The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[*Nately120*]

(07-02-2015, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Don't forget about your control over the banking industry and Hollywood.

Yea, in that area it's all too obvious I'm a broke Italian punk.

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2015, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you are thinking like a Pharisee.

Didn't the people who only worked in the vineyard for an hour get the same pay as the people who worked all day?

This parable illustrates that regardless when you come to the Lord you receive the equal reward of Salvation. It doesn't matter if you accept Christ at a young age or on your deathbed.

 
 I appreciate your insight to my thought process and keep it up; you might talk me out of believing. 

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2015, 12:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In all seriousness, a Christian should still not overlook the OT. Maybe it's not to be used as a guidebook per se, but it can deepen our understanding of Jesus and His disciple's teachings and strengthen our relationship with God.

In all seriousness if you take off your blinders you will see that the god of the OT was an insecure, racist, misogynistic, bloodthirsty, baby-killing sociopath.  There is noting "divine" about him.  Every action he took was exactly what a power mad human would do instead of an all loving god.

[*Nately120*]

(07-02-2015, 02:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In all seriousness if you take off your blinders you will see that the god of the OT was an insecure, racist, misogynistic, bloodthirsty, baby-killing sociopath.  There is noting "divine" about him.  Every action he took was exactly what a power mad human would do instead of an all loving god.

Let's just agree Jesus is the almighty king of PR, then.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-30-2015, 02:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, once it can feasibly survive outside of the womb is where I'd draw the line philosophically.

An infant can't feasibly survive outside the womb without someone to care for it. Kinda the same as when it's inside its mother.

It's all semantical BS to support a stance.

I was pretty mature at a young age. I could have gotten by completely on my own when i was somewhere in the 3-5 year old range. If the argument is survival, maybe the cutoff for abortions should be...let's say for argument...6 years old?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-07-2015, 03:59 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: An infant can't feasibly survive outside the womb without someone to care for it. Kinda the same as when it's inside its mother.

It's all semantical BS to support a stance.

I was pretty mature at a young age. I could have gotten by completely on my own when i was somewhere in the 3-5 year old range. If the argument is survival, maybe the cutoff for abortions should be...let's say for argument...6 years old?

He would probably have no problem aborting a 6 year old... Especially if the mother felt Inconvienenced. After all it's all about the mother and whether she is put out or not.

[Belsnickel]

(07-07-2015, 03:59 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: An infant can't feasibly survive outside the womb without someone to care for it. Kinda the same as when it's inside its mother.

It's all semantical BS to support a stance.

I was pretty mature at a young age. I could have gotten by completely on my own when i was somewhere in the 3-5 year old range. If the argument is survival, maybe the cutoff for abortions should be...let's say for argument...6 years old?

So you don't see the difference between an embryo/fetus surviving outside the womb and an infant or a toddler? Does the normal, healthy infant need assistance breathing? Their heart pumping? Do they require their nutrients to be given via stomach pump (essentially) or are they able to ingest them? These are the things that would be needed to give a healthy embryo/fetus prior to the third trimester even a chance to live, and in most cases it wouldn't succeed. You call it BS Semantics, but your position here is extremely fallacious.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2015, 04:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He would probably have no problem aborting a 6 year old... Especially if the mother felt Inconvienenced.   After all it's all about the mother and whether she is put out or not.

Actually that's usually someone who says "God told them to do it..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/god-told-me-to-do-it/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325725/Nantucket-mother-Dora-Tejada-murdered-daughter-God-told-NOT-guilty.html
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Lawyer-says-Mom-thought-God-told-2496250.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285932/Debra-Denison-God-spared-13-year-old-son-Mentally-ill-grandmother-fine-picked-grandsons-murder-suicide-suicide-note-reveals-God-told-kill-son.html


THEN they claim they are mentally ill.  

[GMDino]

(07-07-2015, 03:59 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: An infant can't feasibly survive outside the womb without someone to care for it. Kinda the same as when it's inside its mother.

It's all semantical BS to support a stance.

I was pretty mature at a young age. I could have gotten by completely on my own when i was somewhere in the 3-5 year old range. If the argument is survival, maybe the cutoff for abortions should be...let's say for argument...6 years old?

(07-07-2015, 07:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you don't see the difference between an embryo/fetus surviving outside the womb and an infant or a toddler? Does the normal, healthy infant need assistance breathing? Their heart pumping? Do they require their nutrients to be given via stomach pump (essentially) or are they able to ingest them? These are the things that would be needed to give a healthy embryo/fetus prior to the third trimester even a chance to live, and in most cases it wouldn't succeed. You call it BS Semantics, but your position here is extremely fallacious.

Both of my children were born prematurely.  26 weeks.  If you'd like to know the amount of time and money and effort it takes to keep a baby alive at that point I'd be glad to explain.

