Very Sad Story

[Dos Equis]

It doesn't take a smart person to recognize a hypocrite. Hope this helps.

Obviously not. 

And how exactly am I not practicing what I preach? 

[Straw Man]

I gotta say I really get a kick out of Christians who are pro-capital punishment and pro-war. 

As Bill Hicks used to say - "It's a hoot"

[Decker]

I don't want to do the dance of the seven veils with this topic so I'll make my point.  If anti-abortionists claim that killing the fetus is wrong, then they must have a qualitative point as to why it is wrong...as to why it differs from killing convicts or innocent Iraqis.

That's got to be a heck of a point.  We kill convicts as punishment for crimes.  Seems plausible.

I mean what crime has a fetus committed?

By that same token of thought, what crime have the Iraqi people committed to deserve death at the hands of the american military?

There's the word!  Deserve. 

Some people deserve to die and others do not.  hmmmm.  I'd like to continue this but it's about time for me to go home.  It's after 6:30 here in Milwaukee and I hope my wife has dinner on the table.

I deserve that.

[Colossus_500]

If the co-founder of the lobbyist group NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who took part in some 75,000 abortions spends his time denouncing abortion, then I'd be more inclined to listen to him than the weak arguments that I've read here.  Look him up, read his story. 

[calmus]

If the co-founder of the lobbyist group NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who took part in some 75,000 abortions spends his time denouncing abortion, then I'd be more inclined to listen to him than the weak arguments that I've read here.  Look him up, read his story. 

No one in their right mind thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. 

we're just pointing out that it's hypocritical to decide that the price you and your ilk put on human life is the right one.

[Dos Equis]

I don't want to do the dance of the seven veils with this topic so I'll make my point.  If anti-abortionists claim that killing the fetus is wrong, then they must have a qualitative point as to why it is wrong...as to why it differs from killing convicts or innocent Iraqis.

That's got to be a heck of a point.  We kill convicts as punishment for crimes.  Seems plausible.

I mean what crime has a fetus committed?

By that same token of thought, what crime have the Iraqi people committed to deserve death at the hands of the american military?

There's the word!  Deserve. 

Some people deserve to die and others do not.  hmmmm.  I'd like to continue this but it's about time for me to go home.  It's after 6:30 here in Milwaukee and I hope my wife has dinner on the table.

I deserve that.

Regarding capital punishment, the obvious distinction is due process.  Babies get none.  Convicted killers get plenty. 

[Decker]

Regarding capital punishment, the obvious distinction is due process.  Babies get none.  Convicted killers get plenty. 

So you are saying that the reason for killing a person is important in your moral code?

Convicted killers should die for the reason that they are convicted killers.  Right?

How does that square with your support of the Iraqi killings?

They are innocent.  They had no 'due process' of law.  Oh wait, they did--the UN inspections that all interested countries agreed to.  The inspections that Pres. Bush single-handedly stopped by ordering the invasion.

How can you oppose the killing of an innocent baby yet support the killing of innocents in Iraq?

[~flower~]

If she said in the hospital that she didn't want to do it, they should not have done it and sent her home to think about it.

 I think in the US they wouldn't of done the procedure if anyone said they were unsure, let alone that they didn't want to.

[Deicide]

If she said in the hospital that she didn't want to do it, they should not have done it and sent her home to think about it.

 I think in the US they wouldn't of done the procedure if anyone said they were unsure, let alone that they didn't want to.

From the spoken word, to the written one on screen, this construct seems to have totally infected American English in my absence. It is very sad.

[Deicide]

So you are saying that the reason for killing a person is important in your moral code?

Convicted killers should die for the reason that they are convicted killers.  Right?

How does that square with your support of the Iraqi killings?

They are innocent.  They had no 'due process' of law.  Oh wait, they did--the UN inspections that all interested countries agreed to.  The inspections that Pres. Bush single-handedly stopped by ordering the invasion.

How can you oppose the killing of an innocent baby yet support the killing of innocents in Iraq?

