Political Thought for the Day: Abortion, Euthanasia, the Death Penalty, etc.

[Traditio]

I wrote this today, and thought that it might be of interest to you guys:

Political thought for the day: when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the unborn, the elderly and the incurably sick don't matter (as evidenced by the fact that they tend to be "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-euthanasia rights"), nor do the lives of police (as evidenced by the "black lives matter" movement)...but the lives of violent criminals do matter (as evidenced both by the black lives matter movement and by the social liberal protest against the death penalty).

"But," the social liberal will tell me, "consider all those who have been acquitted because of DNA evidence." I answer: "Yes, we now have DNA evidence. Their guilt can be all but assured now! Wherein lies your objection?" Let us not kid ourselves: the social liberal only hides behind uncertainty as behind a mask. Deep down, he just doesn't think that violent criminals deserve to die (or even that they really deserve punishment) if it's not strictly "necessary." But the unborn, the eldery, the incurably sick and the police...?

 

[bybee]

I wrote this today, and thought that it might be of interest to you guys:

Political thought for the day: when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the unborn, the elderly and the incurably sick don't matter (as evidenced by the fact that they tend to be "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-euthanasia rights"), nor do the lives of police (as evidenced by the "black lives matter" movement)...but the lives of violent criminals do matter (as evidenced both by the black lives matter movement and by the social liberal protest against the death penalty).

"But," the social liberal will tell me, "consider all those who have been acquitted because of DNA evidence." I answer: "Yes, we now have DNA evidence. Their guilt can be all but assured now! Wherein lies your objection?" Let us not kid ourselves: the social liberal only hides behind uncertainty as behind a mask. Deep down, he just doesn't think that violent criminals deserve to die (or even that they really deserve punishment) if it's not strictly "necessary." But the unborn, the eldery, the incurably sick and the police...?

Yes indeed! We have become a society wherein every "tail" with an agenda is wagging the dog! This can only cause the dog to short circuit and become useless.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I wrote this today, and thought that it might be of interest to you guys:

Political thought for the day: when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the unborn, the elderly and the incurably sick don't matter (as evidenced by the fact that they tend to be "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-euthanasia rights"), nor do the lives of police (as evidenced by the "black lives matter" movement)...but the lives of violent criminals do matter (as evidenced both by the black lives matter movement and by the social liberal protest against the death penalty).

"But," the social liberal will tell me, "consider all those who have been acquitted because of DNA evidence." I answer: "Yes, we now have DNA evidence. Their guilt can be all but assured now! Wherein lies your objection?" Let us not kid ourselves: the social liberal only hides behind uncertainty as behind a mask. Deep down, he just doesn't think that violent criminals deserve to die (or even that they really deserve punishment) if it's not strictly "necessary." But the unborn, the eldery, the incurably sick and the police...?

This is just another example of your typical blinkered pseudo intellectual nonsense Trad. The only person you're kidding here is yourself and you simply don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

I'm against the death penalty unless there's a 100% proof of guilt established for heinous crimes. Does that mean I secretly feel that rapists, murderers etc shouldn't pay for their crimes? Of course it doesn't you flaming muppet. I actually advocate for more stringent and tighter sentencing in relation to violent crime not the reverse. Simply because I don't want to see innocent people sent to the gallows (as would and has happened in regards to the DP) doesn't equate to anything like the crap you've just spewed forth here. Then, what do you care about those who have been proved innocent and reunited with their families? Nothing at all it would seem.

Euthanasia is a loaded subject, despite your attempts to conflate a whole bunch of topics into one ill thought out post. I'm not against it in principle but I could only support it were there watertight restrictions in how it were applied. Simply put, barriers in place to prevent money grabbing relatives trying to get an inheritance ahead of "schedule" etc. Otherwise I see nothing inherently immoral about a terminally ill person wishing to pull the plug and end their own suffering.

Anyone who's had the misfortune to read your ongoing on here will be under no illusion as to why you referenced 'black lives' here. You've had a far from subtle racist streak in you since you first joined the place. I'm only surprised you didn't add Mexicans into the mix. ALL lives matter you dingbat, including those of the police, the elderly etc.

Overall, 'congrats' yet again on displaying a precocious, self congratulatory, preening, ignorant load of old bollocks masquerading as a thoughtful and intelligent post. Might be impressive to a second grader but should be embarrassing to anyone else.

 

[Traditio]

I'm against the death penalty unless there's a 100% proof of guilt established for heinous crimes. Does that mean I secretly feel that rapists, murderers etc shouldn't pay for their crimes? Of course it doesn't you flaming muppet. I actually advocate for more stringent and tighter sentencing in relation to violent crime not the reverse. Simply because I don't want to see innocent people sent to the gallows (as would and has happened in regards to the DP) doesn't equate to anything like the crap you've just spewed forth here. Then, what do you care about those who have been proved innocent and reunited with their families? Nothing at all it would seem.

