Abortion as a right?

[sitarro]

This might be too much of a tangent to the subject of the thread. It may need its own thread but I just wanted to post this as a challenge/reply for Hobbit.

Check out these cases of Innocence:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109

Please look at those people's stories. Really look at their pictures and completely read their stories. Don't just glance over it to just brush it off. Look and think about each human being listed there. After you have done that, post again that you are 100 percent behind the death penalty if you can. I just don't think that you can honestly do it.

By the way, the average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration is over 9 years. Wow! Just imagine if you were waiting that long to be executed for a crime that you did not commit.

But then of course you have. . .


O.J. Simpson

Born: July 9, 1947
Football RB
won Heisman Trophy in 1968 at USC; ran for 2,003 yards in NFL in 1973; All-Pro 5 times; MVP in 1973; rushed for 11,236 career yards;
TV analyst and actor after career ended; arrested June 17, 1994 as suspect in double murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her
friend Ronald Goldman; acquitted on Oct. 3, 1995 by a Los Angeles jury in criminal trial but forced to make financial reparations after
losing wrongful death suit.

 

[insein]

I'm practically ant-abortion and anti-capital-punishment. If all people who are executed for having been convicted of a crime warranting capital punishment did commit the crime, I would support the death penalty. I would rather have 1 million convicts spend hard life in jail than execute a truly innocent person.

I could agree with that if life meant LIFE. But on the surface, do you see the difference between one who has no self-defense and one who has made their own choices? (i realize you said you were anti-abortion) I just want to make sure its sounds as normal to others as it does to me.

 

[mattskramer]

I could agree with that if life meant LIFE. But on the surface, do you see the difference between one who has no self-defense and one who has made their own choices? (i realize you said you were anti-abortion) I just want to make sure its sounds as normal to others as it does to me.

Aside from opposing the death penalty, I think that I'm tough on crime. I'd bring back chain gangs and put prisoners to work. I'd sell the televisions, remove elective surgeries, and destroy many other fringe benefits that jailbirds have. Life in jail would mean life in jail - no early release based on good behavior. In its place I would institute tougher work based on bad behavior. And, yes, lifers would get life in jail. The only way that they could be free before their life ends is if irrefutable proof reveals that they did not commit the crime for which they were sentenced.

 

[no1tovote4]

Aside from opposing the death penalty, I think that I'm tough on crime. I'd bring back chain gangs and put prisoners to work. I'd sell the televisions, remove elective surgeries, and destroy many other fringe benefits that jailbirds have. Life in jail would mean life in jail - no early release based on good behavior. In its place I would institute tougher work based on bad behavior. And, yes, lifers would get life in jail. The only way that they could be free before their life ends is if irrefutable proof reveals that they did not commit the crime for which they were sentenced.

I would agree with this in most instances, except in the most heinous of crimes. Those I would reserve a nice 5'X4' cell with a 40 watt bulb and the holy book of their choice, never to leave again (except in the case of trials where they have a right to face their accuser) until they finally do leave in a shoebox as ashes, unless, of course, they are exonerated or freed on appeal.

 

[insein]

Aside from opposing the death penalty, I think that I'm tough on crime. I'd bring back chain gangs and put prisoners to work. I'd sell the televisions, remove elective surgeries, and destroy many other fringe benefits that jailbirds have. Life in jail would mean life in jail - no early release based on good behavior. In its place I would institute tougher work based on bad behavior. And, yes, lifers would get life in jail. The only way that they could be free before their life ends is if irrefutable proof reveals that they did not commit the crime for which they were sentenced.

That i can agree with. Death penalty to me is the ultimate judgement. To be used in only the most extreme cases. 1st degree murder, murder/rape, child murder, stealing from 401k's to make yourself rich . If institutions were meant to rehabilitate instead of make harder criminals, i would also be more apt to avoid capital punishment. Most of the time though these institutions create worse criminals then the ones they take in.

 

[deaddude]

Carrying that argument out, logically, hospitals should be out of business...as should rest homes, etc...



Believing life begins at conception isn't a matter of belief - it's a matter of science. Those who choose not to agree simply do so to make them feel less immoral.

Technically the sperm cell and the egg cell are alive, as long as you are talking science and all. Those who choose not to agree do so to make them feel less immoral when the masturbate.

 

[William Joyce]

You can't force your ideals upon others.

HOLY SHIT, lady! Have you been paying attention? Liberals have been forcing their ideals on us for quite some time now.