Arguing with fundies is a bit like arguing with a solid brick wall, save that the wall provides greater variation in its opposition.

[Dos Equis]

So you are saying that the reason for killing a person is important in your moral code?

Convicted killers should die for the reason that they are convicted killers.  Right?

How does that square with your support of the Iraqi killings?

They are innocent.  They had no 'due process' of law.  Oh wait, they did--the UN inspections that all interested countries agreed to.  The inspections that Pres. Bush single-handedly stopped by ordering the invasion.

How can you oppose the killing of an innocent baby yet support the killing of innocents in Iraq?

I'm saying according to the U.S. Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of life without due process of law . . . except when the person is still in the mother's womb. 

Convicted killers should die if they have committed a capital crime, are properly charged, tried, and convicted, and sentenced to death.  That's what the Constitution permits.   

War is a necessary evil.  When it is necessary to go to war, people die.  Has nothing to do with abortion.  I don't think most people support the intentional killing of innocent people in war.  Good thing that's not what we do.   

[Decker]

I'm saying according to the U.S. Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of life without due process of law . . . except when the person is still in the mother's womb. 

Convicted killers should die if they have committed a capital crime, are properly charged, tried, and convicted, and sentenced to death.  That's what the Constitution permits.   

War is a necessary evil.  When it is necessary to go to war, people die.  Has nothing to do with abortion.  I don't think most people support the intentional killing of innocent people in war.  Good thing that's not what we do.   

The binding tie here is killing. 

We've established that you hate one kind of killing but support other kinds of killing.  These are apt comparisons--abortion to war to execution--they are all forms of killing.

Due process applies to 'people' under the constitution.  A Fetus does not have standing as a 'person'.  In other parts of the constitution, children are not 'people' as well.

You still haven't addressed my question.

If the taking of fetal life is wrongful killing, since there is no due process, why is the killing in Iraq ok?  The Iraqi's had a sort of due process and were/are killed anyways.

I see an important inconsistency in your thinking.

[Straw Man]

Decker - good luck on this one.

A dog chasing it's own tail has a greater capacity for critical reasoning than certain lazy beach dwellers who post on this site.

[Dos Equis]

The binding tie here is killing. 

We've established that you hate one kind of killing but support other kinds of killing.  These are apt comparisons--abortion to war to execution--they are all forms of killing.

Due process applies to 'people' under the constitution.  A Fetus does not have standing as a 'person'.  In other parts of the constitution, children are not 'people' as well.

You still haven't addressed my question.

If the taking of fetal life is wrongful killing, since there is no due process, why is the killing in Iraq ok?  The Iraqi's had a sort of due process and were/are killed anyways.

I see an important inconsistency in your thinking.

The distinctions here are due process and intentional killing. 

An unborn child is a person, whether it is defined as such under the law or not.  Just like you and I are persons, whether the law defines us as persons or not (and yes I know the law makes a distinction).  That's the difference between abortion and capital punishment.  A person who commits a heinous crime gets the benefit of a public trial at taxpayer expense, a lawyer at taxpayer expense, a judge and jury, countless appeals at taxpayer expense, access to taxpayer funded law libraries (you should visit a prison sometimes; they might have a better law library than you), and in the end they may lose their life based on their crime after this due process is completed.  Unborn babies don't have this benefit.  Really no comparison at all. 

War is self defense.  We have rules of engagement.  No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war.  If they are, the person doing the killing is treated like any other criminal.  For example:   
     
"HONOLULU -- A Schofield Barracks soldier accused of shooting and killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian to death was convicted of assault on Wednesday."   
http://www.kitv.com/news/15362837/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news

You take the position that all killing is wrong.  I don't.  I think murder is wrong.   

[Straw Man]

The ironic and hilarious part of devout Chrisians who are pro-capital punishment is the contrast of all the historical figures in their religion who were tried and killed by the government of their own times for crimes against the state.   

