Don't kid yourself dude, there is no such thing as a humane and civilized murder. Just because the victim is also a murderer, that doesn't mean that killing them isn't murder. The only time putting someone to death is humane and civilized is when they have a terminal illness, are in constant pain, and want to die.
I disagree.
I do not consider the application of the death penalty murder, anymore than I would consider shooting enemy combatants in war murder.
Considering that I find hanging, firing squads, and gas chambers humane...the advances in lethal injection just make it even more humane than it already was.
And since civilized societies have had dealth penalties for thousands of years, I'd really like to hear your argument as to how the DP is uncivilized.
It is something that must be done, because we live in a world with warring ideologies, and a world with sick pedophiles, murderers, and rapists.
I certainly don't want to live under the fascist rule of a tyrant, so I would take up arms and shoot him, or shoot whatever uniformed or nonuniformed defendants that stand between.
I certainly hate living in a world where child molesters are released in under 5 years and move in down the street from a school, or violent murders/rapists are released early and move in down the street.
So if the law would allow (and it doesn't, if I killed a local pedo, I'd do three times more time than they did), I'd be happy to pay them a visit.
When are liberal wimps like you ever going to learn that criminals LOVE our complacency??
Ohhh noes! dont killz ppl, dat makes u no better than dem!
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-04/justice/ohio.cleveland.bodies_1_strangulation-victims-smell?_s=PM:CRIME
I guess we have to wait for people to kill 10+ other human beings before we grow the balls to deal with them swiftly. The fact we had a guy like him locked up, then let him go, only to kill almost a dozen more people...some of that blood is on our hands. As a society, we should accept the responsibility that we must sometimes dispose of horrible people in a concrete way. The death penalty.
I've always liked this line about the hypocrisy of the death penalty: "We kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong."
I have never liked that line. Because it IS hypocratic. I agree with you about that part.
However, I'm not killing a killer to show others that killing is wrong.
I'm killing a killer because the killer was wrong to kill.
The above line you quoted that always seems to get tossed around by light-on-crime wimpy liberals would apply more if the situation was applicable, but it is not.
If I was killing someone who killed in order to show that killingiswrong, I'd have to also kill a soldier who shot an enemy, kill a homeowner who killed an intruder, and then after all that kill myself for killing.
But this is not the case with the death penalty. We do not kill ALL killers to show that killing is wrong. We only kill the really heinous killers as a punishment for wrongly killing.
Killing isnt inherently wrong, there are plenty of right reasons to kill. Kill to defend the freedom of your countrymen, kill to protect your family from a home invader, or even - kill to punish wrongdoers.
When you kill for the wrong reasons, you should be punished, and in the great state of Texas, they still manage to do so even while surrounded by jello spined activists.
The American prison system is indeed horribly broken and should be torn down and then rebuilt from the ground up. Starting over from scratch is necessary.
This we agree on.
So you want a world that is purged from all that you think of as evil? Being german, this reminds me of something.
I am German also. Even had relatives on the German side in WWII. Actually WWII was my families civil war. I had Uncles and cousins fighting on both sides. But no where did I say anything about killing because of religous beliefs or physical attributes.
The fact you feel its important that someone can use race to justify violent acts says alot about you. This type of case is the exact reason why we need the death penalty. You think the next guy who thinks about killing his girlfriend and the guy she is with is more or less inclined to do so when this guy gets death for doing it? I am willing to say the next guy will shy away from killing if they know they will too. The fact the state is even considering life in jail because his race makes him more violent just shows how stupid and weak our government has become. Also why wait 19 years before playing the race card? Seems like grasping at the 11th hour. He knows hes guilty, his lawyer knows hes guilty (says so in the piece) Now its time to pay for his knee jerk double homicide.
Why should people who violate other peoples rights, get convicted of violent crimes, have right to anything? I am sorry, once a person kills another person they lost all their rights. Samr goes for rape and child molesters.
So someone who has been falsely convicted of one of these crimes should loose all rights?
Just because the number of false convictions is low doesn't mean we can ignore that weakness in the justice system. When contemplating whether or not a man deserves to die we have the responsibility to make sure guilt is absolute. If that means drawn out appeals and years on death row then so be it; an innocent put to death for a crime he didn't commit is a citizen the state has absolutely failed.