1. I find it interesting that you didn't address my point about DNA evidence. You freely talk about persons who have been "proven innocent," but you ignore the point that I talk about this very thing in the OP. Why?

2. I can't help but feel as though your talk about "tighter sentencing" is nothing but a giant smoke screen. A. Where is your talk about 100% certainty in this case? B. What is your justification for this tighter sentencing? What is the goal of it?

I assert that violent criminals seriously violate the order of justice and have an objective merit for punishment (which, of course, should be painful, at least in some sense).

You'll insist that violent criminals should be behind bars longer, but I can't help but suspect that what you really mean, behind the smokescreen, is the following: "It is in the best interest of society that such persons not be out in public [though if they could be safely, cheaply and efficiently isolated from society with absolutely no inconvenience to them or reduction in the quality of their lives, I would have no objection to this]." And that, I can't help but suspect, is all there is to it, and no more.

Euthanasia is a loaded subject, despite your attempts to conflate a whole bunch of topics into one ill thought out post. I'm not against it in principle but I could only support it were there watertight restrictions in how it were applied. Simply put, barriers in place to prevent money grabbing relatives trying to get an inheritance ahead of "schedule" etc. Otherwise I see nothing inherently immoral about a terminally ill person wishing to pull the plug and end their own suffering.

Therefore the lives of violent criminals matter more than the incurably sick. By your own admission.

Anyone who's had the misfortune to read your ongoing on here will be under no illusion as to why you referenced 'black lives' here. You've had a far from subtle racist streak in you since you first joined the place. I'm only surprised you didn't add Mexicans into the mix. ALL lives matter you dingbat, including those of the police, the elderly etc.

Given your response, the only charitable interpretation I can give of what you've said is that you're simply ignorant of the "black lives matter" movement. "Black lives matter" is a hashtag movement (#blacklivesmatter) in the U.S. that's been popularized in US social media, basically formed in reaction to various alleged instances of excessive use of force by police officers. They have a website. Their stated goals are the "demilitarization" of the police and the reduction of police funding at the local, state and federal levels (not to mention, of course, the implicit undertones with respect to their attitude towards policemen).

The less charitable interpretation is that you are using the tired liberal tactic of simply dodging/avoiding my arguments (since you have no counterargument or facts to support an opposition to my case) by calling me a racist.

 

[Jonahdog]

when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the incurably sick don't matter

Actually those of us who agree with assisted suicide, death with dignity, whatever you wish to call it, think that the lives of the incurably sick do matter. They matter to those who are sick and to those who love them. Life is important enough that it should be up to the sick person to be able to make the decision whether to live in pain or in some other "life is not worth living" condition, up to that person, not up to you.

 

[bybee]

This is just another example of your typical blinkered pseudo intellectual nonsense Trad. The only person you're kidding here is yourself and you simply don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

I'm against the death penalty unless there's a 100% proof of guilt established for heinous crimes. Does that mean I secretly feel that rapists, murderers etc shouldn't pay for their crimes? Of course it doesn't you flaming muppet. I actually advocate for more stringent and tighter sentencing in relation to violent crime not the reverse. Simply because I don't want to see innocent people sent to the gallows (as would and has happened in regards to the DP) doesn't equate to anything like the crap you've just spewed forth here. Then, what do you care about those who have been proved innocent and reunited with their families? Nothing at all it would seem.

Euthanasia is a loaded subject, despite your attempts to conflate a whole bunch of topics into one ill thought out post. I'm not against it in principle but I could only support it were there watertight restrictions in how it were applied. Simply put, barriers in place to prevent money grabbing relatives trying to get an inheritance ahead of "schedule" etc. Otherwise I see nothing inherently immoral about a terminally ill person wishing to pull the plug and end their own suffering.

Anyone who's had the misfortune to read your ongoing on here will be under no illusion as to why you referenced 'black lives' here. You've had a far from subtle racist streak in you since you first joined the place. I'm only surprised you didn't add Mexicans into the mix. ALL lives matter you dingbat, including those of the police, the elderly etc.

Overall, 'congrats' yet again on displaying a precocious, self congratulatory, preening, ignorant load of old bollocks masquerading as a thoughtful and intelligent post. Might be impressive to a second grader but should be embarrassing to anyone else.

I don't know Arthur. I thought he showed some progress here?

 

[Traditio]

Actually those of us who agree with assisted suicide, death with dignity, whatever you wish to call it, think that the lives of the incurably sick do matter. They matter to those who are sick and to those who love them. Life is important enough that it should be up to the sick person to be able to make the decision whether to live in pain or in some other "life is not worth living" condition, up to that person, not up to you.

Did you really just write that?

 

[Traditio]

Furthermore, with respect to euthanasia, what you are saying, ArthurBrain and JonahDog, simply isn't true.

