I understand your position on the death penalty but am curious. My problem is not with killing such people rather it is the fact that the state has and will kill innocent people. I do not think one innocent life is worth the convenience of killing these people. Add in recent supreme court action which has effectively legalized torture and I cannot support such a death penalty.

[slate.com]

@Quarm I would advocate only for the deaths of people whose psychopathy and guilt of homocide was without question. Killers like BTK, Dahmer, Gacy, etc... People for whom there was no question of their guilt or psycopathy. Less than that, no death penalty. There must be 100% certainty.

@Sgt_Spanky Jeff Dahmer met death by blunt force trauma in a prison bathroom as I recall.

I forget if he were in a state with a death penalty.

CA had to keep Charles Manson housed and fed for years.

Most people have been sentenced to death for far lesser crimes.

Beautiful people like Sophie Scholl .

@BufftonBeotch Dahmer was arrested in Milwaukee and was serving 15 life sentences because Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty. A fellow inmate beat him to death with a lead pipe about 3 years into his sentence. His guilt was 100% certain so the guy who killed him did us all a favor. He also claimed God told him to do it. One of the only usefful things God's ever done.

Manson's guilt was also 100% certain and he DID recieve the death penalty which was overturned when CA ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in the early 70s. As a result, millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted housing and feeding that useless lump of shit for 50 years. That was a ridiculous decision.

The ONLY people who should get the death penalty are people like this; true evil monsters. People guilty of lesser crimes should not be given death. Sophie Scholl was convivted and murdered by a psychotic fascist government for speaking out against it so her situation was unique from just killing a homicidal maniac. She was a hero.

@Sgt_Spanky Could you hang a man/woman you were only 85% convinced was guilty?

@BufftonBeotch At 85% the temptation might be there but it has to be 100% and only for murder. You?

@Sgt_Spanky Well I certainly would not have beheaded Sophie.

@BufftonBeotch Well, the Nazis were'nt exactly known for their compassion and humanitarianism.

I have an HMO and it doesn't pay for Viagra.

@DenoPenno on an HMO?? Maybe not your formulary... But some will and Medicare will if MD deems medically necessary.
With insurance you get what you pay for, you know how that goes.

@jorj No. RIGHTS.

I'd hold a friends hand walk with her past the shouting haters at the clinic if that was her choice.

@BufftonBeotch done it on multiple occasions

I'm over 12 and my brother isn't a rapist so sorry to ruin your sick fantasies.

@mrveggieman187 now I Know what is your problem: you can only think of yourself! And that is too bad

@mrveggieman187 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

SWOOOOOSHHHHAOO

Right over his damn head.

@jorj All pregnancy is a health risk that has to be taken voluntarily. Look at the foster care system for further proof of what happens when women have babies they weren't prepared for or didn't want. I'd rather a bundle of cells be removed before any self awareness develops, rather than have innocent lives who are fully self aware go through protracted trauma. Then again, I have compassion.

@CommonHuman Birth control education should be mandatory, but a healthy active sex life is seen as a sin in this backward nation.

@jorj NO.

@jorj The difference is that pregnancy doesn't endanger the mans life.

@CommonHuman Wow. You dug deep for this from April.

@BufftonBeotch Not even sure how I ran across it again.

@jorj No. If they participated in sex and the woman chooses to have the baby he gets to pay.

Wrap that Whopper well honey!

@jorj Again, pregnancy is a big deal, not your body, not your call. And it shouldn't be, in any way shape or form. Unless you want her to have control over whether or not your penis is still attached.

@jorj Yeah. Because men wanting to raise the child of a casual fuck they never want to see again...let alone make a life long commitment to, are EVERYWHERE.

@jorj If you feel this strongly, it may be something you want to discuss with a sex partner before bumping bits.

@jorj Most women do take charge of their own reproduction, even there are those who want to take that away. If the birth control fails, and the woman is not prepared for the pregnancy or child rearing she has the absolute obligation to terminate the pregnancy. If she chooses to go through with the pregnancy, but wants to adopt that is her choice as well.

@jorj You can have an opinion about how someone proceeds with a pregnancy the moment YOU are pregnant.

How is this so hard for you to comprehend?

@jorj Basically your position is....

• You are angry that more women won't have sex with you.
• If a woman does have sex with you birth control is entirely her responsibility.
• If that birth control fails and she is not ready to be pregnant and does not want a child and you want A child; she is obligated to risk her health for nine months to deliver you this human.
• If that birth control fails and she decides to have the child and you are not ready to have a child she is a money grubbing bitch for expecting you at least monetarily contribute.

I'm pretty sure I read your position right.

Well said. Many shades of gray in many areas of life and this is no different. Having said that I am definitely pro choice, every woman must decide on her own and, in some extreme cases, even late abortions may be preferable to very bad outcomes of pregnancy that are not known until later....As for the death penalty, decidedly no.

@Elganned I disagree. This just seems to be a stopgap. It only looks reasonable because of the current limits of medical technology. Eventually, the technology will exist to run through an entire pregnancy outside of a person. Does that mean individual sperms and eggs then have the right to life? Or at least that fertilized eggs do? And will there be funds to pay for the extraordinary feats needed to develop an embryo to term? I'd bet that we'd end up with what amounts to a prohibition on abortion. ["well, this three day old clump of cells could exist outside the mother, so you can't abort it. Of course, you can't afford that sort of care, so you'll just have to carry it to term yourself.]

When it can survive independently of the womb with reasonable expectation for quality of life. That's the line.
The quality of life is key. If it can barely survive outside the womb, will be in constant pain for the 5 days it will live, that decision should be up to the woman.
All decisions about what is happening in a womans body should be her decision.
No woman is going to go through 8 months of pregnancy and magically get a wild hair up her butt to flippantly abort.