Let's see, there was Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul and no doubt countless thousands of others who we know nothing about.  All tried, convicted and executed in courts that were the standards of their own time.   

Then there are those pesky and inconvenient teachings of Jesus about loving your enemy that keep getting in the way or those supposed words directly from God about not killing.

You'd think the safe bet would be to just not kill anything

[calmus]

An unborn child is a person, whether it is defined as such under the law or not. 

Hahaha, first this douche brings up due process, then he's like, let's ignore the law.

[Decker]

The distinctions here are due process and intentional killing. 

An unborn child is a person, whether it is defined as such under the law or not.  Just like you and I are persons, whether the law defines us as persons or not (and yes I know the law makes a distinction).  That's the difference between abortion and capital punishment.  ....  Really no comparison at all. 

I understand this.  But there is a comparison basis--the dead bodies.  Your rationalizations are sound though.

War is self defense.  We have rules of engagement.  No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war.  If they are, the person doing the killing is treated like any other criminal.  For example:   
     
"HONOLULU -- A Schofield Barracks soldier accused of shooting and killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian to death was convicted of assault on Wednesday."   
http://www.kitv.com/news/15362837/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news

You take the position that all killing is wrong.  I don't.  I think murder is wrong.   

At the moment, I believe in self-defense so I would contend your statement that I am against all killings is wrong.

Here's where we run into a problem.  You talk about Iraq as if it is a normal, justified use of military force.

War has never been declared on Iraq by the US.  The use of force (The Invasion) ordered by President Bush was contrary to international law--it flew in the face of UN Resolutioni 1441.  And the US was not defending itself from an Iraqi attack on us, an ally or on our property interests.

Now you say that the reasons for killing make a difference, right?

If we are killing Iraqis for the wrong reason(s), how can you support those killings in IRaq? 

The reasons for killing make a difference.  Right?

[Straw Man]

I understand this.  But there is a comparison basis--the dead bodies.  Your rationalizations are sound though.

there's nothing sound about Bum's rationalization (can rationalization ever be sound?)

He's a devout Christian who doesn't have any problem with killing - provided the circumstances suit his needs

You take the position that all killing is wrong.  I don't.  I think murder is wrong.   

[Dos Equis]

I understand this.  But there is a comparison basis--the dead bodies.  Your rationalizations are sound though.
At the moment, I believe in self-defense so I would contend your statement that I am against all killings is wrong.

Here's where we run into a problem.  You talk about Iraq as if it is a normal, justified use of military force.

War has never been declared on Iraq by the US.  The use of force (The Invasion) ordered by President Bush was contrary to international law--it flew in the face of UN Resolutioni 1441.  And the US was not defending itself from an Iraqi attack on us, an ally or on our property interests.

Now you say that the reasons for killing make a difference, right?

If we are killing Iraqis for the wrong reason(s), how can you support those killings in IRaq? 

The reasons for killing make a difference.  Right?

We agree that killing in self defense isn't "wrong."

I disagree about the war.  We've already gone back and forth on whether the war was justified.  I think it was.  I don't think it was managed properly, but I supported the decision to remove Saddam.  The people we intentionally killed in war were combatants, based on our rules of engagement.  I think most of the non-combatants have been killed by insurgents.  To the extent we unintentionally killed noncombatants, that isn't murder.  Happens in every war.  If the unintentional killing of noncombatants were the standard, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.  

Yes, the reason for killing makes a difference.  Depending on the "reasons," a killing can be murder, an accident, etc.    
  

[calmus]

Yes, the reason for killing makes a difference.  Depending on the "reasons," a killing can be murder, an accident, etc.    
  

It's a good thing that your old buddy, God, sanctifies whatever rationalization your ilk comes up with for killing.

[~flower~]

From the spoken word, to the written one on screen, this construct seems to have totally infected American English in my absence. It is very sad.

  great, another goatboy    

[Decker]

We agree that killing in self defense isn't "wrong."