Where was the liberal outrage about the Terry Schiavo case?

 

[Arthur Brain]

1. I find it interesting that you didn't address my point about DNA evidence. You freely talk about persons who have been "proven innocent," but you ignore the point that I talk about this very thing in the OP. Why?

2. I can't help but feel as though your talk about "tighter sentencing" is nothing but a giant smoke screen. A. Where is your talk about 100% certainty in this case? B. What is your justification for this tighter sentencing? What is the goal of it?

I assert that violent criminals seriously violate the order of justice and have an objective merit for punishment (which, of course, should be painful, at least in some sense).

You'll insist that violent criminals should be behind bars longer, but I can't help but suspect that what you really mean, behind the smokescreen, is the following: "It is in the best interest of society that such persons not be out in public [though if they could be safely, cheaply and efficiently isolated from society with absolutely no inconvenience to them or reduction in the quality of their lives, I would have no objection to this]." And that, I can't help but suspect, is all there is to it, and no more.

Listen up fruitbat, and let me put this in terms that should be unequivocally clear. If a serial rapist is 100% proven guilty through DNA or any other evidence then I'd have zero qualms over the DP in such a case. If you think my reservations in regards to the death penalty stem from some secretive desire not to punish violent criminals then you're not only wrong, you're an absolute loon. Got it?

Excellent.

lain:

Therefore the lives of violent criminals matter more than the incurably sick. By your own admission.

Only a certified flap jack could have arrived at that monumentally dumb conclusion. 'Well done'...

:freak:

Given your response, the only charitable interpretation I can give of what you've said is that you're simply ignorant of the "black lives matter" movement. "Black lives matter" is a hashtag movement (#blacklivesmatter) in the U.S. that's been popularized in US social media, basically formed in reaction to various alleged instances of excessive use of force by police officers. They have a website. Their stated goals are the "demilitarization" of the police and the reduction of police funding at the local, state and federal levels (not to mention, of course, the implicit undertones with respect to their attitude towards policemen).

The less charitable interpretation is that you are using the tired liberal tactic of simply dodging/avoiding my arguments (since you have no counterargument or facts to support an opposition to my case) by calling me a racist.

You are a racist unless you've actually grown up over the last few months, and going by this tripe it wouldn't seem to be the case. Your "argument" has consisted of some tired, hackneyed garbage as to what "social liberals" think in general, that is nothing more than tag labelling ignorant precocious nonsense that you're so "adept" at. In other words your 'argument' is just plain crap and no counter to it is even necessary.

FTR, I don't support anything or any movement that does as what you suggest either. Go figure - or don't as the case will probably be...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Furthermore, with respect to euthanasia, what you are saying, ArthurBrain and JonahDog, simply isn't true.

Where was the liberal outrage about the Terry Schiavo case?

I stated my position in regards to euthanasia and that stands as it is. Don't agree with it then fine, but it still stands.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't know Arthur. I thought he showed some progress here?

Well, gotta disagree with you on that one...

 

[Traditio]

Arthur Brain, I only would like to point out that your views may or may not aline with that of most social liberals, and, in particular, the social liberals of the United States.

 

[jgarden]

I wrote this today, and thought that it might be of interest to you guys:

Political thought for the day: when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the unborn, the elderly and the incurably sick don't matter (as evidenced by the fact that they tend to be "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-euthanasia rights"), nor do the lives of police (as evidenced by the "black lives matter" movement)...but the lives of violent criminals do matter (as evidenced both by the black lives matter movement and by the social liberal protest against the death penalty).

"But," the social liberal will tell me, "consider all those who have been acquitted because of DNA evidence." I answer: "Yes, we now have DNA evidence. Their guilt can be all but assured now! Wherein lies your objection?" Let us not kid ourselves: the social liberal only hides behind uncertainty as behind a mask. Deep down, he just doesn't think that violent criminals deserve to die (or even that they really deserve punishment) if it's not strictly "necessary." But the unborn, the eldery, the incurably sick and the police...?

A Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

1 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives,

2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them.

3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger.

7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”

8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman.

10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

1. Contrary to "Traditio's assertion, no legal system is infallible and as in the case of Christ's crucifixion decisions can be based on political expediency - not justice.

2. According to the Mosaic Law, the legal sentence for those caught in adultery was to be stoned to death.

3. Even though we have every reason to believe that this woman was actually guilty of adultery, instead of insisting on enforcing the letter of the law Jesus showed compassion and addressed her accusers in such a manner than none dared to cast the first stone.

4. As demonstrated by the "Theif on the Cross," execution effectively terminates a person's ability to receive Christ.

5. Those who insist on capital punishment will bear a grave responsiblity on Judgement Day when asked as to why they didn't follow Christ's example and as to what rationale would justify their decision to cut short a person's opportunity to receive salvation!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur Brain, I only would like to point out that your views may or may not aline with that of most social liberals, and, in particular, the social liberals of the United States.