@jorj So forcing a women to endure the possibility of death is acceptable to you just because you have planted your seed?

@jorj you appear to be a joy

@jorj You already went to the extreme: You just clarified:::: YOU, as a man, gets to decide what a woman has to do for the rest of their life. Men do NOT get to decide for women.
That is the whole point of the law.
Men do NOT get to decide for women.

@jorj Every pregnancy has dozens of health risks NOT associated with known medical conditions.

@jorj Except men will never have to bear the full brunt of consequences of sex. If it isn't happening inside your body, you can have an opinion, but it ultimately doesn't count. Nor should it.

@jorj That does not sound right. People who take drugs don't care what the law says, they do what they want to do. They put whatever they want into their bodies. The war on drugs is an absurd horror show, they ought to be legalized drugs as they have as in Portugal or Uruguay.

@jorj Sorry you've haven't been able to put a nick in the argument.

@jorj You ought to reason, and not just assert.

@jorj Law where? Pot is legal in 13 states...are you capable of arguing?

@jorj It makes no difference..people take dope because they have sovereign rule over their body regardless of the law and that's a fact. The law does not make Abortion just or unjust.

@jorj Yes, if fact stats don't change

@jorj My comments are motivated by the replies as well as the original post. I'm not inclined to inform everybody who misrepresents a position they oppose where they've gone wrong. There are plenty of cases in this thread where others have done that.

@Bobby9 if not viable outside the host, it is a parasite under the definition of "parasite". Perio.d

@Bobby9 Yes, just. The world is a cold and cruel place full of all sorts of fuckery. If all of the pro-life people turned their energy to solving the root cause reasons abortions happen then they would actually accomplish something. Instead they protest woman's clinics and pat themselves on the back for harassing people who are going to their doctors for a check up. They ignore or resist the fact that sex education, access to contraceptives and teaching woman to respect themselves and men to respect woman as equals all reduce unwanted pregnancy, STD's and sexual violence. They rail against the issue AND the solutions which to me makes them both insane and idiotic.

@Bobby9 Yes "just", if you use a condom or any contraceptive then you have prevented a potential human being. Extreme but not to Catholics.

@Bobby9 An acorn is just that, It is not a tree, a table or a door. it has only the potential to become those things and only under the right conditions.

@Bobby9 Ah now theres the cut off point "if left alone a fetus develops into a human". If it is sustainable outside of the womb? This can vary depending on how damaged or handicapped the fetus is but most abortion laws will draw the line just before this horizon.

@Bobby9 Why not? The definition of a parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. No were does it state it cannot be the same species.

@Bobby9 [futurity.org]

@Bobby9 A parasite is defined as a organism that cannot live without feeding off its host. Many parasites have little damaging effect on their hosts and often by design intentionally do not kill or even weaken the host simply due to the fact that they need the host to live. This study does nothing to change the fact that the fetus cannot live without the mother. Therefore from a purely scientific point of view it is a parasite until it can live outside the mother. You implication that a parasite competes with its host is not universal to all parasites. The impact of such feeding varies widely. This study does nothing to change the basic definition of a parasite and the fact that the fetus fits that description. Within ecology parasites have a role like all organisms. Ultimately your opposition to abortion seems rooted in theology rather then reason and science. You want to eliminate abortion? Research and find solutions for the reasons abortions happen such as unprotected sex (solution: contraceptives and reason based sex education as well as educating young people to respect themselves and others enough to take such precautions.) , lack of education (solution: fund schools, after school programs, college education, free access to information, libraries, increased teacher pay.), unwanted children (see protected sex as well as solutions: streamline and reduce the costs involved in adoptions and extended families taking over parenting in the cases of deceased or unfit parents.) And there are no abortion advocates rather there are people who advocate for a woman's right to control her own body.

@Bobby9 A parasite does not have to be at war with the host. Many are symbiotic, like the bacteria in your guts.

@273kelvin well said. I do tend to go overboard on my responses.

@Bobby9 source please.

@Bobby9 OK let me be a bit more specific how about a source that uses the word we are debating which is parasite. Your source only talks about competition and cooperation. Neither of which disprove the idea that the fetus which is not viable outside the mothers body needs the mother to live. Many parasites operate the same way. Hence still the fetus is a parasite until viable to survive outside the mothers womb. As for the contention they need to be different species my source referencing the Angler fish is an actual example of what you claim (with zero supporting sources) to be impossible. You also seem to be with your source equating a scientific reality with emotion and the idea that pro-choice people use science to somehow hold a bias against the fetus. Pro-choice people live in the real world were often hard choices, less then ideal choices are required.

@Bobby9 When and if you post a source that actually includes the word parasite in its text then I may concede the point. Yours does not. You seem content to refer to imaginary biologists and refuse to actually use your own mind to argue your point. Again the definition of a parasite is a organism that cannot live without feeding off its host. A fetus until a certain late stage in its development cannot live without feeding of its mother. That is scientific fact. If you refute that tell me why. As a fact it supports my contention that a fetus in that time frame fits the definition of a parasite. Even though you refuse to actually take a position beyond telling others they are wrong let me venture a guess that you oppose the word parasite not for its scientific definition but rather for the negative social viewpoint the word triggers in many people. Like all living things parasites serve a purpose in ecology and that purpose is amoral. It does what it does without care for our human projection of morality. The fetus does the same it simply wants to live. So does the mother but she gives up part of herself so her child may live. A sacrifice we men cannot make in the same way. And a sacrifice that should not be required of her by the state or by men. That is why I am pro-choice and pro-reason.

@Elganned Exactly. Thanks.

I am absolutely pro-abortion.
There, now you know someone.