I disagree about the war.  We've already gone back and forth on whether the war was justified.  I think it was.  I don't think it was managed properly, but I supported the decision to remove Saddam.  The people we intentionally killed in war were combatants, based on our rules of engagement.  I think most of the non-combatants have been killed by insurgents.  To the extent we unintentionally killed noncombatants, that isn't murder.  Happens in every war.  If the unintentional killing of noncombatants were the standard, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.  

Yes, the reason for killing makes a difference.  Depending on the "reasons," a killing can be murder, an accident, etc.    
  

You say that you think the war was justified.  But you don't say why?  Why do the Iraqis deserve to die...like why does a fetus deserve to die in an abortion?

MisManaging the war and starting the war in the first place are two entirely different things.

You thought that Hussein should be removed from power.  That's terrific.  It's wholly illegal, i.e., a poor justification.  So innocent lives should end b/c you want a certain leader removed from his position?

And that's fine with you?

How do you justify the continued occupation and killing of Iraqis?  The same way you justified the removal of Hussein.  You've constructed "insurgents" that must die.

The insurgents are Iraqi.

So I'll ask you again, why do you support killing Iraqis?

They didn't attack us and they defend themselves from the US's attack, occupation and plunder of their country.

Killing is happening in Iraq and you support it.  Why? 

You should be consistent with your stance on abortion in this matter of killing.  Life is life.

[Dos Equis]

You say that you think the war was justified.  But you don't say why?  Why do the Iraqis deserve to die...like why does a fetus deserve to die in an abortion?

MisManaging the war and starting the war in the first place are two entirely different things.

You thought that Hussein should be removed from power.  That's terrific.  It's wholly illegal, i.e., a poor justification.  So innocent lives should end b/c you want a certain leader removed from his position?

And that's fine with you?

How do you justify the continued occupation and killing of Iraqis?  The same way you justified the removal of Hussein.  You've constructed "insurgents" that must die.

The insurgents are Iraqi.

So I'll ask you again, why do you support killing Iraqis?

They didn't attack us and they defend themselves from the US's attack, occupation and plunder of their country.

Killing is happening in Iraq and you support it.  Why? 

You should be consistent with your stance on abortion in this matter of killing.  Life is life.

Dude, we have discussed the justification, or lack thereof, for the war numerous times.  You believe it is "illegal."  I don't. 

We aren't intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, so your question is based on a false premise.  And who said innocent Iraqis deserve to die? 

There is nothing inconsistent about being opposed to murder.  Killing combatants in war is not murder.  The unintentional killing of noncombatants in war is not murder.  No comparison to abortion at all.   

[Decker]

Dude, we have discussed the justification, or lack thereof, for the war numerous times.  You believe it is "illegal."  I don't. 

You haven't answered the question.  The legality of the war is not open to your belief.  Either you can point to governing law or you cannot.  I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441.  You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."

Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?

We aren't intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, so your question is based on a false premise.  And who said innocent Iraqis deserve to die? 

The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend. 

You said "War is self defense.  We have rules of engagement.  No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."

The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me. 

And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.

There is nothing inconsistent about being opposed to murder.  Killing combatants in war is not murder.  The unintentional killing of noncombatants in war is not murder.  No comparison to abortion at all. 

By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong.  The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation.  Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings.  So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.

If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified.  That my friend is murder.  Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence. 

This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.

 

[OzmO]

You haven't answered the question.  The legality of the war is not open to your belief.  Either you can point to governing law or you cannot.  I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441.  You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."

Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?
The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend. 

You said "War is self defense.  We have rules of engagement.  No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."

The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me. 

And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.
By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong.  The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation.  Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings.  So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.

If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified.  That my friend is murder.  Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence. 

This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.

 

Well put, using that logic. 

Although i don't completely agree, In my mind, even though Abortion is legal, it's still murder and even if the Iraq war was "authorized" by the UN or War was "officially declared by congress", invading a country unprovoked is wrong.