The fact you feel its important that someone can use race to justify violent acts says alot about you. This type of case is the exact reason why we need the death penalty. You think the next guy who thinks about killing his girlfriend and the guy she is with is more or less inclined to do so when this guy gets death for doing it? I am willing to say the next guy will shy away from killing if they know they will too. The fact the state is even considering life in jail because his race makes him more violent just shows how stupid and weak our government has become. Also why wait 19 years before playing the race card? Seems like grasping at the 11th hour. He knows hes guilty, his lawyer knows hes guilty (says so in the piece) Now its time to pay for his knee jerk double homicide.
In this particular case it comes down not to whether or not he is guilty, but whether or not he is being executed partly because of his race. During sentencing he was charged as being likely to commit violence in the future because he is black. That's a heavy and quite unfounded accusation. If his punishment was decided even partly on this "evidence" then his entire punishment is tainted.
We don't execute the mentally retarded because they are mentally retarded. We shouldn't execute a black man because he is black. If he is to be executed it should be because of the severity of his crimes. If the statement that his race would influence his propensity for violence hadn't been uttered during the sentencing portion of his crime then there wouldn't be any questions about if he was being executed because he was black. Would he have still been sentence to die? Possibly. All we do know is that there is the possibility he is being executed partly because of his race. That is the problem.
So someone who has been falsely convicted of one of these crimes should loose all rights?
Just because the number of false convictions is low doesn't mean we can ignore that weakness in the justice system. When contemplating whether or not a man deserves to die we have the responsibility to make sure guilt is absolute. If that means drawn out appeals and years on death row then so be it; an innocent put to death for a crime he didn't commit is a citizen the state has absolutely failed.
In short, until they can prove their innocents, yes they should lose their rights. Thats why the appeals process is in place. I disagree with putting 1 innocent person to death is failure. If you put 9 other people to death that were guilty and 1 that may or may not have been, I am fine with that. We have to put the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Once we start focusing on the few we will fail as a society.
In this particular case it comes down not to whether or not he is guilty, but whether or not he is being executed partly because of his race. During sentencing he was charged as being likely to commit violence in the future because he is black. That's a heavy and quite unfounded accusation. If his punishment was decided even partly on this "evidence" then his entire punishment is tainted.
We don't execute the mentally retarded because they are mentally retarded. We shouldn't execute a black man because he is black. If he is to be executed it should be because of the severity of his crimes. If the statement that his race would influence his propensity for violence hadn't been uttered during the sentencing portion of his crime then there wouldn't be any questions about if he was being executed because he was black. Would he have still been sentence to die? Possibly. All we do know is that there is the possibility he is being executed partly because of his race. That is the problem.
I read that article different then you. I read he should be looked at different because of his race. His guilt was never in question. He killed 2 people. I dont care if he is black, white, purple, yellow, or rainbow colored... he needs to be put to death and move on to the next case.
In short, until they can prove their innocents, yes they should lose their rights. Thats why the appeals process is in place. I disagree with putting 1 innocent person to death is failure. If you put 9 other people to death that were guilty and 1 that may or may not have been, I am fine with that. We have to put the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Once we start focusing on the few we will fail as a society.
Its VERY easy too say that but extremely hard too live it. If you believe in this truly believe the needs of the many > needs of the few, Prove it. Tell me how you would react if it was your mother, your son, YOU. Would you willingly walk in too a death chamber if you knew your death was going too cause the death of 9 other guilty people?
I disagree with putting 1 innocent person to death is failure. If you put 9 other people to death that were guilty and 1 that may or may not have been, I am fine with that. We have to put the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Once we start focusing on the few we will fail as a society.
That's where you and I differ. I believe the state exists to protect those who can't protect themselves. The majority will take care of themselves or each other. It's the ones that the majority has refused to help and have no capacity to help themselves that need the state's protection the most. Prisoners fall into this category easily since they are in effect wards of the state.
