A Trial in Philadelphia - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2013, 11:05 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 09:28 PM
He didn't get the death penalty in exchange for giving up his right to appeal. Would you rather he appealed and dragged it out for years and possibly have his conviction overturned? Spend even more taxes on him?


It's supposed to be protect life from conception to natural death. Death penalty is not natural death. The guy is a monster for what he did, and another higher power will have a say. That doesn't mean anyone who is against the death penalty cares any less about those babies or more about him. Just means they're morally (and religiously, if you're looking at it that way) consistent.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:37 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
In any case, he probably wouldn't have been executed anyway (but died in prison before execution).
I totally agree. I was just stating a personal preference.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:58 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Pro-lifers in support of the death penalty.

It boggles the mind.
I love the softballs you've been throwing my way lately. Bobbles the mind?

1) all human life is precious (endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life) thus:

a) the defenseless and vulnerable must be protected
b) those that take the live of an innocent (murder) may forfeit the right to theirs

You may not agree but it is morally and logically consistent.

Your turn. Explain the consistency of being tenaciously Pro-Choice and against the death penalty. Or in other words how do you justify condemning innocents while showing mercy to those guilty of the most heinous crimes?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:26 PM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

I love the softballs you've been throwing my way lately. Bobbles the mind?

1) all human life is precious (endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life) thus:

a) the defenseless and vulnerable must be protected
b) those that take the live of an innocent (murder) may forfeit the right to theirs

You may not agree but it is morally and logically consistent.

Your turn. Explain the consistency of being tenaciously Pro-Choice and against the death penalty. Or in other words how do you justify condemning innocents while showing mercy to those guilty of the most heinous crimes?

You can't prove that killing is wrong by killing.

At what point do you -- not said "creator" --get to determine that someone forfeits their own precious life?

It's rank hypocrisy. And it basically shows that anti-choice, death penalty advocates hate women and lust for blood. They want vengeance, not justice.

A fetus is not a person, and women are in charge of their own bodies and must be able to determine when they do and do not get pregnant.

I see little "mercy" in life imprisonment, and it's disgusting to suggest that another death somehow proves that you value life.

Done.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:32 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I love the softballs you've been throwing my way lately. Bobbles the mind?

1) all human life is precious (endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life) thus:

a) the defenseless and vulnerable must be protected
b) those that take the live of an innocent (murder) may forfeit the right to theirs

You may not agree but it is morally and logically consistent.

Your turn. Explain the consistency of being tenaciously Pro-Choice and against the death penalty. Or in other words how do you justify condemning innocents while showing mercy to those guilty of the most heinous crimes?
Matthew 5:38-48

New International Version (NIV)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



If Jesus is the Son of God - the Creator - and He said all this, then how can you justify the death penalty?
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 01:38 AM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

1) all human life is precious (endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life) thus:
...
b) those that take the live of an innocent (murder) may forfeit the right to theirs

You may not agree but it is morally and logically consistent.
What a completely arbitrary and inconsistent leap of logic (and morals. Jesus christ). This makes no sense what so ever.

Just admit you want to send them to have jesus take care of them right away instead of waiting decades. That's really what it is
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 09:51 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
Matthew 5:38-48

New International Version (NIV)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



If Jesus is the Son of God - the Creator - and He said all this, then how can you justify the death penalty?
Quote:
Romans 13:3-4 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
I like to discuss theology but not argue. So I'm not arguing but surely the Bible is full of references to setting up just governments and tribunals to protect society from criminals by handing out punishment in the name of justice. Again my views on capital punishment is not primarily informed by my faith but I certainly don't feel they are contridictory.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:22 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I like to discuss theology but not argue. So I'm not arguing but surely the Bible is full of references to setting up just governments and tribunals to protect society from criminals by handing out punishment in the name of justice. Again my views on capital punishment is not primarily informed by my faith but I certainly don't feel they are contridictory.
The words of Jesus > the words of Paul. Just sayin'
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:27 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
You can't prove that killing is wrong by killing.

At what point do you -- not said "creator" --get to determine that someone forfeits their own precious life?

It's rank hypocrisy. And it basically shows that anti-choice, death penalty advocates hate women and lust for blood. They want vengeance, not justice.

A fetus is not a person, and women are in charge of their own bodies and must be able to determine when they do and do not get pregnant.

I see little "mercy" in life imprisonment, and it's disgusting to suggest that another death somehow proves that you value life.

