Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

You were the one bringing up the idea that lives and the takings of life are not all equal.

Was I now, my dear quatona? I can't remember exactly where I said that so if you want to point out the exact part that says that?
*is curious*
If I said something I didn't mean I'd like to know about it.

 

[quatona]

Was I now, my dear quatona?

Yes, honey.

I can't remember exactly where I said that so if you want to point out the exact part that says that?
*is curious*
If I said something I didn't mean I'd like to know about it.

Your entire argument so far rested on your assertion that people can forfeit their right to live, i.e. that some lives can be taken and others can´t.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

I feel that the only right given up by being convicted of a crime is the "right to freedom".
Because murderers are not equal. Most human killings are crimes of passion, they are done as a reaction to something horrible happening. People who kill in the spur of the moment are usually not likely to kill again. They usually serve a long jail/prison sentence and are released. They really don't pose a threat to others.

But it is still murder, is it not?

Some murderers are clinically insane (I personally feel that one has to be somewhat crazy to even think of killing another person). They are delusional and sometimes can be treated with medication. Such people are usually court ordered into State or Private mental health institutions, and I believe that many of them live out their lives there.

I'm not really speaking of those who can't make a coherent choice due to mental illness.
I'm speaking of those who know right and wrong, and choose to do the wrong anyway.

Some murderers commit hate crimes.

No such thing as a "hate" crime, IMO.

They are motivated by the hatred of a given group of people, and act out upon individuals they consider members of that group. They almost always pose a threat to the other members of that group. Such people are often given life in prison.

Yet it is still murder. A black spot is a black spot is a black spot.

And some murderers kill for other reasons, money, power, pleasure. They have numerous reasons. Really, every case needs to be considered separately, and punished as seen fit by a jury. That is, after all, why we have trial by jury. Because every case is different and needs to be carefully considered by itself.

Murder does not have varying degrees to it. Murder is just that, murder.
The end result is exactly the same no matter how the victim is killed.

 

[quatona]

Murder does not have varying degrees to it. Murder is just that, murder.
The end result is exactly the same no matter how the victim is killed.

If going by the end result (a person is killed) murder and death penalty are exactly the same, as well.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Yes, honey.

Your entire argument so far rested on your assertion that people can forfeit their right to live, i.e. that some lives can be taken and others can´t.

Quote me then. And state the contradiction.
*smiles like a rockstar*
Don't leave me in the dark to my own possible mistake.

 

[WatersMoon110]

No such thing as a "hate" crime, IMO.

Yeah, the legal system disagrees with you. As does Wikipedia.

But it is still murder, is it not?

I'm not really speaking of those who can't make a coherent choice due to mental illness.
I'm speaking of those who know right and wrong, and choose to do the wrong anyway.

...

Yet it is still murder. A black spot is a black spot is a black spot.

Murder does not have varying degrees to it. Murder is just that, murder.
The end result is exactly the same no matter how the victim is killed.

Well, I suppose you could say that. And I could say that there is no difference between Straight Marriage and Gay Marriage because the end result is that a couple joins in a long-term bond.

But the reality is, there are many different reasons that murder happens, there are many different situations that it happens in. Each one is different, and I think that we must logically and fairly look at each one differently.

But maybe it is the same when a drug addict stabs someone to death, when organized crime orders a woman to be shot, and when a boy beats a toddler to death with a baseball bat. After all, the "end result" is the same, right?

 

[quatona]

Quote me then. And state the contradiction.
*smiles like a rockstar*
Don't leave me in the dark to my own possible mistake.

I think you give up your right to live when you murder others.(post#279)

EXAMPLE: You killed ten people. Your life is now forfeit.
I don't think that's unreasonable. (post#287)

You can willfully give something up, like right to life, without asking for death. When you murder someone, you give up your right to live, IMO, as you just violated that same right of another human being. (post#291)

All this is irreconcilable with your assertion that all lives (or the taking of all lives - this wasn´t entirely clear from the grammar you used) are the same.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

If going by the end result (a person is killed) murder and death penalty are exactly the same, as well.

Oi.
*facepalm*
Maybe there's truth to that. But I see it as balancing a scale. However biased or mean that may seem.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Maybe there's truth to that. But I see it as balancing a scale. However biased or mean that may seem.

To bring in the other topic of this thread, I see allowing pregnant women to legally choose to abort as a likewise "balancing" act. The rights of the woman have to be balanced against the life of the unborn human living inside her, and the property rights of the man involved. Until the unborn human can be immediately removed without resulting in its death, I see allowing for the legal choice to abort as the only way to currently resolve this three part scale.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

I think you give up your right to live when you murder others.(post#279)

EXAMPLE: You killed ten people. Your life is now forfeit.
I don't think that's unreasonable. (post#287)

You can willfully give something up, like right to life, without asking for death. When you murder someone, you give up your right to live, IMO, as you just violated that same right of another human being. (post#291)

All this is irreconcilable with your assertion that all lives (or the taking of all lives - this wasn´t entirely clear from the grammar you used) are the same.