I read that article different then you. I read he should be looked at different because of his race. His guilt was never in question. He killed 2 people. I dont care if he is black, white, purple, yellow, or rainbow colored... he needs to be put to death and move on to the next case.
You're approaching this from the angle that all murders deserve execution. With that position his appeal does appear pointless. But if you believe a prisoner should be executed solely based on the severity of his or her crimes it becomes a test of justice. We can't know whether the sentencing took the tainted testimony into account when determining punishment. To be safe he deserves a re-sentencing without the insinuations of race = violence. If he gets the death penalty again then the system as setup will remain sound. To do otherwise creates a crack and besmirches the concept of justice.
Its VERY easy too say that but extremely hard too live it. If you believe in this truly believe the needs of the many > needs of the few, Prove it. Tell me how you would react if it was your mother, your son, YOU. Would you willingly walk in too a death chamber if you knew your death was going too cause the death of 9 other guilty people?
I have never been in the position so I can not honestly say.
I can say I have relatives in prison that deserve to be put to death for the actions that got them there. I listen to other family memebers cry and complain they got this cousin all wrong or that nephew, but in reality they are evil vicious people that need to be put to death. This is my blood that I grew up with.
the state exists to protect those who can't protect themselves.
I think this is where our differences start. To me the state exsits for the many, not the few.
You're approaching this from the angle that all murders deserve execution. With that position his appeal does appear pointless. But if you believe a prisoner should be executed solely based on the severity of his or her crimes it becomes a test of justice. We can't know whether the sentencing took the tainted testimony into account when determining punishment. To be safe he deserves a re-sentencing without the insinuations of race = violence. If he gets the death penalty again then the system as setup will remain sound. To do otherwise creates a crack and besmirches the concept of justice.
I believe guilt is proven, and in this case not denied, the sentencing is just a formality. He lives in Texas, murder carries the death penalty, there should be no question on race, color or creed.
I have never been in the position so I can not honestly say.
I can say I have relatives in prison that deserve to be put to death for the actions that got them there. I listen to other family memebers cry and complain they got this cousin all wrong or that nephew, but in reality they are evil vicious people that need to be put to death. This is my blood that I grew up with.
Ahh but you ARE in that situation, by very virtue of being born in a first world nation, I would make you a bet your pay less any price of living (food shelter) would feed 100's of people. We ARE the few being raised too great heights on the backs of the many.
Ahh but you ARE in that situation, by very virtue of being born in a first world nation, I would make you a bet your pay less any price of living (food shelter) would feed 100's of people. We ARE the few being raised too great heights on the backs of the many.
That post alone has about 3 things I could start other threads about.
If you actually believe what you posted, you and I sir will never find common ground. I dont agree with any of what you just posted.
Because it was a stupid and arbitrary law - fetus comes out a little bit during the procedure and the abortionist could be in a huge legal conundrum even though if the fetus stayed inside the womb the entire time until after it was terminated it would have been A-OK.
Arbitrary laws are stupid, very few people support them. Look at how many people think blue laws about not selling alcohol on Sunday are stupid.
Tuss-Partial Birth Abortion is the name given to a medical procedure, I can only imagine that you are being freakishly disingenous.
Vaclav-I don't believe for an instant that this is the case. When the debate about this law was taking place the democrats made it quite clear that they viewed this as a threat to Roe vs. Wade even though it seeks to implement the very concept the Supreme Court Justices referenced in that case, viability (the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb).
Funny, Republicans are evil for valueing justice but Democrats are enlightened for wanting to kill babies.
Except that these what you call 'partial birth abortions' actually have a medical use. In some cases, when the child is born, complications can kill the mother. In such cases, this should be an option.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Muahaha! Not it aint. There is, however, a procedure known as Intact Dilation and Extraction. The term "partial-birth abortion" is a strictly political term used in the US and not really any other places.
...so you know exactly what the term refers to. Which means you're being disingenuous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure, but try explaining that or concepts like "certain inalienable rights" ("inalienable" as in "you don't lose them no matter what") to people who claim to be pro-life and following the ideals of the Founding Fathers...
Liberty is also "inalienable". Is prison therefore evil as well? Property is also "inalienable". Are fines therefore evil as well?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion".
