Women have a choice now. Abortion is legal. That's not the issue. The issue is that they also want you to pay for it, at their local drive-thru clinic.
So using this guys logic....if you are pro death penalty that also means you are pro murder because both ends the life of another person...correct?
Huh? I think the guy was just pointing out that "pro-choice", as defined by the abortion crowd, could be used on other issues. And on what issues should the government say you can choose, and which ones you can't. Are you pro-choice when it comes to cigars? Most of us would say yes. But what about when the government says it is bad for you and restricts it for "your own good"? There's no end to this argument. Not only do I think its' my body and I'll smoke if I want, I also demand that non-smokers be forced to pay an insurance premium for it in case I get sick from using it. Pro-choice all the way.
So using this guys logic....if you are pro death penalty that also means you are pro murder because both ends the life of another person...correct?
Huh? I think the guy was just pointing out that "pro-choice", as defined by the abortion crowd, could be used on other issues. And on what issues should the government say you can choose, and which ones you can't. Are you pro-choice when it comes to cigars? Most of us would say yes. But what about when the government says it is bad for you and restricts it for "your own good"? There's no end to this argument. Not only do I think its' my body and I'll smoke if I want, I also demand that non-smokers be forced to pay an insurance premium for it in case I get sick from using it. Pro-choice all the way.
I think it cuts both ways. How can you be "pro-life", but support the death penalty? How can you be "pro-life", but also oppose universal coverage for health care? How can you be "pro-life" but expect someone without health care to die if they have cancer and don't have the money to pay for their insurance?
It's the same kind of application of the term "pro-life" as the guy in the video wants to apply to "pro-choice". As long as abortion is legal, those who actively work to restrict it are doing the exact thing that those who would restrict the use of tobacco products, which are also legal.
So using this guys logic....if you are pro death penalty that also means you are pro murder because both ends the life of another person...correct?
Huh? I think the guy was just pointing out that "pro-choice", as defined by the abortion crowd, could be used on other issues. And on what issues should the government say you can choose, and which ones you can't. Are you pro-choice when it comes to cigars? Most of us would say yes. But what about when the government says it is bad for you and restricts it for "your own good"? There's no end to this argument. Not only do I think its' my body and I'll smoke if I want, I also demand that non-smokers be forced to pay an insurance premium for it in case I get sick from using it. Pro-choice all the way.
I think it cuts both ways. How can you be "pro-life", but support the death penalty? How can you be "pro-life", but also oppose universal coverage for health care? How can you be "pro-life" but expect someone without health care to die if they have cancer and don't have the money to pay for their insurance?
It's the same kind of application of the term "pro-life" as the guy in the video wants to apply to "pro-choice". As long as abortion is legal, those who actively work to restrict it are doing the exact thing that those who would restrict the use of tobacco products, which are also legal.
Only you would try to tie unborn fetuses to murders, rapists, and pedophiles. The debate is when does life begin. Doesn't matter your thoughts it's already been settled in the supreme court.
Also where in the video did the interviewer state he was pro life? The point to this video is one of the key issues, that democrats love to rattle off at the head about, is about choice and how they belive no one should be able to dictate what choices can be made. Then at the next turn they want to dictate every single thing that you can or can't do. I'm glad you guys really really like your ideas, I encourage you to follow them to the end of earth if that's what you feel is best, but leave me the *** out of it I'll figure out whats best for me and my family. As long as that doesn't hurt anyone else you should have no say in it. It's called personal liberty and it's what the country has it's roots embeded in.
So using this guys logic....if you are pro death penalty that also means you are pro murder because both ends the life of another person...correct?
Huh? I think the guy was just pointing out that "pro-choice", as defined by the abortion crowd, could be used on other issues. And on what issues should the government say you can choose, and which ones you can't. Are you pro-choice when it comes to cigars? Most of us would say yes. But what about when the government says it is bad for you and restricts it for "your own good"? There's no end to this argument. Not only do I think its' my body and I'll smoke if I want, I also demand that non-smokers be forced to pay an insurance premium for it in case I get sick from using it. Pro-choice all the way.
I think it cuts both ways. How can you be "pro-life", but support the death penalty? How can you be "pro-life", but also oppose universal coverage for health care? How can you be "pro-life" but expect someone without health care to die if they have cancer and don't have the money to pay for their insurance?
It's the same kind of application of the term "pro-life" as the guy in the video wants to apply to "pro-choice". As long as abortion is legal, those who actively work to restrict it are doing the exact thing that those who would restrict the use of tobacco products, which are also legal.
Only you would try to tie unborn fetuses to murders, rapists, and pedophiles. The debate is when does life begin. Doesn't matter your thoughts it's already been settled in the supreme court.
Also where in the video did the interviewer state he was pro life? The point to this video is one of the key issues, that democrats love to rattle off at the head about, is about choice and how they belive no one should be able to dictate what choices can be made. Then at the next turn they want to dictate every single thing that you can or can't do. I'm glad you guys really really like your ideas, I encourage you to follow them to the end of earth if that's what you feel is best, but leave me the *** out of it I'll figure out whats best for me and my family. As long as that doesn't hurt anyone else you should have no say in it. It's called personal liberty and it's what the country has it's roots embeded in.