 

[hylandrdet]

Here is a story that a friend sent to me, a little something to think about for all of you abortion fans.

A picture began circulating in November. It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "Picture of the Decade." It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the US paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it. The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's rema rkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb. During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile. The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life." Little Samuel's mother said they "wept for days" when they saw the picture. She said, "The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person." Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful. Now see the actual picture, and it is awesome... incredible.... and hey, pass it on. The world needs to see this one!

Here's a thought for all you pro life fans.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439_1206.asp

So what you saying is that because a doctor managed to save one life, from an abortion, using an expensive and risky procedure, we should ban abortion.

I agree, as soon as you are willing to pay the taxes necessary to have every women, who is in such a position, to have the procedure.

Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. You want to save these lives; fine, pay for it!

 

[MissileMan]

Here's a thought for all you pro life fans.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439_1206.asp

So what you saying is that because a doctor managed to save one life, from an abortion, using an expensive and risky procedure, we should ban abortion.

I agree, as soon as you are willing to pay the taxes necessary to have every women, who is in such a position, to have the procedure.

Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. You want to save these lives; fine, pay for it!

This was an amazing story about in-utero surgery. It was being presented as evidence of why we need to abolish abortion. After all, how can anyone still be for abortion after witnessing a 2nd trimester fetus reach out of the uterus and thank the doctor for saving it's life by shaking his hand. While it's true that a picture is worth a thousand words, one should be careful not to let a captionist with an agenda cause the words to deceive one's own eyes.

 

[sitarro]

This was an amazing story about in-utero surgery. It was being presented as evidence of why we need to abolish abortion. After all, how can anyone still be for abortion after witnessing a 2nd trimester fetus reach out of the uterus and thank the doctor for saving it's life by shaking his hand. While it's true that a picture is worth a thousand words, one should be careful not to let a captionist with an agenda cause the words to deceive one's own eyes.

If you read the entire account from the phtographer's website you find out that the surgeon was getting paid by life magazine for a cover story about the procedure and was going to stage the photograph. The series of photos that this one came from was taken before the staged shoot was schedueled to take place . The photographer tried to get Life to publish his shots but that didn't happen . The surgeon disclaimed the story by the photographer which ended his career as a photo-journalist . He went on to scoop Life by getting the shots published in Europe and a few places here and life ended burying their original "cover "story with the surgeon deep in the magazine.It comes down to who you believe . I saw the series of shots and the babies fist is sticking out of the womb on it's own .The doctor claims to have grabbed it for the photograph. The doctor and his ego lost out on the cover of Life Magazine, my guess would be that he isn't pleased with the photographer.

 

[hylandrdet]

This was an amazing story about in-utero surgery. It was being presented as evidence of why we need to abolish abortion. After all, how can anyone still be for abortion after witnessing a 2nd trimester fetus reach out of the uterus and thank the doctor for saving it's life by shaking his hand. While it's true that a picture is worth a thousand words, one should be careful not to let a captionist with an agenda cause the words to deceive one's own eyes.

I'm not crapping on the story itself; I'm in awe of the story. However, we must remind ourselves that this is a rare case and it should not be portrayed as the medical alternative to abortion until it is proven to be effective and affordable for every women.

I still call for an overhaul of the foster care system; it is no use to save the life of a child if the current system ultimately leads them to a spiritual death as the result of either abuse, neglect or legal battles.

Abortion will ultimately be abolish as soon as we get our shit straight as to how we'll "save" these children, after we "save" them!

Sorry for the "Yogi" lingo, couldn't help it.

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not crapping on the story itself; I'm in awe of the story. However, we must remind ourselves that this is a rare case and it should not be portrayed as the medical alternative to abortion until it is proven to be effective and affordable for every women.

I still call for an overhaul of the foster care system; it is no use to save the life of a child if the current system ultimately leads them to a spiritual death as the result of either abuse, neglect or legal battles.

Abortion will ultimately be abolish as soon as we get our shit straight as to how we'll "save" these children, after we "save" them!

Sorry for the "Yogi" lingo, couldn't help it.

Ok, I get what you're saying. If this procedure had not been available, that the best alternative for the fetus would have been abortion. Under certain medical conditions, that's an appropriate stand.

 

[Trillian]

I think abortion is ok, for the right reasons. But, I do feel that some people are having them too far into the pregnancy that isn't right.