Roger Stone says trump should “declare martial law” to

Page 10 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 18  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,051

16 Sep 2020, 12:36 am

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
eyelessshiver wrote:
... if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born...
[color=black]^ THIS ^

Quoted for truth and posterity.


If murdering a young baby had the same consequences as murdering an older baby (life in prison or the death penalty), there would be far less women murdering their babies (or paying someone else to kill them). The same is true if women have to risk their health or go to more trouble to do it. I think harsh consequences and making it difficult or more dangerous to kill a child is the best way to save innocent lives


Nope; Not According to Science;

Other than that Believe what you want to...

It Won't Charge the Fact that Other Folks See A Much Bigger Picture of Science too...

And Just Common Human Sense; Some Folks Are More Open; Others Naturally More Closed...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,656
Location: Poland

16 Sep 2020, 1:54 am

 ! magz wrote:
Please, even if you find each other's opinions absolutely awful, do not attack each other personally. I've removed the most obvious instance. Please, don't do that again.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,656
Location: Poland

16 Sep 2020, 2:06 am

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
eyelessshiver wrote:
... if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born...
[color=black]^ THIS ^

Quoted for truth and posterity.


If murdering a young baby had the same consequences as murdering an older baby (life in prison or the death penalty), there would be far less women murdering their babies (or paying someone else to kill them). The same is true if women have to risk their health or go to more trouble to do it. I think harsh consequences and making it difficult or more dangerous to kill a child is the best way to save innocent lives

Unfortunately, in reality, it does not work like that.
A desperate person is ready for desperate steps. Risks don't count when you're desperate.

For the sake of another discussion in another forum, I studied historical infanticide statistics for my country. It turned out that:
1. Changes in the law - either on abortion or infanticide - did not have measurable effect on number of infanticide cases;
2. Improvement in situation of the lowest class women and acceptance of single motherhood drastically changed the outcome.

So, if we want to be successfully pro-life (save possibly many lives), it's best to focus on getting future mothers out of poverty and despair. Which is way harder a challenge than making the law harsher - obviously.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

16 Sep 2020, 3:26 am

As far as I know murder of any child outside the womb has the same consequence,in courts of law it's the same to kill a 1 day old as a 13 year old.Once your born your premeditated killing is 1st degree murder in every US state and 95% of countries around the world.

There have been cases of young mother's who put a newborn in a dumpster and there case had sympathy so the prosecution offered a plea bargain to manslaughter which has a lesser sentence,but that was a prosecutor's choice to reduce the charge.But officially the premeditated killing of any human is murder.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
WrongPlanet is rancid,goodbye forever


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

16 Sep 2020, 8:10 am

aghogday wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
eyelessshiver wrote:
... if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born...
[color=black]^ THIS ^

Quoted for truth and posterity.


If murdering a young baby had the same consequences as murdering an older baby (life in prison or the death penalty), there would be far less women murdering their babies (or paying someone else to kill them). The same is true if women have to risk their health or go to more trouble to do it. I think harsh consequences and making it difficult or more dangerous to kill a child is the best way to save innocent lives


Nope; Not According to Science;


What science? Post a study that says laws and consequences don't have any deterrent affect. How many mothers murdered their children before and after it became legal?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

16 Sep 2020, 8:19 am

magz wrote:
... I studied historical infanticide statistics for my country. It turned out that:

1. Changes in the law - either on abortion or infanticide - did not have measurable effect on number of infanticide cases;

2. Improvement in situation of the lowest class women and acceptance of single motherhood drastically changed the outcome.

So, if we want to be successfully pro-life (save possibly many lives), it's best to focus on getting future mothers out of poverty and despair. Which is way harder a challenge than making the law harsher -- obviously.

[mode=sarcasm]

What?!  Make it easier for people to do good?  But, our leaders are focused on punishing criminals and sinners, even going so far as to criminalize (and make "sinful") ordinary human activities that harm no one.  Surely, our leaders couldn't be wrong...

... could they?


[/mode]


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

16 Sep 2020, 8:21 am

magz wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
eyelessshiver wrote:
... if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born...
[color=black]^ THIS ^

Quoted for truth and posterity.


If murdering a young baby had the same consequences as murdering an older baby (life in prison or the death penalty), there would be far less women murdering their babies (or paying someone else to kill them). The same is true if women have to risk their health or go to more trouble to do it. I think harsh consequences and making it difficult or more dangerous to kill a child is the best way to save innocent lives

Unfortunately, in reality, it does not work like that.
A desperate person is ready for desperate steps. Risks don't count when you're desperate.

For the sake of another discussion in another forum, I studied historical infanticide statistics for my country. It turned out that:
1. Changes in the law - either on abortion or infanticide - did not have measurable effect on number of infanticide cases;
2. Improvement in situation of the lowest class women and acceptance of single motherhood drastically changed the outcome.

So, if we want to be successfully pro-life (save possibly many lives), it's best to focus on getting future mothers out of poverty and despair. Which is way harder a challenge than making the law harsher - obviously.


