Abortion

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I oppose the death penalty because it's not necessary today.

And you call me a hypocrite. 🙄

Many abortions in this day and age are not necessary, eithor.

Hahahaha, you've just proven that your as much a hypocrite as you say I am. 🙄

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The answer is yes, and here's why:

I oppose the death penalty because it's not necessary today. Killing because killing is wrong? Hmm, can't say I agree. Killing someone by strapping them to a metal chair and killing them with electricity or lethal injections..........because they've committed a barbaric crime? Nope, don't support that.

I'm not against the death penalty because a life will be lost, though. Which is the impression you seem to have. I'm against it because it's useless and hypocritical. If I WERE anti-death penalty because I love life, my answer of yes would be hypocritical, but it's not.

Soldiers, whilst I disagree with their actions, have a purpose and a reason for existing. In the event of a necessary war or battle, soldiers kill in defense. If someone personally attacked me, I'd kill in defense. The death penalty has no purpose.

-AC

And I don't support the death penalty either.

But the point is that it is actually very possible to say killing is right in some circumstances and not others.

I submit it is ridiculous to say that a person who believes judicial execution is justified against the most evil in society is not allowed to think it should be illegal to kill babies- which is what the pro-lifers think is what happens with each abortion.

They are not incompatible viewpoints at all.

In late term abortions they are turned around to suck the brains out with a scapula....If they were brought out head first they would be considered live and viable, but in turning them around and sucking the brain out first they are still considered........And terminable.

Originally posted by Makedde
And you call me a hypocrite. 🙄

Many abortions in this day and age are not necessary, eithor.

Hahahaha, you've just proven that your as much a hypocrite as you say I am. 🙄

Not at all.

They're not necessary in your opinion, the death penalty is factually unnecessary.

-AC

Yup, just made that point about the Chinese.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The answer is yes, and here's why:

I oppose the death penalty because it's not necessary today. Killing because killing is wrong? Hmm, can't say I agree. Killing someone by strapping them to a metal chair and killing them with electricity or lethal injections..........because they've committed a barbaric crime? Nope, don't support that.

I'm not against the death penalty because a life will be lost, though. Which is the impression you seem to have. I'm against it because it's useless and hypocritical. If I WERE anti-death penalty because I love life, my answer of yes would be hypocritical, but it's not.

Soldiers, whilst I disagree with their actions, have a purpose and a reason for existing. In the event of a necessary war or battle, soldiers kill in defense. If someone personally attacked me, I'd kill in defense. The death penalty has no purpose.

-AC

D@mn Hypocritical Flip Flopper.

is it comprehensible.....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And I don't support the death penalty either.

But the point is that it is actually very possible to say killing is right in some circumstances and not others.

I submit it is ridiculous to say that a person who believes judicial execution is justified against the most evil in society is not allowed to think it should be illegal to kill babies- which is what the pro-lifers think is what happens with each abortion.

They are not incompatible viewpoints at all.

Then that comes back to the why, doesn't it? Why do these people believe it's illegal to kill "babies"? If it's because they value life, then they logically cannot support euthanasia can they?

If the logic behind being pro-life is "That baby needs a chance to have a good life, let it be born" then you obviously overlook the wellbeing of the woman who bears said child, who already has a life, who already lives here. Makedde supports euthanasia, which is the killing of someone with no quality of life. Abortion, in many cases, is done because the arrival of a baby would ruin the quality of life.

If quality of life is what people such as Makedde would be all about, they would logically be pro-abortion.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not at all.

They're not necessary in your opinion, the death penalty is factually unnecessary.

-AC

The death penatly is necessary because it gets rid of killers and rapists and perverts.

Hypocrite.

Originally posted by Makedde
And you call me a hypocrite. 🙄

Many abortions in this day and age are not necessary, eithor.

Hahahaha, you've just proven that your as much a hypocrite as you say I am. 🙄

It is because both sides are at war, and will not give an inch.

Originally posted by Makedde
The death penatly is necessary because it gets rid of killers and rapists and perverts.

Hypocrite.

So does jail, without being hypocritical.

"You committed a barbaric crime...evil....so therefore we're going to electrocute you to death."

Yes, shh.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then that comes back to the why, doesn't it? Why do these people believe it's illegal to kill "babies"? If it's because they value life, then they logically cannot support euthanasia can they?-AC

Euthanasia is different to abortion. A person can decide when they die, they make a decision. A baby has no decision, no choice.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
D@mn Hypocritical Flip Flopper.

is it comprehensible.....

Nothing hypocritical within that paragraph. Either contribute or go away, Jack.

-AC

Also hear and read that the the whole industry was to take out the poor and blacks....Written by what's her name......wish I could remember...The founder.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then that comes back to the why, doesn't it?
-AC

doesn't it always with you?

Nobody can ever seem to give you a good enough of an answer.

is it comprehensible.....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nothing hypocritical within that paragraph. Either contribute or go away, Jack.

-AC

You just refuse to admit that you're a hypocrite, don't you?

Originally posted by Makedde
Euthanasia is different to abortion. A person can decide when they die, they make a decision. A baby has no decision, no choice.

Oh this is too sweet.

So it's ok for someone to decide THEY want to die, and for you to carry that out, but it's NOT ok for a woman to make a decision that a life she created, should die?

How odd.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then that comes back to the why, doesn't it? Why do these people believe it's illegal to kill "babies"? If it's because they value life, then they logically cannot support euthanasia can they?

If the logic behind being pro-life is "That baby needs a chance to have a good life, let it be born" then you obviously overlook the wellbeing of the woman who bears said child, who already has a life, who already lives here. Makedde supports euthanasia, which is the killing of someone with no quality of life. Abortion, in many cases, is done because the arrival of a baby would ruin the quality of life.

If quality of life is what people such as Makedde would be all about, they would logically be pro-abortion.

-AC

Euthansia has in theory, to use your words, a 'purpose'- to end suffering to those who desperately want it. Whether this is so or not is widely open to debate but those who are proponents of it are not trying to be senseless killers.

If abortion IS murder, then it can never be so morally justified. It is simple murder to suit the convenience of another; totally morally wrong by any reasonable system. The wellbeing of the woman- who after all, is an adult and can handle herself- absolutely does not override the wellbeing of the child, which is totally defenceless.

IF it is actually a living child, that is. Which no-one knows.

Oh...remembered now...Margaret Sanger.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
doesn't it always with you?

Nobody can ever seem to give you a good enough of an answer.

is it comprehensible.....

Nope, just you. Stop yapping around threads, man. You're a nuisance.

Makedde, I'm not one. You can continue claiming I am, but you've tried and failed to prove it.

-AC

If the logic behind being pro-life is "That baby needs a chance to have a good life, let it be born" then you obviously overlook the wellbeing of the woman who bears said child, who already has a life, who already lives here. Makedde supports euthanasia, which is the killing of someone with no quality of life. Abortion, in many cases, is done because the arrival of a baby would ruin the quality of life.

Which is a problem the woman brought upon themselves by having sex in the first place. Someone who is dying of cancer didn't choose to get cancer, they had no control. This woman decided to have sex, while knowing the possible outcome, brought these consequences upon herself. If having a child will ruin the quality of your life, then grow a ****ing brain and don't have sex. It's not like - "oops, I accidentally had sex, I'm a victim now because I can't support the baby now."

And besides, if it's the quality of their own life that would be dampered, why abort it, why not just put it up for adoption after it's born?