Umm.... what? That's your contradiction?
I don't see how my statements contradict either each other or what I've been saying so far.
I've been saying murder as a sin is the same, there is no greater or lesser murder.
But when did I start talking about lives being the same?
I'm confused.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

To bring in the other topic of this thread, I see allowing pregnant women to legally choose to abort as a likewise "balancing" act. The rights of the woman have to be balanced against the life of the unborn human living inside her, and the property rights of the man involved. Until the unborn human can be immediately removed without resulting in its death, I see allowing for the legal choice to abort as the only way to currently resolve this three part scale.

I'm sure it was all your idea...
I still view abortion as wrong. Done and done.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Yeah, the legal system disagrees with you. As does Wikipedia.
Well, I suppose you could say that. And I could say that there is no difference between Straight Marriage and Gay Marriage because the end result is that a couple joins in a long-term bond.

But the reality is, there are many different reasons that murder happens, there are many different situations that it happens in. Each one is different, and I think that we must logically and fairly look at each one differently.

But maybe it is the same when a drug addict stabs someone to death, when organized crime orders a woman to be shot, and when a boy beats a toddler to death with a baseball bat. After all, the "end result" is the same, right?

Such venom... i like it.
*smiles like a rock star*
And wikipedia is hardly a credible source, m'dear.
I regard all crimes as hate crimes, as they are all committed out of hate. If not made out of love, they are made out of hate.
Whether there's more hatred in one than the other doesn't give say, murder or assault added conditions for punishment just because the two people are not of the same skin color. Murder is murder. Assault is assault.
REGARDLESS of skin color, the punishment should not be more harsh than what would normally be given.
And don't get me started on our government. There's a lot of darkness there.

 

[cantata]

Why does free will matter?

Because losing any rights at all seems awfully unfair if you didn't make any free choices which led you to losing them.

We tend to let people off the hook if they're mentally ill. Suppose it turns out that everyone's free will is compromised, not just mentally ill people. Shouldn't we let everyone off the hook?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Such venom... i like it.

I thought you might enjoy that. *grin*

And wikipedia is hardly a credible source, m'dear.

It is about as credible a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica, actually.

I regard all crimes as hate crimes, as they are all committed out of hate. If not made out of love, they are made out of hate.
Whether there's more hatred in one than the other doesn't give say, murder or assault added conditions for punishment just because the two people are not of the same skin color. Murder is murder. Assault is assault.
REGARDLESS of skin color, the punishment should not be more harsh than what would normally be given.
And don't get me started on our government. There's a lot of darkness there.

I think, while I do agree that most murders and many crimes are motivated by hate, that it is fair to take into consideration when a given person's crime is motivated by hatred of a specific group rather than of a specific person. Because that makes them a potential danger to a wider selection of the population than someone who "just" beat their neighbor to death. Because a larger percentage of the population is, say Vietnamese American, than living next to that guy.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

I thought you might enjoy that. *grin*
It is about as credible a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica, actually.
I think, while I do agree that most murders and many crimes are motivated by hate, that it is fair to take into consideration when a given person's crime is motivated by hatred of a specific group rather than of a specific person. Because that makes them a potential danger to a wider selection of the population than someone who "just" beat their neighbor to death. Because a larger percentage of the population is, say Vietnamese American, than living next to that guy.

Well, maybe they could give him a few considerations, but they shouldn't be so willing to dismiss every interracial fight as "racist" or "motivated by racism".
If I were to get into a fight with say, someone of another race (for simplicity's sake we'll say African American... hell, I could go with any race really), under today's corrupt judicial system I can almost guarantee that they could sue ME for a "hate' crime, but I couldn't do the same thing, even if he attacks me first. Nor could it be considered outside of the scope of racism.
A lot of people would be screaming for me to get GUILTY of racism even if I hadn't started that fight and were reacting out of self defense, if the other person chose to try and press charges of "hate" crimes.
The current laws concerning "hate" crimes are, um, corrupt and one-sided, IMO. At least enough to exploit it.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Well, maybe they could give him a few considerations, but they shouldn't be so willing to dismiss every interracial fight as "racist" or "motivated by racism".
If I were to get into a fight with say, someone of another race (for simplicity's sake we'll say African American... hell, I could go with any race really), under today's corrupt judicial system I can almost guarantee that they could sue ME for a "hate' crime, but I couldn't do the same thing, even if he attacks me first. Nor could it be considered outside of the scope of racism.
A lot of people would be screaming for me to get GUILTY of racism even if I hadn't started that fight and were reacting out of self defense, if the other person chose to try and press charges of "hate" crimes.
The current laws concerning "hate" crimes are, um, corrupt and one-sided, IMO. At least enough to exploit it.

