killing Hitler or Stalin. He was quoted as saying something along the lines of he knew that on that given day the man was going to murder 20 to 30 lives and he couldn't let it go on another day.

I am reminded of the Islamic terrorist Amrozi who, when sentenced to death in Indonesia for the Bali bombings, cheered and grinned at the thought of of his imminent matyrdom.

That was in a time and place where the practice was accepted, where information was being spread to further notions that 'the negro can't take care of himself.'

Also, the 3/5 thing was merely a compromise between penny-pinching Northerners (Irish Businessmen, my people) and hypocritical Southerners (fat men with too much money on their hands, Michael Moore's people). They didn't want the law to recognize their slaves as anything more than property (which, constitutionally would have made slavery illegal) but they wanted the population head count for votes.

A popular misconception is the image of the tidewater plantation owner with hundreds of slaves. Fewer than 8% of slave owners in slave-states owned more than 10 slaves.

Is that a justification?

I really hope you can see the difference between living, breathing-on-their-own enslaved people and what amounts to mushy lumps of parasite.
I think the comparison between slavery and abortion is very dubious. Pulling the slavery card in an argument about abortion is really silly. Unless state legislatures decide to start treating fetuses as 3/5ths a person for redistricting purposes, that is.

I'd like to hear why you consider an unborn child a "mushy lump of parasite" as I bet that children under the age of 18 would also apply to your conditions.

I so didnt know you posted here ser.


Idiotpolarbear~

seretogis sez
Yes, i know 25 year old mushy lumps of parasite.
What i'm saying is that it is insulting to attempt to draw a comparison between slavery, and an unborn potential human.

A fetus is not a human being, it cannot survive outside of the womb, or other scientifically designed device. I know it has heartbeats and brainwaves, but it takes more than a heartbeat and a brainwave(in my opinion) for something to be a human being. Something like the ability to not die by being removed for my amniotic sack and disconnected form my umbilical cord, i think, is required to loose the rookie tag, so to speak. An unborn chidl is for all intents and purposes a parasite.
Children are parasitic too, but in a I-can-breath-on-my-own and an I'm-not-gonna-die-cause-i'm-not-being-nourished-by-your-umbilical-cord way.

Premature babies, in the past, had a zero percent chance of survival. Now, it's much less of a big deal for a child to be born prematurely. It is honestly only a matter of time before science allows a child can be extracted from the womb at six months and survive to live a full life. To base a definition of human life on whether or not science can support it outside of its mothers body is not something that can hold up in ten, twenty, or fifty years.

By the way, hello fellow Minnesotan. :D

But it holds up now. We can't base our policy decisions on faith--and that includes predicting what science will do in the future.

Shouldn't members of a liberal democracy based on the ideals of rationality from the enlightenment rely on scientific proof rather than conjecture?

I am agnostic, so I do not base any of my policy decisions (per se) on faith.

I base my beliefs on abortion on the documented fact that roughly 12 weeks into a pregnancy a fetus/unborn child/"parasitic mass" has its very own heart beat, and thus is a separate living organism which will develop into a human. There is no doubt that a human embryo will develop into a human if it is allowed to live, so the argument of "well, it isn't yet!" doesn't really seem valid to me.

Hola minnesota!

There is a huge difference between a first trimester fetus(the period of time when most abortions are performed), and one entering the third trimester. I agree that it is very likely that a child that could be considered merely premature could survive with the help of medical science outside the human body. However, i find it highly unlikely that science will ever develop a way to remove from the uterus a fetus 2 months into development and keep it not only alive, but also keep it on its developmental path. The "well, it isn't yet!" argument seems valid to me if you actually consider the time frame in a pregnancy during which most abortions are actually performed.

I'm not justifying slavery, I'm simply saying that at the time, those who did it felt it was fine. Even in their time many viewed it as barbaric, however, so it's not like the Aztec religion which was violent religion among many other violent religions.