daquixers_is_back Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 2% want to. 849910[/snapback] 849926[/snapback] Wouldnt doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1011 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I find it humorous that people will bash those with other views as pushing their views on others as they push their overly zealous anti-religious bigotry as a way of stopping what they perceive as bigotry. It's really a pathetic ruse of vice masked as virtue. Please, don't kid yourselves. You would want people like myself caged or dead so you could push your ideas on me. Many of your self-proclaimed beliefs in freedom of speech are hypocrisy personified. It gets funnier when someone like myself admits to being Christian they get the labels of PC world thrown at them without ever discussing ideas as right or wrong, truth or error. Discussions based on ideas are usually degraded by the incessant labeling of ideas rather than discussing them, then best of all we are re-told that we are bigoted because they don't want to discuss the ideas. On a Catholic note I'm told by anti-religious personae on the board that I follow a religion of child molesters, while at the same time these same people are attempting to defend homosexuality. Over 80% of cover-up in the sexual abuse scandal are homosexual acts with young men, not children. So they defend homosexuality as a way of life, and then decry homosexual acts to minors that certainly isn't pedophilia with children, but homosexual acts with young men in adolescence. Well which is it should I defend these men (which I don't) or decry their actions and their lifestyle? The people who castigate people like myself know we would want no Catholic priests who are homosexuals (which would solve the vast majority of the crisis as stats show), and yet they defend those choices when it doesn't pertain to Catholic priests who have lost their vocations as the Church teaches such acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered. The absence of logic is not only stiffling, but it shows my adversaries bias towards a rational discussion which would immediate degrade to labels again. Do you people realize why I stopped responding to the idiocy by some on this board? I can't engage too much in intelligent conversation (although X. Benedict was thoughtful in his responses) when rationality is lacking. Some of you guys really need to step away and think about your illogical conclusions that are hypocritical before you continue to confusedly believe you have some in-roads in being informed and consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I find it humorous that people will bash those with other views as pushing their views on others as they push their overly zealous anti-religious bigotry as a way of stopping what they perceive as bigotry. It's really a pathetic ruse of vice masked as virtue. Please, don't kid yourselves. You would want people like myself caged or dead so you could push your ideas on me. Many of your self-proclaimed beliefs in freedom of speech are hypocrisy personified. It gets funnier when someone like myself admits to being Christian they get the labels of PC world thrown at them without ever discussing ideas as right or wrong, truth or error. Discussions based on ideas are usually degraded by the incessant labeling of ideas rather than discussing them, then best of all we are re-told that we are bigoted because they don't want to discuss the ideas. On a Catholic note I'm told by anti-religious personae on the board that I follow a religion of child molesters, while at the same time these same people are attempting to defend homosexuality. Over 80% of cover-up in the sexual abuse scandal are homosexual acts with young men, not children. So they defend homosexuality as a way of life, and then decry homosexual acts to minors that certainly isn't pedophilia with children, but homosexual acts with young men in adolescence. Well which is it should I defend these men (which I don't) or decry their actions and their lifestyle? The people who castigate people like myself know we would want no Catholic priests who are homosexuals (which would solve the vast majority of the crisis as stats show), and yet they defend those choices when it doesn't pertain to Catholic priests who have lost their vocations as the Church teaches such acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered. The absence of logic is not only stiffling, but it shows my adversaries bias towards a rational discussion which would immediate degrade to labels again. Do you people realize why I stopped responding to the idiocy by some on this board? I can't engage too much in intelligent conversation (although X. Benedict was thoughtful in his responses) when rationality is lacking. Some of you guys really need to step away and think about your illogical conclusions that are hypocritical before you continue to confusedly believe you have some in-roads in being informed and consistent. 