See, that sort of thing is just silly. If such crimes are being tried as "hate crimes" then I don't agree with that. I feel that "hate crimes" are very, very specific things, like crimes committed by KKK members motivated by their hate for minorities.

If someone gets in a fight with a person who happens to be of another race, that isn't a "hate crime" and shouldn't be treated like one. I also believe that "Freedom of Speech" allows for people who are hateful, like the KKK, to have their say as well. But I'm all for the clowns who have used their freedom of speech to mock such hateful groups.

Fine, I'm tired and rambling and can't stay on topic to save my life, I'll go to bed.

 

[quatona]

Umm.... what? That's your contradiction?
I don't see how my statements contradict either each other or what I've been saying so far.
I've been saying murder as a sin is the same, there is no greater or lesser murder.
But when did I start talking about lives being the same?
I'm confused.

You said:

Murder is murder. How heinous it was doesn't matter; a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally? (#295)

As I said earlier, the grammatical structure does not clearly allow to determine what the "they" was meant to refer. There´s no noun in the pluralwhich "they" could refer to, and the last noun before "they" was "life".
It´s quite possible you meant the "they" to refer to "murder(s)", though. In which case the fact that you determine the equality of two actions with reference to the equality of their results ("a life was taken. They are equal...") leads to the same problem:

If you want to argue by 'the result - a life is taken - is the same, therefore we needn´t take a closer look at the circumstances, we don´t need further differenciation, we can ignore the details, the motives, the intentions', then performing the death penalty is equal to murder, by your own argument.

Whilst if you want to argue for the death penalty the "a life was taken. They [The actions causing this result? The lives taken? The takings of the lives?] are equal" shoots your own foot.

 

[quatona]

Oi.
*facepalm*
Maybe there's truth to that. But I see it as balancing a scale. However biased or mean that may seem.

The only thing I have been pointing out is that your argument is not consistent. Whether you are biased or mean is none of my concern in this discussion.

On another note, your personal feeling that people who have murdered someone deserve to be killed is noted and acknowledged.
However, all these abstractions and rationalizations (There´s a right to live. People forfeit their right to live when killing others "IMO") do not help making this more than your personal feeling. It doesn´t have any more logical power than any other reason anyone else feels is sufficient to for constituting the loss of the right to live.

 

[Fin12]

Such venom... i like it.
*smiles like a rock star*
And wikipedia is hardly a credible source, m'dear.
I regard all crimes as hate crimes, as they are all committed out of hate. If not made out of love, they are made out of hate.
Whether there's more hatred in one than the other doesn't give say, murder or assault added conditions for punishment just because the two people are not of the same skin color. Murder is murder. Assault is assault.
REGARDLESS of skin color, the punishment should not be more harsh than what would normally be given.
And don't get me started on our government. There's a lot of darkness there.

Do you have such little faith in humanity? Do you truly think that hatred is the only cause of murder?

Soldiers do it becuase they are ordered. Mafia, becuase they must. Sociopaths, becuase they are ill.

Very few cases boil down to hate, no man is truly evil enough to simply kill on the grounds that he hates humanity.

It's disgusting to me that you could suggest a human may take anothers life without being provoked, just simply becuase he feels hateful.

edit: You don't need to think abortion is right, but others do, giving other people the free will for abortion does not force you to have one.

edit2: Wikipedia is actually a decent source, the fact that it is updated so regularly mena that many mistakes that could be their are quickly rectified. It is not as good as a science journal I agree, but its still a reasonable source.

 

[Fin12]

*sigh*
You seem to think there is no such thing as an unbiased, outside view of a situation, which enables a judgment call to be made after sufficient evidence and testimony have been provided.
I weep for America's judicial system.
Justice does not have a different definition. So which one are you using that justice and vengeance (perhaps I should have said revenge) are synonyms?

We are human, no such thing as an unbaised view.

What the reason for this justice you speak of?

Is it to remove a threat? Or are your just wanting to add another name to the death count? ..... ....how christian.

Does your conscious decision to be vengful mean it is less animalistic?

Since when did a state authority have the right to human life. No one has that right but those involved, the state should stay seperate.

If I sw someone commit a crime against someone I didn't know, yes in the moment I would help, but vengance/justice is in their hands NOT mine. I cannot make the decesion of what is right and wrong. As I did not experience the event from the victims view.

Also what prey tell happens to the falsely accused?

Therapy- lets the criminal correct himself and allows both the falsely and justly accused to live.

Death penalty- kills those who could be saved, and murders those who were innocent.