Muahaha! Not it aint. There is, however, a procedure known as Intact Dilation and Extraction. The term "partial-birth abortion" is a strictly political term used in the US and not really any other places...
The term exists only to scare people into believing that THEY KILLING BABIES, they're birthing them halfway and murdering them! But that's wrong. There is a proper medical term for the procedure, free of scaremongering.
How things are talked about is half of the battle.
Just ftr, i acknowledge that the AMA has declared the term "partial birth abortion" off limits.
No doubt because "dilating the cervix, delivering the fetus halfway out the birth canal by pulling on one foot till the head gets stuck, then inserting a large bore needle into the skull to suck out brain tissue until the head small enough to squeeze out" didn't have as nice ring to it. Have I appreciably altered the meaning of the AMA's description below?
"Partial birth abortion" is the vernacular term, and even if "politically motivated", it's a far more accurate description than "intact dilation and extraction". Your original denial of its existence was disingenuous. It's a descriptive and accurate term, and people use it. And yes the name of the legislation is the "Partial Birth Abortion-ban"
Intact D&X is pure euphemism. The AMA of course is looking out for the interests of OBs, in their wording.
I won't debate abortion law here in this thread, but on the specific issue of "pro-life, pro death penalty = hypocrisy" accusation...
...Any specific stance on abortion is compatible with any particular stance on the death penalty.
And I am arguing this as a person who against death penalty (because of it's unfairness and errors in the system) and pro-legalized abortion (as a pragmatic matter).
Quote from H-5.982 in AMA »
H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques
(1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction" (or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.
(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
(3) The viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy. In the second-trimester when viability may be in question, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology.
Quote from Khorn Flakes »
Sure, but try explaining that or concepts like "certain inalienable rights" ("inalienable" as in "you don't lose them no matter what") to people who claim to be pro-life and following the ideals of the Founding Fathers...
Rights only extend up to the point where they conflict with somebody else's. Don't pretend not to understand that the pro-lifer sees a rights conflict between unborn baby and pregnant person.
Rodyle-The majority opinion of the medical community is that intact dilation and extraction has NO medical value. The bill contains a process by which a doctor can perform the procedure if he will give a reason why it is needed to protect the health and well being of the mother. This process has never been used to my knowledge and I suspect it never will be.
I'm so sick and tired of cheap BS like "religion is what's wrong with the world" then "oh but I don't want to sideline the thread so we'll just leave it at that."
I disagree.
I do not consider the application of the death penalty murder, anymore than I would consider shooting enemy combatants in war murder.
Considering that I find hanging, firing squads, and gas chambers humane...the advances in lethal injection just make it even more humane than it already was.
And since civilized societies have had dealth penalties for thousands of years, I'd really like to hear your argument as to how the DP is uncivilized.
It is something that must be done, because we live in a world with warring ideologies, and a world with sick pedophiles, murderers, and rapists.
I certainly don't want to live under the fascist rule of a tyrant, so I would take up arms and shoot him, or shoot whatever uniformed or nonuniformed defendants that stand between.
I certainly hate living in a world where child molesters are released in under 5 years and move in down the street from a school, or violent murders/rapists are released early and move in down the street.
So if the law would allow (and it doesn't, if I killed a local pedo, I'd do three times more time than they did), I'd be happy to pay them a visit.
When are liberal wimps like you ever going to learn that criminals LOVE our complacency??
Ohhh noes! dont killz ppl, dat makes u no better than dem!
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-04/justice/ohio.cleveland.bodies_1_strangulation-victims-smell?_s=PM:CRIME
I guess we have to wait for people to kill 10+ other human beings before we grow the balls to deal with them swiftly. The fact we had a guy like him locked up, then let him go, only to kill almost a dozen more people...some of that blood is on our hands. As a society, we should accept the responsibility that we must sometimes dispose of horrible people in a concrete way. The death penalty.
http://www.correctionsone.com/arrests-and-sentencing/articles/3228292-Convicted-man-rapes-again-in-NM-jail/
Oh, and they also rape even when incarcerated. But you know, prison is the perfect answer for every criminal
Some criminals don't even belong in prison with other criminals.