You're the one that seems to think he has an insight into what most "social liberals" secretly think Trad, and based on what? If you think that most people of a left leaning political bent don't want severe penalties for violent crimes then I don't know where you're at. Of course society has to have protection from those convicted but no way should people have carte blanche to commit heinous acts of violation and just get a 'slap on the wrist' for it either. What "social liberals" have you been talking to exactly?

Geography is entirely irrelevant on the matter. Rape and murder etc are the same atrocious crimes whether committed in the UK, the USA or Uzbekistan...

 

[jgarden]

America has 4% of the world's people but 25% of its prison population.

Americans are still of the mindset that punishment acts as a deterent
and that capital punishment reduces homicides.

 

[jgarden]

Prison Population Per Capita - by Country

Country - Prisoners per 100,000 population
****************************************************
1. Seychelles 868

2. United States of America 707

7. Cuba 510

10. Russian Federation 470

25. Belarus 335

26. Puerto Rico (USA) 335

42. Brazil 274

50. Israel 249

65. Mexico 211

69. Poland 210

78. Hungary 184

79. New Zealand 183

88. Czech Republic 163

89. Romania 163

99. England and Wales (United Kingdom) 148

104. Scotland (United Kingdom) 146

107. Spain 144

108. Australia 143

122. Hong Kong (China) 126

125. China 124 or 172

128. Greece 120

130. Canada 118

137. Belgium 108

145. France 103

150. Italy 100

152. Austria 98

153. Republic of (South) Korea 98

157. Ireland, Republic of 89

158. Switzerland 87

164. Netherlands 82

168. Germany 78

175. Denmark 73

177. Norway 72

187. Sweden 60

189. Finland 58

200. Japan 51

201. Iceland 47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

America has 4% of the world's people but 25% of its prison population.

Many Americans are still of the mindset that punishment acts as a deterrent and that capital punishment reduces homicides.

 

[aikido7]

I wrote this today, and thought that it might be of interest to you guys:

Political thought for the day: when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the unborn, the elderly and the incurably sick don't matter (as evidenced by the fact that they tend to be "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-euthanasia rights"), nor do the lives of police (as evidenced by the "black lives matter" movement)...but the lives of violent criminals do matter (as evidenced both by the black lives matter movement and by the social liberal protest against the death penalty).

"But," the social liberal will tell me, "consider all those who have been acquitted because of DNA evidence." I answer: "Yes, we now have DNA evidence. Their guilt can be all but assured now! Wherein lies your objection?" Let us not kid ourselves: the social liberal only hides behind uncertainty as behind a mask. Deep down, he just doesn't think that violent criminals deserve to die (or even that they really deserve punishment) if it's not strictly "necessary." But the unborn, the eldery, the incurably sick and the police...?

Did you hear about the mother who started a Pro-Life bake sale? She sold cups of uncooked batter and claimed they were cupcakes!

 

[Jonahdog]

Furthermore, with respect to euthanasia, what you are saying, ArthurBrain and JonahDog, simply isn't true.

Where was the liberal outrage about the Terry Schiavo case?

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting? There should have been liberal outrage?

 

[The Horn]

Traditio ,you're just setting up a lot of straw men here . Your claim that social liberals not only don't want the deathpenalty , but don't want violent criminals to be in jail is just plain ludicrous .
Nobody thinks violent criminals shouldn't be imprisoned .
But the death penalty is NOT a deterrant to crime, and U.S. states without the death penalty actually have LOWER murder rates .
Ironically, it costs more to execute someone convicted of murder than to keep that individual in jail for life because of the constant
appeals , which only waste an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars .
Yes, quite a few innocent people have been exonerated by DVD evidence ,and some innocent ones have been executed, such as Cameron Todd Wiillinghm, who was executed some years ago in Texas for alegedly having set a house fire which killed his children, even though evidence clearing him was withheld at his trial .
In fact, life imprisonment is far more unpleasant in the long run than being executed . If you think life imprisonment for murderers is like living at a country club, you are dead wrong. It's a living hell !
This is why the despicable Timothy Mc Veigh wanted to be executed rather than spend the rest of his life in prison . He knew it would be a horrible fate . He would have been kept in solitary confinement .
Every country in Europe abolished the death penalty long ago, and murder rates there do not even come remotely close to those in America .
Comparing the death penalty ot abortion is totally specious .
The overhwelming majority of abortions happen long before a fetus can feel pain or has any conciousness .
The nervous system does not develop until the third trimester of pregnancy .

 

[Rusha]

But the death penalty is NOT a deterrant to crime, and U.S. states without the death penalty actually have LOWER murder rates .

Name one murderer who has received the DP and gone on to murder more victims ...

Permanently stopping one IS a deterrent.