850507[/snapback] I've been waiting for this post, as it was inevitable. It has it all. Ridiculous explanations, cries of victimization, plus all the internet rules required to justify your lemmingdom. NAMBLA uses pretty much the same lahjik to explain what they do, so they thank you personally for coming to their aid. It's not pedophilia, it's a homosexual act because they're adolecents. Do you also aim to stamp out heterosexuality because there are currently so many "adolecent" girls and boys being molested by the opposite sex? But you "just can't have an "intellectual" conversation." Dude, you're just awesome. As far as why you stopped, we figured our stormtroopers finally caged or killed you. You know, since you gave out your name, made it so damn easy, and our organized movement has had that as a goal since we got together. I'm sure the church more than appreciates you regurgitating their propaganda verbatim and with such zeal. You're very likely on the short list of the first people to get their mansion in heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) So they defend homosexuality as a way of life, and then decry homosexual acts to minors that certainly isn't pedophilia with children, but homosexual acts with young men in adolescence. Well which is it should I defend these men (which I don't) or decry their actions and their lifestyle? 850507[/snapback] Who is defending child molesters? Way to generalize. GAY=Sexual Predator, therefore it is safe to stamp out all homosexuality because it inevitably leads to sexual abuse. I can't believe how "illogical" I was being before. On a Catholic note I'm told by anti-religious personae on the board that I follow a religion of child molesters, while at the same time these same people are attempting to defend homosexuality. Over 80% of cover-up in the sexual abuse scandal are homosexual acts with young men, not children. 850507[/snapback] 80%? You have some information or are you just guessing? Regardless, start introducing alterGIRLS and watch that number drop like a pass from Michael Vick. But in accordance with Catholicism's disdain for inferior forms of life (women, gays, worshipers of another God), I'm guessing that will never happen. EDIT: woah, when did we get new smileys? Now I won't have to use the 'Darin' anymore... :lol: Edited November 28, 2006 by BART at ND Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Thats a fallacy and you know it. 98% of Christians would not bomb an abortion clinic. That would be like you saying "once black people stop acting like thugs..." its a sterotype that is wrong because not all of a certain type of people act a certain way. Personally I dont see how telling someone not to kill their baby is telling them how to run their lives? Yet when we make laws to tell people to not smoke marijuana or to not drive drunk .. etc its not telling people how to run their lives? Hey, I'm with you, all laws that attempt to protect an individual from oneself or abridging personal choice when you are not affecting others ought to be stricken. Drunk driving, however, is one you need, as then your behavior directly affects others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Hey, I'm with you, all laws that attempt to protect an individual from oneself or abridging personal choice when you are not affecting others ought to be stricken. Drunk driving, however, is one you need, as then your behavior directly affects others. 857818[/snapback] See that is where things will always be open for argument and definition (blue). When one has an abortion... Are you affecting others?... Is the unborn fetis/child an "other"... Or is it "part" of the woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 See that is where things will always be open for argument and definition (blue). When one has an abortion... Are you affecting others?... Is the unborn fetis/child an "other"... Or is it "part" of the woman? 857845[/snapback] The answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes. However, the unresolved questions are: How does the abortion affect others; is the pregnency a result of consentual sex? Was the mother raped? Is the mother a teenaged victim of incest? Each Yes answer here calls for different handling of the situation. The fetus starts out as a part of the mother but when exactly does it become a separate living individual? Five minutes after conception, ten minutes, ten weeks, at birth? When? One answer does not fit all of the possible scenarios. Abortion should be safe, legal, and exceedingly rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes. However, the unresolved questions are: How does the abortion affect others; is the pregnency a result of consentual sex? Was the mother raped? Is the mother a teenaged victim of incest? Each Yes answer here calls for different handling of the situation. The fetus starts out as a part of the mother but when exactly does it become a separate living individual? Five minutes after conception, ten minutes, ten weeks, at birth? When? One answer does not fit all of the possible scenarios. Abortion should be safe, legal, and exceedingly rare. 857854[/snapback] The fertilized egg is a separate individual. It has a unique DNA sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 See that is where things will always be open for argument and definition (blue). When one has an abortion... Are you affecting others?... Is the unborn fetis/child an "other"... Or is it "part" of the woman? 