I have never liked that line. Because it IS hypocratic. I agree with you about that part.
However, I'm not killing a killer to show others that killing is wrong.
I'm killing a killer because the killer was wrong to kill.
The above line you quoted that always seems to get tossed around by light-on-crime wimpy liberals would apply more if the situation was applicable, but it is not.
If I was killing someone who killed in order to show that killing is wrong, I'd have to also kill a soldier who shot an enemy, kill a homeowner who killed an intruder, and then after all that kill myself for killing.
But this is not the case with the death penalty. We do not kill ALL killers to show that killing is wrong. We only kill the really heinous killers as a punishment for wrongly killing.
Killing isnt inherently wrong, there are plenty of right reasons to kill. Kill to defend the freedom of your countrymen, kill to protect your family from a home invader, or even - kill to punish wrongdoers.
When you kill for the wrong reasons, you should be punished, and in the great state of Texas, they still manage to do so even while surrounded by jello spined activists.
On a further note,
Rehab DOES work, but only on a minority percentage of criminals. Even a murderer can be rehabilitated. Anyone can. But the actual numbers show that rehab is a somewhat failing operation model. The return is falling far short of the investment. 60-70% or more reoffend in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
http://ezinearticles.com/?Criminal-Rehabilitation---Working-Towards-A-Better-Life-For-Inmates-And-Their-Families&id=455250
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/h0079197/abstract
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/rehab.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/354644/once_a_criminal_always_a_criminal_rehabilitation.html?cat=17
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So you're German? Being American, this reminds me of something.
Broad associations do not an argument make.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This we agree on.
I am German also. Even had relatives on the German side in WWII. Actually WWII was my families civil war. I had Uncles and cousins fighting on both sides. But no where did I say anything about killing because of religous beliefs or physical attributes.
The fact you feel its important that someone can use race to justify violent acts says alot about you. This type of case is the exact reason why we need the death penalty. You think the next guy who thinks about killing his girlfriend and the guy she is with is more or less inclined to do so when this guy gets death for doing it? I am willing to say the next guy will shy away from killing if they know they will too. The fact the state is even considering life in jail because his race makes him more violent just shows how stupid and weak our government has become. Also why wait 19 years before playing the race card? Seems like grasping at the 11th hour. He knows hes guilty, his lawyer knows hes guilty (says so in the piece) Now its time to pay for his knee jerk double homicide.
So someone who has been falsely convicted of one of these crimes should loose all rights?
Just because the number of false convictions is low doesn't mean we can ignore that weakness in the justice system. When contemplating whether or not a man deserves to die we have the responsibility to make sure guilt is absolute. If that means drawn out appeals and years on death row then so be it; an innocent put to death for a crime he didn't commit is a citizen the state has absolutely failed.
In this particular case it comes down not to whether or not he is guilty, but whether or not he is being executed partly because of his race. During sentencing he was charged as being likely to commit violence in the future because he is black. That's a heavy and quite unfounded accusation. If his punishment was decided even partly on this "evidence" then his entire punishment is tainted.
We don't execute the mentally retarded because they are mentally retarded. We shouldn't execute a black man because he is black. If he is to be executed it should be because of the severity of his crimes. If the statement that his race would influence his propensity for violence hadn't been uttered during the sentencing portion of his crime then there wouldn't be any questions about if he was being executed because he was black. Would he have still been sentence to die? Possibly. All we do know is that there is the possibility he is being executed partly because of his race. That is the problem.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
In short, until they can prove their innocents, yes they should lose their rights. Thats why the appeals process is in place. I disagree with putting 1 innocent person to death is failure. If you put 9 other people to death that were guilty and 1 that may or may not have been, I am fine with that. We have to put the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Once we start focusing on the few we will fail as a society.
I read that article different then you. I read he should be looked at different because of his race. His guilt was never in question. He killed 2 people. I dont care if he is black, white, purple, yellow, or rainbow colored... he needs to be put to death and move on to the next case.
Its VERY easy too say that but extremely hard too live it. If you believe in this truly believe the needs of the many > needs of the few, Prove it. Tell me how you would react if it was your mother, your son, YOU. Would you willingly walk in too a death chamber if you knew your death was going too cause the death of 9 other guilty people?