Life is life. There are innocent people in prison, and there are innocent people on death row. I do not see how you can advocate for the death penalty, and call yourself "pro-life" any more than some people can call themselves "pro-choice", but still advocate for the prohibition of tobacco and other substances.
That is exactly my point. If you focus on either term (pro-life or pro-choice), it can be demonstrated that both camps are conflicted in their application of their positions. When democrats speak of being 'pro-choice", they are generally talking about abortion, not the things the guy in the video was talking about. The same applies to republicans who speak about being "pro-life", yet it is easy enough to find conflicted logic there too, as I have demonstrated. It is easy enough to find republicans who advocate "personal liberty", but will find a hundred ways for the government to make personal decisions for women, against their will.
The topic is "Pro-Choice", Sometimes! I'm just saying that it would be just as easy to validate an argument for "Pro-Life", Sometimes!
Thanks, and for the record, my position on abortion is exactly the same as my position on the death penalty - they both should be legal, and they both should be rare; used only under narrow, specific, limited circumstances. I would prefer that the overwhelming majority of convicted criminals get life without parole in capital murder cases, and I would prefer that contraception and adoption prevented the overwhelming majority of abortions. I am also convinced that life should be legally defined as begining at birth, outside the womb. If life begins at conception, then every woman who has a miscarriage will come under criminal investigation, and I fear that many will go to prison, or even face the death penalty. Additionally, if life begins at conception, then many will argue that contraception is equal to abortion.
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer.
If we're going to keep fighting this silly "war on drugs" we really don't have the space for lifers. Alot of the bigger cities have revolving door policies for violent offenders due to over crowding, and we are really mucking up the justice system with this silliness.
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer.
If we're going to keep fighting this silly "war on drugs" we really don't have the space for lifers. Alot of the bigger cities have revolving door policies for violent offenders due to over crowding, and we are really mucking up the justice system with this silliness.
I'm sorry you don't see the moral implications of executing people because prisons cost the taxpayers money. When we can develop a legal system that can provide a 100% gurantee that no person will ever be falsely convicted or jailed, then I might consider a more liberal application of the death penalty to be warranted. However, too many people in prison are being found innocent and are released for crimes they did not commit. Often these people are on death row, and are scheduled to be murdered by the state for something they did not do. Until only the guilty go to prison, I believe that it is morally wrong to apply the death penalty often.
I agree completely with your view on the "war on drugs". We have the worlds largest prison polulation, mainly because of the failed war on drugs. However, because we have demonstrated that we are willing to build such a prison system, I am convinced beyond doubt that if life is determined to begin at conception, then we will continue to brutalize people for breaking "laws" that serve little or no purpose other than to rule by fear.
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer.
actually costs the tax payer more in appeals from death row per prisoner then to live the rest of life in jail.
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer.
actually costs the tax payer more in appeals from death row per prisoner then to live the rest of life in jail.
I think this is accurate in some states, but others have some pretty good limits on the appeal process.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
I remember reading something about either texas or florida saving lots of money with the death penalty but I could be wrong it's been a while since I read it.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
I remember reading something about either texas or florida saving lots of money with the death penalty but I could be wrong it's been a while since I read it.
As far as I'm concerned, the State of Texas is a mass murderer.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
The *** had a Final Solution for those they believed could contribute nothing to their society. What is it that people in nursing homes provide society? What do the homeless provide to society? If you believe that those who contribute little to society, or who actually cost society money should be "eliminated", then I would not live in a country that lives up to your values.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
The *** had a Final Solution for those they believed could contribute nothing to their society. What is it that people in nursing homes provide society? What do the homeless provide to society? If you believe that those who contribute little to society, or who actually cost society money should be "eliminated", then I would not live in a country that lives up to your values.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
The *** had a Final Solution for those they believed could contribute nothing to their society. What is it that people in nursing homes provide society? What do the homeless provide to society? If you believe that those who contribute little to society, or who actually cost society money should be "eliminated", then I would not live in a country that lives up to your values.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.
The least being fetuses! IMO
My position on abortion is exactly the same as my position on the death penalty - they both should be legal, and they both should be rare; used only under narrow, specific, limited circumstances. I would prefer that the overwhelming majority of convicted criminals get life without parole in capital murder cases, and I would prefer that contraception and adoption prevented the overwhelming majority of abortions. I am also convinced that life should be legally defined as begining at birth, outside the womb. If life begins at conception, then every woman who has a miscarriage will come under criminal investigation, and I fear that many will go to prison, or even face the death penalty. Additionally, if life begins at conception, then many will argue that contraception is equal to abortion.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
The *** had a Final Solution for those they believed could contribute nothing to their society. What is it that people in nursing homes provide society? What do the homeless provide to society? If you believe that those who contribute little to society, or who actually cost society money should be "eliminated", then I would not live in a country that lives up to your values.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.