Done.
Thanks for your answer. I think we can agree that you and I exist in very different moral universes.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:28 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:28 PM
A fetus is more important than 20 six year olds?

OK....
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:33 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Thanks for your answer. I think we can agree that you and I exist in very different moral universes.

Yours makes me sad.

And fearful.

There's two responses: love and fear.

Come with us in love.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 02:54 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:28 PM
So the same press that couldn't be bothered with an abortion trial involving the murders of liveborn babies, the death of at least one patient and filthy operating conditions beyond description -- can't stop giving coverage to, and fawning over, Texas state senator Wendy Davis calling her a "rising political star" in the Democratic Party. "Epic," "heroic" are just of few of the adjectives thrown her way. Oh, and president Obama tweeted his support.

So what did she do?

With an 11 hour filibuster she stopped a state bill that would have, in direct response to the decades of horror to women and babies inflicted by Dr Gosnell, banned abortions after the 20th week (the 13th state to do so) and require abortion clinics to meet the safety regulations required of any other medical clinic performing medical procedures.

So who's on the right side history regarding this issue? What has neonatal science learned that wasn't understood 40 years ago? Who are the gullible being tricked by the liberal media-entertainment/abortion complex?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 03:05 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Wendy Davis is on the right side of history.

Forcing poor women into the hands of people like Gosnell is the fault of the anti-choice movement.

Forcing women to have a vaginal ultrasound has nothi g to do with women's health.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 03:12 PM   #59
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,714
Local Time: 06:28 PM
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 04:40 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Wendy Davis is on the right side of history.
No, she's not.

I'm going to cut and paste the thoughts of a conservative friend who articulated my thoughts on this situation better than I ever could.

"SB 5 essentially had 3 elements designed to regulate abortions and abortion clinics in Texas. I think points 2 and 3 are particularly important.

1. SB 5 ends abortions after 20 weeks except in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. Every poll I have ever seen has shown that the vast majority of Americans, even Americans on the left, feel that abortions in the third trimester should only be performed if the mother's health is in serious jeopardy. The third trimester starts at around 28 weeks. SB 5's author's reasoning for the 20 week restriction is due to studies that show that an unborn child has the ability to both feel and avoid pain at 20 weeks. But if the left doesn't care about the child's pain and thinks that 28 weeks should be the standard, why not argue that? Why demonize this bill as some affront to women's rights rather than just saying, "Change it to 28 weeks and we'll talk?"

2. SB 5 requires that the label of RU-486 (the abortion drug) actually be followed.

For those that don't know, here is what the label says:
"Because it is important to have access to appropriate medical care if an emergency develops, the treatment procedure is contraindicated if a patient does not have adequate access to medical facilities equipped to provide emergency treatment of incomplete abortion, blood transfusions, and emergency resuscitation during the period from the first visit until discharged by the administering physician.
Mifeprex also should not be used by any patient who may be unable to understand the effects of the treatment procedure or to comply with its regimen. Patients should be instructed to review the Medication Guide and the PATIENT AGREEMENT provided with Mifeprex carefully and should be given a copy of the product label for their review. Patients should discuss their understanding of these materials with their health care providers, and retain the Medication Guide for later reference (see PRECAUTIONS)."

"Mifeprex is available only in single dose packaging. Administration must be under the supervision of a qualified physician (see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION)."

SB 5 writes these requirements into law.

3. SB 5 requires that abortion clinics meet the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers. 6 abortion clinics in Texas meet these standards currently. 38 do not. 38. Let me repeat that in yet another way: thirty-eight. The press says that all 38 are going to be shut down. I would argue that many of them would try to come up to standard so they could keep making money hand over fist. If enough do not come up to that standard, new clinics will open up that do meet that standard so that THEY can make money hand over fist.

Abortion clinics perform medical procedures that can be risky. Are we seriously arguing that requiring a medical clinic to live up to basic medical standards is a bad thing? Seriously? We want to protect women's rights but feel no need to protect their lives. Wonderful. So if someone I love ever decides to have an abortion in Texas and doesn't know where to go to get one, she has only a 14% chance of landing at a clinic that meets basic medical standards and this is good because it is protecting her womanly rights?

I'm going to quote the author of this bill who sounds much more reasonable than I am at the moment.

'Moving abortion clinics under the guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers will provide Texas women choosing abortion the highest standard of health care. Texas allows no other procedure to opt out of the accepted standard of care.'"

I have said it before and I'll say it again: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Safe and legal are not false opposites.

Wendy Davis, sadly, got it wrong.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com