Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[Timjoebillybob]

I really don't want to fuel the flame here, but I'm willing to speak more about it as long as cool heads prevail. That being said, murder has a specific definition. Is it murder if you pull the plug on a comatose patient? What if they didn't will it, but it is a financial inconvenience for the caretaker? It's just way too subjective to me.

Yes murder does have a specific definition(s). Usually defined as the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethough. I use my definition of unjustified killing of another with malice aforethought.

Is pulling the plug killing someone or is it allowing the person to die. Are you pulling the plug by stopping artificial means of keeping the comatose person alive or are you putting a pillow over their face? Yes it is subjective, in the case of pulling the plug I'd have to weigh the chance of recovery. Do the Drs. give the person a 1% chance of recovery ie a semblance of normal life or a 90% chance? Is there virtually no brain function and the person is being kept alive by machines? Is the person comatose but breathing on their own?

To compare it to abortion, is the baby expected to have a semblance of normal life? Is the child expected to die within hours of birth? Is the mother in excessively more danger than normal from the pregnancy? Is the abortion simply for convenience?

 

[MisterChester]

Yes murder does have a specific definition(s). Usually defined as the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethough. I use my definition of unjustified killing of another with malice aforethought.

Is pulling the plug killing someone or is it allowing the person to die. Are you pulling the plug by stopping artificial means of keeping the comatose person alive or are you putting a pillow over their face? Yes it is subjective, in the case of pulling the plug I'd have to weigh the chance of recovery. Do the Drs. give the person a 1% chance of recovery ie a semblance of normal life or a 90% chance? Is there virtually no brain function and the person is being kept alive by machines? Is the person comatose but breathing on their own?

To compare it to abortion, is the baby expected to have a semblance of normal life? Is the child expected to die within hours of birth? Is the mother in excessively more danger than normal from the pregnancy? Is the abortion simply for convenience?

This is what I'm trying to say in a matter of words. Every situation is different. This is why I think it's best to leave it to the individual than the government. They have to live with the consequences, not us. Its too complicated for a "one size fits all" government solution.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Dirtebiker]

Like (speaking generally): being pro-life, religious, opposing big government, having family based values, and having a strong sense of nationalism? I don't consider any of those unattractive, in and of themselves. However, it is the degree one is willing to take those beliefs that can, like anything, make it unattractive.

I don't think you can take ANY of those beliefs to a point of "unattractive ".
Can I be TOO religious? Pro life?
Can I be TOO patriotic?
Can I be TOO pro family in my beliefs?
Can I be TOO opposed to big government?

I don't think so!

 

[Dirtebiker]

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

You and your ilk want to go back to these days...how very pro-life of you...?

Dave, I am a pragmatist, not an idealist.

What goes on inside a woman's body is the business of that woman...not you, not me, not the government.

As a religious person, don't you take solice in knowing that the woman will face "judgement" by your god for her decisions? If she is willing to face those risks, what difference does it make to you? Why do you need to enforce your will over her in this life? Won't your god do that for all of eternity?

I love how people on this forum are all laissez-faire until it comes to what happens inside someone else's body...then they want control.

What a bunch of crap!
I could tend to understand your way of thinking IF women were so uneducated or had NO other birth control options.
Most people have NO desire to keep women celibate, just to take responsibility for their actions.

We can (and do) definitely disagree but I believe that the second of conception a LIFE is created and WE do NOT have the authority to end that life!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Was this post really necessary? All it serves to do is to attempt to inflame a discussion thread that was not inflamed. This thread has had nothing to do with the morality of abortion, and having it devolve into that debate at this point would serve no useful purpose.

Please don't attempt to derail the discussion with non sequitur and ad hominem.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chipbennett again.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Good point, Chip. And I rose to the bait. I'm done with this portion of the discussion.

As did I.
As am I.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Pop

This is fair. Govt should have no business being involved.

Agreed!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

This is what I'm trying to say in a matter of words. Every situation is different. This is why I think it's best to leave it to the individual than the government. They have to live with the consequences, not us. Its too complicated for a "one size fits all" government solution.

What about all homicides then? Every situation is different. Was it justified, unjustified, self defense? Is it too complicated for govt? After all they have to live with the consequences although the other person can't live with it because they are no longer alive.

Theft? Could the person taking the stuff be just reclaiming their own property? Seeking just remuneration? Could every situation be different and there for too complicated for govt?

 

[chipbennett]

What about all homicides then? Every situation is different. Was it justified, unjustified, self defense? Is it too complicated for govt? After all they have to live with the consequences although the other person can't live with it because they are no longer alive.

Theft? Could the person taking the stuff be just reclaiming their own property? Seeking just remuneration? Could every situation be different and there for too complicated for govt?

A very wise man once wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

There is a place for government - especially and primarily, to establish the basic ground rules that ensure the mutual security of individual liberty.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think you can take ANY of those beliefs to a point of "unattractive ".
Can I be TOO religious?
Pro life?
Can I be TOO patriotic?
Can I be TOO pro family in my beliefs?
Can I be TOO opposed to big government?

i don't think so!

I didn't say anything about being "too 'whatever'". I said the degree some one is willing to take their beliefs. I think most are clear in what that means, and purposefully avoid using the word "too."

 

[MisterChester]

What about all homicides then? Every situation is different. Was it justified, unjustified, self defense? Is it too complicated for govt? After all they have to live with the consequences although the other person can't live with it because they are no longer alive.

Theft? Could the person taking the stuff be just reclaiming their own property? Seeking just remuneration? Could every situation be different and there for too complicated for govt?

That is why we have a court system.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is why we have a court system.

Yep, so we can put them on death row and murder them.

 

[Dead Duck]

Yep, so we can put them on death row [STRIKE]and murder them[/STRIKE] and pay for the all-channel cable TV, game rooms, a gym, full health care, food and shelter, etc....

FIFY

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That is why we have a court system.

Then that court system should be able to handle abortion as homicide then right?

Yep, so we can put them on death row and murder them.

Personally I'm generally against the death penalty, but not for philosophical reasons. Simple because if it turns out the guy was innocent you can open a cell door, bringing back from the dead is a bit more difficult.

But then again, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you can tell the difference between ending a persons life because of what crimes they willingly and intentionally did vs ending an innocent life just because it's convenient. But then again perhaps I'm wrong.

FIFY

You're probably closer to the truth.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

A very wise man once wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

There is a place for government - especially and primarily, to establish the basic ground rules that ensure the mutual security of individual liberty.

Yep and I would include the security of the unborn infants. Although some see them as no more than a tumor.

 

[KG1]

Unfortunately, you can't put a mod on your ignore list. I've tried...

Except mbills. Everyone can ignore him if they want.

 

[MisterChester]

Then that court system should be able to handle abortion as homicide then right?

Well, no. They never considered it to be homicide because abortion and homicide are two different things. I don't think handing out death penalties to tens of thousands of women and doctors would go over well either.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well, no. They never considered it to be homicide because abortion and homicide are two different things. I don't think handing out death penalties to tens of thousands of women and doctors would go over well either.

Why couldn't the courts handle it like they do other homicides?

Why isn't it considered homicide? It's the killing of another human being correct? And who said anything about death penalties? What does the average murderer get in IN? 15-20 yrs if that? What was the punishment before RvW in the states that outlawed it? I'm pretty sure it wasn't the death penalty if convicted.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Who ya talkin' bout?