The least being fetuses! IMO
My position on abortion is exactly the same as my position on the death penalty - they both should be legal, and they both should be rare; used only under narrow, specific, limited circumstances. I would prefer that the overwhelming majority of convicted criminals get life without parole in capital murder cases, and I would prefer that contraception and adoption prevented the overwhelming majority of abortions. I am also convinced that life should be legally defined as begining at birth, outside the womb. If life begins at conception, then every woman who has a miscarriage will come under criminal investigation, and I fear that many will go to prison, or even face the death penalty. Additionally, if life begins at conception, then many will argue that contraception is equal to abortion.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
The *** had a Final Solution for those they believed could contribute nothing to their society. What is it that people in nursing homes provide society? What do the homeless provide to society? If you believe that those who contribute little to society, or who actually cost society money should be "eliminated", then I would not live in a country that lives up to your values.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.
You dodge questions like nobody's **** business my friend. I'd ask again but it would do no good, just another chance for you to spout party line bullshit. Oh and you're comparison of capital punishment to an ethnic cleansing was beautiful because it's exactly what I was talking about, homeless and elderly and so on, not like I was talking about a certain type of people just those who "don't provide to society". Don't let the facts or free thought stand in the way of a debate where you can push an agenda.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
"wwestern:
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
What is it that the life long inmates provide society?
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
The *** had a Final Solution for those they believed could contribute nothing to their society. What is it that people in nursing homes provide society? What do the homeless provide to society? If you believe that those who contribute little to society, or who actually cost society money should be "eliminated", then I would not live in a country that lives up to your values.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.
You dodge questions like nobody's **** business my friend. I'd ask again but it would do no good, just another chance for you to spout party line bullshit. Oh and you're comparison of capital punishment to an ethnic cleansing was beautiful because it's exactly what I was talking about, homeless and elderly and so on, not like I was talking about a certain type of people just those who "don't provide to society". Don't let the facts or free thought stand in the way of a debate where you can push an agenda.
You stated quite plainly that "locking people up forever" is a "horrible expense", while advocating for an expansion of the death penalty because it would save the taxpayers money. I have dodged nothing; I only responded to your view that the death penalty would save the taxpayers money if it was used more. You brought up the standard that people convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer ", not me. I only responded to your viewpoint. Those are your words, not mine. Don't let the facts of your own words get in the way of a logical debate.
I happen to believe that the death penalty is very similar to the Final Solution, especially if it is to be applied to people who "serve no purpose to society", as you so clearly stated. Once that criteria is established as the rule for when to use capital punishment, all those I mentioned are at risk of being "eliminated", and I will argue against that every single time
wwestern
Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow
Comments
i tend not to trust many political "interview style" videos that are clearly heavy handed with the editing.
It's the same kind of application of the term "pro-life" as the guy in the video wants to apply to "pro-choice". As long as abortion is legal, those who actively work to restrict it are doing the exact thing that those who would restrict the use of tobacco products, which are also legal.
Also where in the video did the interviewer state he was pro life? The point to this video is one of the key issues, that democrats love to rattle off at the head about, is about choice and how they belive no one should be able to dictate what choices can be made. Then at the next turn they want to dictate every single thing that you can or can't do. I'm glad you guys really really like your ideas, I encourage you to follow them to the end of earth if that's what you feel is best, but leave me the *** out of it I'll figure out whats best for me and my family. As long as that doesn't hurt anyone else you should have no say in it. It's called personal liberty and it's what the country has it's roots embeded in.
That is exactly my point. If you focus on either term (pro-life or pro-choice), it can be demonstrated that both camps are conflicted in their application of their positions. When democrats speak of being 'pro-choice", they are generally talking about abortion, not the things the guy in the video was talking about. The same applies to republicans who speak about being "pro-life", yet it is easy enough to find conflicted logic there too, as I have demonstrated. It is easy enough to find republicans who advocate "personal liberty", but will find a hundred ways for the government to make personal decisions for women, against their will.
The topic is "Pro-Choice", Sometimes! I'm just saying that it would be just as easy to validate an argument for "Pro-Life", Sometimes!
If we're going to keep fighting this silly "war on drugs" we really don't have the space for lifers. Alot of the bigger cities have revolving door policies for violent offenders due to over crowding, and we are really mucking up the justice system with this silliness.
I agree completely with your view on the "war on drugs". We have the worlds largest prison polulation, mainly because of the failed war on drugs. However, because we have demonstrated that we are willing to build such a prison system, I am convinced beyond doubt that if life is determined to begin at conception, then we will continue to brutalize people for breaking "laws" that serve little or no purpose other than to rule by fear.
It seems to me that wwestern would prefer to "eliminate" persons convicted of capital crimes instead of "locking them up forever", because "the price tag (for life without parole) is horrible", and besides he has determined that those convicted of capital crimes "serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer. "
I disagree.
Abortion: women's rights, Convicts: we must value human life! Glad to see you've built your moral high ground on such a sturdy foundation.
BTW, One of the points on my moral compas came from Jesus Christ, who told us that the way we treat the least among us is how we treat Him.