I support that abortion is a horrible, terrible decision that must be made by the mother and (hopefully) father of the fetus.  But lets stop pretending that a fetus (baby/child) can just "survive" at any point so it the exact same thing as killing a 6 year old.

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 03:59 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: An infant can't feasibly survive outside the womb without someone to care for it. Kinda the same as when it's inside its mother.

It's all semantical BS to support a stance.

I was pretty mature at a young age. I could have gotten by completely on my own when i was somewhere in the 3-5 year old range. If the argument is survival, maybe the cutoff for abortions should be...let's say for argument...6 years old?

That makes no sense and you clearly had some trouble reading my post. If you were to remove a fetus from the womb 6 weeks into pregnancy, it would have no chance of surviving. If you were to remove it 8 months into the pregnancy, it could.

That's the whole thing the justices said in Roe about drawing the line.

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 04:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He would probably have no problem aborting a 6 year old... Especially if the mother felt Inconvienenced.   After all it's all about the mother and whether she is put out or not.

I'm just agreeing with the Libertarian Party's official position. Not really a surprised that you don't understand the positions of the Libertarian Party.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-07-2015, 11:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That makes no sense and you clearly had some trouble reading my post. If you were to remove a fetus from the womb 6 weeks into pregnancy, it would have no chance of surviving. If you were to remove it 8 months into the pregnancy, it could.

That's the whole thing the justices said in Roe about drawing the line.

No human baby can survive on its own. Regardless of when he or she is born. So, if your only criteria for support of abortion is survivability, then let me assure you that no human child born ever was able to survive without some kind of assistance from its parents and/or caretakers.

Thus, you'll probably redefine "survive" to being able to breathe on its own or pump its own blood. Well, guess what, most babies born prematurely require some medical assistance in order to "survive". My youngest was born a month early and required an incubator. She also had jaundice and required an UV blanket. I know of other premature babies that required ventilators as well.

And what about those that are born full term but still require assistance due to some kind of illness or birth defect? It's okay to kill them because they can't survive on their own? C'mon now.

[*Nately120*]

(07-07-2015, 08:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Actually that's usually someone who says "God told them to do it..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/god-told-me-to-do-it/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325725/Nantucket-mother-Dora-Tejada-murdered-daughter-God-told-NOT-guilty.html
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Lawyer-says-Mom-thought-God-told-2496250.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285932/Debra-Denison-God-spared-13-year-old-son-Mentally-ill-grandmother-fine-picked-grandsons-murder-suicide-suicide-note-reveals-God-told-kill-son.html


THEN they claim they are mentally ill.  

Can't prove he didn't tell them to do it.  Next case!

[Belsnickel]

(07-07-2015, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No human baby can survive on its own. Regardless of when he or she is born. So, if your only criteria for support of abortion is survivability, then let me assure you that no human child born ever was able to survive without some kind of assistance from its parents and/or caretakers.

Thus, you'll probably redefine "survive" to being able to breathe on its own or pump its own blood. Well, guess what, most babies born prematurely require some medical assistance in order to "survive". My youngest was born a month early and required an incubator. She also had jaundice and required an UV blanket. I know of other premature babies that required ventilators as well.

And what about those that are born full term but still require assistance due to some kind of illness or birth defect? It's okay to kill them because they can't survive on their own? C'mon now.

I knew the argument about the premature births and unhealthy newborns would come up, which is why in my post I specified healthy, normal infants. There are any number of variables you can throw in there, but then you just generate false equivalencies. A healthy, full term newborn/infant can breath, circulate blood, and intake nutrition without the aid of medical equipment. A fetus prior to the third trimester, if removed from the womb, would require medical assistance for these things, guaranteed. What's not a guarantee is that even with those advances in medical technology that it would survive.

Full term in comparison with a fetus up to about week 24, everything else constant, the fetus is going to die without medical intervention. It's even likely to die with medical intervention up until about week 24.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 07:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you don't see the difference between an embryo/fetus surviving outside the womb and an infant or a toddler? Does the normal, healthy infant need assistance breathing? Their heart pumping? Do they require their nutrients to be given via stomach pump (essentially) or are they able to ingest them? These are the things that would be needed to give a healthy embryo/fetus prior to the third trimester even a chance to live, and in most cases it wouldn't succeed. You call it BS Semantics, but your position here is extremely fallacious.

(07-07-2015, 08:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Both of my children were born prematurely.  26 weeks.  If you'd like to know the amount of time and money and effort it takes to keep a baby alive at that point I'd be glad to explain.

I support that abortion is a horrible, terrible decision that must be made by the mother and (hopefully) father of the fetus.  But lets stop pretending that a fetus (baby/child) can just "survive" at any point so it the exact same thing as killing a 6 year old.