I'd like to see statistics. I know there used to be over 1 million children killed every year in the US a few years after it became legal. I can't image 1 million women hating their children so much that they'd risk life in prison to get rid of them. In the US, where there's a shortage of babies available for adoption due to the number of women killing their children, they'd be risking life in prison just to avoid being inconvenienced by a pregnancy. I don't see many women taking that risk.

Many "poor" people today (especially in Europe and US) are wealthier than the average person throughout history. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bribe women with welfare to get them to stop killing their children. I think a swift execution would be more appropriate from a moral standpoint.



emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

16 Sep 2020, 8:28 am

Fnord wrote:
[color=black]What?!  Make it easier for people to do good?


Why should I have to bribe people (my taxes are paying their welfare benefits) to get them to do what's right?

Quote:
But, our leaders are focused on punishing criminals and sinners, even going so far as to criminalize (and make "sinful") ordinary human activities that harm no one.  Surely, our leaders couldn't be wrong...


I agree that's a big problem. While one party wants to criminalize murder to save innocent lives, another party wants to punish people for quoting the bible or not baking a cake to celebrate immorality.



emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

16 Sep 2020, 8:32 am

vermontsavant wrote:
As far as I know murder of any child outside the womb has the same consequence,in courts of law it's the same to kill a 1 day old as a 13 year old.Once your born your premeditated killing is 1st degree murder in every US state and 95% of countries around the world.


What about a premediated killing of a 5 month old baby inside the womb? How is that any different than killing a 5 month old baby born prematurely?

Quote:
There have been cases of young mother's who put a newborn in a dumpster and there case had sympathy so the prosecution offered a plea bargain to manslaughter which has a lesser sentence,but that was a prosecutor's choice to reduce the charge.But officially the premeditated killing of any human is murder.


Unless the killing occurs inside the womb. That magically makes it not murder somehow according to some people.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

16 Sep 2020, 8:36 am

emotrtkey wrote:
... Many "poor" people today (especially in Europe and US) are wealthier than the average person throughout history. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bribe women with welfare to get them to stop killing their children. I think a swift execution would be more appropriate from a moral standpoint.
Let me guess ... you are a ... hmm ... let's see ...

... a Trump Republican?


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,656
Location: Poland

16 Sep 2020, 8:42 am

emotrtkey wrote:
Many "poor" people today (especially in Europe and US) are wealthier than the average person throughout history. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bribe women with welfare to get them to stop killing their children. I think a swift execution would be more appropriate from a moral standpoint.

Apparently, your morality is based on vengeance.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

16 Sep 2020, 8:43 am

magz wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Many "poor" people today (especially in Europe and US) are wealthier than the average person throughout history. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bribe women with welfare to get them to stop killing their children. I think a swift execution would be more appropriate from a moral standpoint.
Apparently, your morality is based on vengeance.
"Wrathful and vengeance-seeking" is a more apt description.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

16 Sep 2020, 8:46 am

emotrtkey wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
As far as I know murder of any child outside the womb has the same consequence,in courts of law it's the same to kill a 1 day old as a 13 year old.Once your born your premeditated killing is 1st degree murder in every US state and 95% of countries around the world.


What about a premediated killing of a 5 month old baby inside the womb? How is that any different than killing a 5 month old baby born prematurely?

Quote:
There have been cases of young mother's who put a newborn in a dumpster and there case had sympathy so the prosecution offered a plea bargain to manslaughter which has a lesser sentence,but that was a prosecutor's choice to reduce the charge.But officially the premeditated killing of any human is murder.


Unless the killing occurs inside the womb. That magically makes it not murder somehow according to some people.
That's how the system works,never said it was right.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
WrongPlanet is rancid,goodbye forever


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

16 Sep 2020, 8:54 am

magz wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Many "poor" people today (especially in Europe and US) are wealthier than the average person throughout history. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bribe women with welfare to get them to stop killing their children. I think a swift execution would be more appropriate from a moral standpoint.

Apparently, your morality is based on vengeance.


My morality is based on Christianity. Reward what's good. Punish what's evil. My goal isn't vengeance. It's deterrence although people should be held accountable for their actions for the sake of justice.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

16 Sep 2020, 8:55 am

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still some men who believe that they have the privilege of dictating what women can do with their own bodies.  It's as if those men perceive women as property, and not as human beings.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,008
Location: Stendec

16 Sep 2020, 8:56 am

emotrtkey wrote:
magz wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Many "poor" people today (especially in Europe and US) are wealthier than the average person throughout history. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bribe women with welfare to get them to stop killing their children. I think a swift execution would be more appropriate from a moral standpoint.
Apparently, your morality is based on vengeance.
My morality is based on Christianity. Reward what's good. Punish what's evil. My goal isn't vengeance. It's deterrence although people should be held accountable for their actions for the sake of justice.
Where is the love?  Where is the mercy?


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.