Man kills himself at Ground Zero due to Bush's reelection — Page 5

I'd like to go on record as saying that I'm a huge Tony Danza fan. DANZA SLAP!

---

Yeah, right. This statement: "I can say that from the choices we were given I would pick (of course this is solely based on what was listed) the one who was pro-life because that to me is a huge issue..." along with your chirping the Limbaughian canard of "the liberal media" should NOT be taken as an indication of your affiliations, registered or not though they may be.

So, since we're speaking PURELY hypothetically and with absolutely NO insight into your thought process implied or inferred, what would you think of a person, a President, say who claims to value a "culture of life" who also executes living, breathing, viable human beings? What would you think of somebody who executes a mentally retarded person, for example, privleging and protecting a mere stem cell over that person's existence?

Purely hypothetically of course, since you stated clearly that being "pro-life," (a misnomer if ever there were one) is very important to you.

---

Interesting note: neither candidate was pro-life. Bush was anti-abortion, not pro-life. http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=409 This article doesn't even take into account Bush's being pro-death penalty which is wrong according to the Catholic consistent life ethic. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0798.asp

---

Updated On: 11/7/04 at 03:25 AM

Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the main problem when it comes to abortion is what people actually believe the fetus is. Some people believe it is a human being from the moment of conception and as so it has every right of a human being. They believe it has the right to life and no one should be able to take that right away. To this group it is the same thing as if you believed killing people on the street with a rifle was ok. It is their duty to stop you (through peaceful measures may I add). In that mindset, your personal rights do not come at the expense of the the child's life and it's rights. Others believe it is not a human being from conception. They believe it is just a pile of cells up until a certain point in time (which varies person to person). A woman should have control over whether she wants those cells in her to develop into a human being which if it is not convenient for her or came about under bad circumstances and has the right to get rid of it. This group sees anti-abortionists as people who are willing to sacrifice the rights or life of women so they(often religous institutions) can have the power. If each side could at least try to see the others point of view rather then trying to muddle the issue through name calling it would be a heck of a lot more civil disagreement. I am sure at least a few on this board on both sides could agree that too many people are getting abortions and for the wrong reasons.(I distinctly remember a thread we had at one point where this sentiment was expressed.) The fact of the matter is one group cannot conclusively prove the other group is wrong. If we could, then there wouldn't be such an even split on this issue in America.

---

Updated On: 11/7/04 at 05:41 AM

OMG you freakin idiots.
Did any of you read the ENTIRE article???
***Veal APPARENTLY was distraught over President Bush's re-election, Newsday reported Saturday on its Web site edition, citing an UNNAMED police source***
Did any of you see the words, "APPARENTLY" and "UNNAMED"
"Apparently" means that's what someone thought.
"Unnamed" means the source might just be lying.
Then the article went on to read.....

***Coleman said he could not confirm Newsday's account***

COULD NOT CONFIRM...........
I might as well start a thread with the title, KERRY FVCKS DOG IN KENNEL and list an "unnamed" source to back it.

The only "attention whore" here is the one who started this thread.

"Can you tell these things before the third trimester? "

Depends on the disability & family history. Some can be spotted fairly early - certainly here in the UK parents have the option of aborting babies which will be born disabled & it's still only legal up to 24 weeks so they must be able to tell before then. There's also the law of probability - eg if the mother is carrying the haemophiliac gene there's a 50% chance of a son having the disorder (if I remember my GCSE biology right - it was over 5 years ago now! Lol).

You can't tell definitively, of course, but you can tell how likely it is from a relatively early stage.

I don't get how people think abortion os a-okay, but executing a convincted murder is wrong?! I'd rather have a murder be killed than an unborn innocent baby. But that's just me.

I can clearly see a woman's right to abortion and the fact that killing a pregnant woman is two murders. If a woman has chosen to keep her baby, then it is the murder of two lives. I do think that 3rd term abortions should be illegal as at that point the baby could live on its own. Before that time, the baby is in the biological sense of the word, a parasite. That sounds harsh, but I stress--in the biological sense of the word.

---

Thank you princess for another honest response from you that demonstrates the complete lack of logic by the majority of so called "pro-life" people. So, apparently, an unborn fetus, (not a viable human being outside of the womb) is more valuable in your estimation than a human being, a live human being. I'm sure it doesn't matter at all to you that thanks to advances in DNA testing it has now been reliably proven that many executed death row inmates were the victims of false conviction. Oh well.

You realize, that many aborted fetuses could very well have grown up to actually BE murderers, so, like just, you know, think of abortion as like practically totally okay in terms of preemptive penalties. It's amazingly awesome. I know, right?

OKAY Bythesword, the election on Tuesday. One candidate wraps himself in a pro-life banner (but clearly has executed LOTS of people), the other is not in favor of abortion but realizes that it is morally wrong to legislate HIS morality. THAT, my dear, is your option.

---

Updated On: 11/7/04 at 12:30 PM

Ok, I know it's more expensive & all, but think about it this way:

The greatest right & most cherished privilege any human being has is their freedom, yes? And 90% of murders (excluding crime passionel) are essentially about control?

In that case, surely it is a greater punishment to take away that liberty & control by letting them rot in a hell-hole for the rest of their lives than execution?

I know I'd rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in a cell 23 hours of every day!

But it's actually not more expensive. It's cheaper to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives because there are, unfortunately, people who do not deserve to walk among the other citizens of the earth ever again.

And you know princess, I don't engage with you for weeks at a time, and then I do and I write something and I think, well, maybe she's not such a dim bulb. Then you reply and prove me wrong.

That you could SERIOUSLY write, "I'm sure innocent murderers HAVE been executed, and tha treally sucks. What can I say, the system isn't perfect."

Like, totally. Totally sucks. If the system isn't perfect, the system that KILLS people, how on earth can you think that system should ever be used??? EVER??? Jeez, the mind boggles. But that shows your lack of logic and intelligence.

I sure hope you and nobody you ever care about is accused of a crime they didn't commit. (Or DO I?)

---

"An innocent baby is far more valuable that a convicted murderer."
Which is why the argument becomes, when is it a baby? Just because someone has a different opinon, they aren't an idiot. So sit down and behave.

"And if you live your life right and don't do anything stupid, you will NOT be wrongly convicted of any crime (especially something as serious as murder)"
Wow... I could never live by the, "Well, you must be guilty for something" motto.
To hell with the death penelty, we need to bring back torture...