There's no denying that a fetus and a newborn/infant are not the same thing. That's not up for debate. I understand the need to form a line if abortion is going to be legal and i doubt anyone here would disagree that it's a bad idea for pregnant women to be going to back alley "doctors" or whomever to have an abortion. It's not my job to judge a person and how they live their life or on the decisions they make. I'm not talking about pro-life/pro-choice and i'm certainly not trying to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. 

I have a problem with the 'fetus/person' debate, that's my whole point. When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it sets into action a chain of events that will eventually lead to a person, providing there are no complications/accidents/miscarriages. The debate on when a "lump of cells" becomes a person isn't honest because it's the act of ending the process that doesn't allow that lump to become a person. Beyond that, as i stated, neither a fetus nor a newborn/infant can survive on its own without assistance from it's mother or caregiver. It's semantics and rationalization because it's based on time. If that fetus that can't live outside the womb on its own were left to grow, it would eventually become a living, breathing thing. Intervention, based on time, is not a rational or logical base of argument because it takes an active role in ending what would have become a person. 

It's an argument that's there to make a person feel better about their decision. 

Trying to suppose that i don't know/see the difference between a fetus and a 6 year old is a nonstarter and a diversion from the point of my post.

(07-07-2015, 11:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That makes no sense and you clearly had some trouble reading my post. If you were to remove a fetus from the womb 6 weeks into pregnancy, it would have no chance of surviving. If you were to remove it 8 months into the pregnancy, it could.

That's the whole thing the justices said in Roe about drawing the line.

I didn't have any trouble readin' yo shit. To your point; wow! an 8 month old fetus could survive for a matter of hours or a couple days longer than a 6 week old fetus could. That's strong, dawg.

Like i said, i get 'the line' and what it's meant to do. I disagree with the argument of 1st trimester fetus vs newborn. They both die in short order if not cared for.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 01:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I knew the argument about the premature births and unhealthy newborns would come up, which is why in my post I specified healthy, normal infants. There are any number of variables you can throw in there, but then you just generate false equivalencies. A healthy, full term newborn/infant can breath, circulate blood, and intake nutrition without the aid of medical equipment. A fetus prior to the third trimester, if removed from the womb, would require medical assistance for these things, guaranteed. What's not a guarantee is that even with those advances in medical technology that it would survive.

Full term in comparison with a fetus up to about week 24, everything else constant, the fetus is going to die without medical intervention. It's even likely to die with medical intervention up until about week 24.

Still semantics. You're ending the process so that the fetus will not be able to become viable on it's own. 

Rationalization.


I wanted to add this to the end of my previous post, but forgot; 
I'd have a much easier time and be less argumentative if someone just said. Here's the line. You can abort before here but not after here. Health reasons, personal reasons...whatever. But don't (anyone) try to sit there and put a pretty bow on the reasoning by trying to tell me "it's not a real person yet". BS. Just make your decision and live with it. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-07-2015, 01:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I knew the argument about the premature births and unhealthy newborns would come up, which is why in my post I specified healthy, normal infants. There are any number of variables you can throw in there, but then you just generate false equivalencies. A healthy, full term newborn/infant can breath, circulate blood, and intake nutrition without the aid of medical equipment. A fetus prior to the third trimester, if removed from the womb, would require medical assistance for these things, guaranteed. What's not a guarantee is that even with those advances in medical technology that it would survive.

Full term in comparison with a fetus up to about week 24, everything else constant, the fetus is going to die without medical intervention. It's even likely to die with medical intervention up until about week 24.

So you're OK with killing a full term baby that requires medical assistance?

[*bfine32*]

(07-07-2015, 02:07 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Still semantics. You're ending the process so that the fetus will not be able to become viable on it's own. 

Rationalization.


I wanted to add this to the end of my previous post, but forgot; 
I'd have a much easier time and be less argumentative if someone just said. Here's the line. You can abort before here but not after here. Health reasons, personal reasons...whatever. But don't (anyone) try to sit there and put a pretty bow on the reasoning by trying to tell me "it's not a real person yet". BS. Just make your decision and live with it. 

I personally think it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent child that is thriving in his or her environment; regardless, of the environment.

Admittedly, I am ignoring the "rights" of the woman that got knocked up.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2015, 02:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're OK with killing a full term baby that requires medical assistance?

Everything I'd like to post in response to such an idiotic question would probably get me banned...at least for a while.

And it would almost be worth it.

:snark:

[GMDino]

(07-07-2015, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I personally think it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent child that is thriving in his or her environment; regardless, of the environment.

Admittedly, I am ignoring the "rights" of the woman that got knocked up.

Yes, silly women wanting "rights".