So every right but the right to appeal?
That's where you and I differ. I believe the state exists to protect those who can't protect themselves. The majority will take care of themselves or each other. It's the ones that the majority has refused to help and have no capacity to help themselves that need the state's protection the most. Prisoners fall into this category easily since they are in effect wards of the state.
You're approaching this from the angle that all murders deserve execution. With that position his appeal does appear pointless. But if you believe a prisoner should be executed solely based on the severity of his or her crimes it becomes a test of justice. We can't know whether the sentencing took the tainted testimony into account when determining punishment. To be safe he deserves a re-sentencing without the insinuations of race = violence. If he gets the death penalty again then the system as setup will remain sound. To do otherwise creates a crack and besmirches the concept of justice.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I have never been in the position so I can not honestly say.
I can say I have relatives in prison that deserve to be put to death for the actions that got them there. I listen to other family memebers cry and complain they got this cousin all wrong or that nephew, but in reality they are evil vicious people that need to be put to death. This is my blood that I grew up with.
I think this is where our differences start. To me the state exsits for the many, not the few.
I believe guilt is proven, and in this case not denied, the sentencing is just a formality. He lives in Texas, murder carries the death penalty, there should be no question on race, color or creed.
Ahh but you ARE in that situation, by very virtue of being born in a first world nation, I would make you a bet your pay less any price of living (food shelter) would feed 100's of people. We ARE the few being raised too great heights on the backs of the many.
That post alone has about 3 things I could start other threads about.
If you actually believe what you posted, you and I sir will never find common ground. I dont agree with any of what you just posted.
Funny, Republicans are evil for valueing justice but Democrats are enlightened for wanting to kill babies.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Because it was a stupid and arbitrary law - fetus comes out a little bit during the procedure and the abortionist could be in a huge legal conundrum even though if the fetus stayed inside the womb the entire time until after it was terminated it would have been A-OK.
Arbitrary laws are stupid, very few people support them. Look at how many people think blue laws about not selling alcohol on Sunday are stupid.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Vaclav-I don't believe for an instant that this is the case. When the debate about this law was taking place the democrats made it quite clear that they viewed this as a threat to Roe vs. Wade even though it seeks to implement the very concept the Supreme Court Justices referenced in that case, viability (the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb).
Except that these what you call 'partial birth abortions' actually have a medical use. In some cases, when the child is born, complications can kill the mother. In such cases, this should be an option.
...so you know exactly what the term refers to. Which means you're being disingenuous.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Might just be easier to yank out the stuff into a separate thread on abortion.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Liberty is also "inalienable". Is prison therefore evil as well? Property is also "inalienable". Are fines therefore evil as well?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No doubt because "dilating the cervix, delivering the fetus halfway out the birth canal by pulling on one foot till the head gets stuck, then inserting a large bore needle into the skull to suck out brain tissue until the head small enough to squeeze out" didn't have as nice ring to it. Have I appreciably altered the meaning of the AMA's description below?
"Partial birth abortion" is the vernacular term, and even if "politically motivated", it's a far more accurate description than "intact dilation and extraction". Your original denial of its existence was disingenuous. It's a descriptive and accurate term, and people use it. And yes the name of the legislation is the "Partial Birth Abortion-ban"
Intact D&X is pure euphemism. The AMA of course is looking out for the interests of OBs, in their wording.
I won't debate abortion law here in this thread, but on the specific issue of "pro-life, pro death penalty = hypocrisy" accusation...
...Any specific stance on abortion is compatible with any particular stance on the death penalty.
And I am arguing this as a person who against death penalty (because of it's unfairness and errors in the system) and pro-legalized abortion (as a pragmatic matter).
Rights only extend up to the point where they conflict with somebody else's. Don't pretend not to understand that the pro-lifer sees a rights conflict between unborn baby and pregnant person.
I'm so sick and tired of cheap BS like "religion is what's wrong with the world" then "oh but I don't want to sideline the thread so we'll just leave it at that."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't buy that rights are inalienable. Rights are granted, not inherent.