857845[/snapback] That gets into determining if a fetus is a life and when. Noone has produced something that definatively says that mass of cells becomes a human life in the xth day/week/month. Thus, I'm perfectly comfortable, logically, falling back on the privacy of the individual to do as she will with her own body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 That gets into determining if a fetus is a life and when. Noone has produced something that definatively says that mass of cells becomes a human life in the xth day/week/month. Thus, I'm perfectly comfortable, logically, falling back on the privacy of the individual to do as she will with her own body. 857957[/snapback] Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 That gets into determining if a fetus is a life and when. Noone has produced something that definatively says that mass of cells becomes a human life in the xth day/week/month. Thus, I'm perfectly comfortable, logically, falling back on the privacy of the individual to do as she will with her own body. 857957[/snapback] Me too. 857961[/snapback] Well if thats how you feel then its only "logical" to not charge people with a double murder if they kill a pregnant woman. Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Well if thats how you feel then its only "logical" to not charge people with a double murder if they kill a pregnant woman. Correct? 858423[/snapback] Logically speaking, you are absolutely correct. And if a pregnant woman is murdered during her 1st trimester, do they charge it? How about the third? Do they charge it? In what instances? Are there different criteria by jurisdiction? I don't know the answers, merely raising the questions. Is there a distinction drawn? Since I was never a DA, prosecuting murder, I don't know the distinctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 And if a pregnant woman is murdered during her 1st trimester, do they charge it? How about the third? Do they charge it? In what instances? Are there different criteria by jurisdiction? I don't know the answers, merely raising the questions. Is there a distinction drawn? Since I was never a DA, prosecuting murder, I don't know the distinctions. 858971[/snapback] Yes, yes, yes, all, and yes. Usually, though, it's a charge of "fetal homocide" or some such; in every case I know of, the death of an unborn baby when the mother is murdered is recognized as a crime distinct from the mother's murder, and distinct from "regular" homocide as well. In other words, the law recognizes the difference between the murder of a fetus, and the murder of the pregnant woman, and as such is actually not as paradoxical as it first seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Logically speaking, you are absolutely correct. And if a pregnant woman is murdered during her 1st trimester, do they charge it? How about the third? Do they charge it? In what instances? Are there different criteria by jurisdiction? I don't know the answers, merely raising the questions. Is there a distinction drawn? Since I was never a DA, prosecuting murder, I don't know the distinctions. 858971[/snapback] As Bungee said the answer to your questions are all "yes" ... and atleast 37 states now have 'fetal homicide' laws. Yet abortion is OK. I just dont get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Did you just stop reading Tom's post halfway through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 As Bungee said the answer to your questions are all "yes" ... and atleast 37 states now have 'fetal homicide' laws. Yet abortion is OK. I just dont get it. 859347[/snapback] You know, its interesting, do all of the 37 states recognize "fetal homiccide" through the whole gamut of pregnancy. From a woman who is 9+ mo pregnant to one who is pregnant for, say, only a few hours? And test cases to prove such recognition? I don't have the time to conduct such a research project, but it would be interesting to see the results. What about the 13 states that don't recognize it. What was their rationale for declining to recognize the cause of action? This may hit at the heart of those of oppose Roe, from both sides. Remember at the time Roe was decided, many states had already legalized abortion, and more were on the way. It would have remained illegal is some states, simply due to local leanings. Many, on both sides, argue the state by state approach would be more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 As Bungee said the answer to your questions are all "yes" ... and atleast 37 states now have 'fetal homicide' laws. Yet abortion is OK. I just dont get it. 859347[/snapback] IMO, I think you can recognize both. One is about choice (abortion) that is afforded the woman. Fetal homicide cases don't contain that choice... Well at least not yet, I am sure some bizzaro scenario will eventually pop up in th courts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 You know, its interesting, do all of the 37 states recognize "fetal homiccide" through the whole gamut of pregnancy. From a woman who is 9+ mo pregnant to one who is pregnant for, say, only a few hours? And test cases to prove such recognition? I don't have the time to conduct such a research project, but it would be interesting to see the results. What about the 13 states that don't recognize it. What was their rationale for declining to recognize the cause of action? This may hit at the heart of those of oppose Roe, from both sides. Remember at the time Roe was decided, many states had already legalized abortion, and more were on the way. It would have remained illegal is some states, simply due to local leanings. Many, on both sides, argue the state by state approach would be more effective. 859587[/snapback] I know a lot of states recognize fetal homicide through nearly every stage of the pregnancy but im not sure exactly how many or which ones dont (if any). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts