Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 199







Post#4951 at 12-05-2002 11:08 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-05-2002, 11:08 AM #4951
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Actually quoting Thomas Fleming here:

harpies and ghouls of Planned Parenthood and NOW
You know, this gentleman and others like him lose me with the namecalling. We all want fewer abortions in this country. Even Planned Parenthood and NOW do. We just disagree about how to get there. Quit it with the "harpy" talk already. It's not helpful.







Post#4952 at 12-05-2002 11:19 AM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-05-2002, 11:19 AM #4952
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: The abortion thing

[quote]
Quote Originally Posted by Steve61
Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.
Did you mean to say "and that her right to life is protected."? I thought Roe (and the entire abortion issue) was enacted to protect a woman's right to privacy, not her right to life. If you meant to say "life", then Roe was a huge mistake and patently bad law because it used a woman's right to privacy as it's premise. If you meant to say "and that her right to privacy is protected" then it seems privacy trumps life in the constitutional pecking order.
I made two different statements in my previous post on this subject. At the beginning I pointed out one reason why Roe was construed as a privacy issue by the people that decided it. It is because medical decisions are not and have not been the business of the US Government. I would be greatly offended if, for example, Uncle Sam stepped in to tell me that I could not have a Ceasarian Section. This does not necessarily make it bad law. What makes it bad law is whether or not the courts have the right to make law at all.

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted. We have not decided yet whether of not a fetus has a right to life under the constitution and we have surely said that the born woman does have that right.

There are other ways to construct an argument for a woman's right to choose. Jewish law, for example, recognizes that it is the woman who takes the risks to her life and health in pregnancy and therefore she has the legal right to make decisions regarding birth control and abortion. In an ideal situation we would expect her husband and family to have a voice, but there are situations that are far less than ideal, and therefore since she takes the risk, she has the choice and the she takes the ethical responsibility for her choice if she is not coerced. It is also true that in Jewish law in a life-and-death situation, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus since Jewish law recognizes birth as the beginning of life legally. I take it from much of rhetoric I have read and that which was posted recently (the piece by Thomas Flemming) that the radical Christian anti-abortion folks believe that the fetus' life takes precedence over that of the woman.


If indeed abortions were conducted pre-Roe, as in the cases I stated, then Kiff's point...

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.
... serves to prove the whole abortion issue has little to due with privacy and everything to do with easing the discomfort, inconvenience, embarrassment, or financial hardship a child would be for the mother or, more cynically, abrogating the potential child support cost and commitment requirements that would fall to the father. :cry:
When I read the literature about the pre-Roe climate, it appears that the motivation of the women who fought for abortion rights was the protection of women in a desparate situation from back-alley quacks who often left them maimed or dead. When abortion was illegal no one could know whether or not the credentials of the practitioner were legitimate or not. Everything had to be done in secret.

More practically, people may choose to use a right for what you may consider to be insubstantial or downright ridiculous reasons. Many people "waste" their lives on sex, drugs and alcohol, but we would not remove from them their freedom of choice. Rights may not be removed because someone uses them friviously!

I agree, I agree, I agree!! But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:
Some groups do badmouth it. However, my millenial children have been exposed to the teaching of abstinence in school at the 5th and 7th grade levels. So it is being taught and has been since at least the mid-90's. In religious school and at home my children are thoroughly taught the Jewish view of the holiness of sex and how it is to be properly used and enjoyed. We must remember that we, as parents, are most responsible for teaching our children properly and appropriately. What some groups say should not deter us from this sacred duty.

This gets to what I think will be one of the principal issues of this entire 4T and ensuing Crisis... Individualism, and the responsibility that must accompany it.
I agree. For this to be accomplished we must use social sanctions for immoral behavior. I do not want the US Government cast in the role of a moral policeman. I do not want my liberties limited by the opinions of some hot-farting fundamentalist. I will take moral responsibility for my actions, thank-you!
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4953 at 12-05-2002 11:19 AM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-05-2002, 11:19 AM #4953
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: The abortion thing

[quote]
Quote Originally Posted by Steve61
Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.
Did you mean to say "and that her right to life is protected."? I thought Roe (and the entire abortion issue) was enacted to protect a woman's right to privacy, not her right to life. If you meant to say "life", then Roe was a huge mistake and patently bad law because it used a woman's right to privacy as it's premise. If you meant to say "and that her right to privacy is protected" then it seems privacy trumps life in the constitutional pecking order.
I made two different statements in my previous post on this subject. At the beginning I pointed out one reason why Roe was construed as a privacy issue by the people that decided it. It is because medical decisions are not and have not been the business of the US Government. I would be greatly offended if, for example, Uncle Sam stepped in to tell me that I could not have a Ceasarian Section. This does not necessarily make it bad law. What makes it bad law is whether or not the courts have the right to make law at all.

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted. We have not decided yet whether of not a fetus has a right to life under the constitution and we have surely said that the born woman does have that right.

There are other ways to construct an argument for a woman's right to choose. Jewish law, for example, recognizes that it is the woman who takes the risks to her life and health in pregnancy and therefore she has the legal right to make decisions regarding birth control and abortion. In an ideal situation we would expect her husband and family to have a voice, but there are situations that are far less than ideal, and therefore since she takes the risk, she has the choice and the she takes the ethical responsibility for her choice if she is not coerced. It is also true that in Jewish law in a life-and-death situation, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus since Jewish law recognizes birth as the beginning of life legally. I take it from much of rhetoric I have read and that which was posted recently (the piece by Thomas Flemming) that the radical Christian anti-abortion folks believe that the fetus' life takes precedence over that of the woman.


If indeed abortions were conducted pre-Roe, as in the cases I stated, then Kiff's point...

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.
... serves to prove the whole abortion issue has little to due with privacy and everything to do with easing the discomfort, inconvenience, embarrassment, or financial hardship a child would be for the mother or, more cynically, abrogating the potential child support cost and commitment requirements that would fall to the father. :cry:
When I read the literature about the pre-Roe climate, it appears that the motivation of the women who fought for abortion rights was the protection of women in a desparate situation from back-alley quacks who often left them maimed or dead. When abortion was illegal no one could know whether or not the credentials of the practitioner were legitimate or not. Everything had to be done in secret.

More practically, people may choose to use a right for what you may consider to be insubstantial or downright ridiculous reasons. Many people "waste" their lives on sex, drugs and alcohol, but we would not remove from them their freedom of choice. Rights may not be removed because someone uses them friviously!

I agree, I agree, I agree!! But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:
Some groups do badmouth it. However, my millenial children have been exposed to the teaching of abstinence in school at the 5th and 7th grade levels. So it is being taught and has been since at least the mid-90's. In religious school and at home my children are thoroughly taught the Jewish view of the holiness of sex and how it is to be properly used and enjoyed. We must remember that we, as parents, are most responsible for teaching our children properly and appropriately. What some groups say should not deter us from this sacred duty.

This gets to what I think will be one of the principal issues of this entire 4T and ensuing Crisis... Individualism, and the responsibility that must accompany it.
I agree. For this to be accomplished we must use social sanctions for immoral behavior. I do not want the US Government cast in the role of a moral policeman. I do not want my liberties limited by the opinions of some hot-farting fundamentalist. I will take moral responsibility for my actions, thank-you!
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4954 at 12-05-2002 11:19 AM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-05-2002, 11:19 AM #4954
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: The abortion thing

[quote]
Quote Originally Posted by Steve61
Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.
Did you mean to say "and that her right to life is protected."? I thought Roe (and the entire abortion issue) was enacted to protect a woman's right to privacy, not her right to life. If you meant to say "life", then Roe was a huge mistake and patently bad law because it used a woman's right to privacy as it's premise. If you meant to say "and that her right to privacy is protected" then it seems privacy trumps life in the constitutional pecking order.
I made two different statements in my previous post on this subject. At the beginning I pointed out one reason why Roe was construed as a privacy issue by the people that decided it. It is because medical decisions are not and have not been the business of the US Government. I would be greatly offended if, for example, Uncle Sam stepped in to tell me that I could not have a Ceasarian Section. This does not necessarily make it bad law. What makes it bad law is whether or not the courts have the right to make law at all.

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted. We have not decided yet whether of not a fetus has a right to life under the constitution and we have surely said that the born woman does have that right.

There are other ways to construct an argument for a woman's right to choose. Jewish law, for example, recognizes that it is the woman who takes the risks to her life and health in pregnancy and therefore she has the legal right to make decisions regarding birth control and abortion. In an ideal situation we would expect her husband and family to have a voice, but there are situations that are far less than ideal, and therefore since she takes the risk, she has the choice and the she takes the ethical responsibility for her choice if she is not coerced. It is also true that in Jewish law in a life-and-death situation, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus since Jewish law recognizes birth as the beginning of life legally. I take it from much of rhetoric I have read and that which was posted recently (the piece by Thomas Flemming) that the radical Christian anti-abortion folks believe that the fetus' life takes precedence over that of the woman.


If indeed abortions were conducted pre-Roe, as in the cases I stated, then Kiff's point...

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.
... serves to prove the whole abortion issue has little to due with privacy and everything to do with easing the discomfort, inconvenience, embarrassment, or financial hardship a child would be for the mother or, more cynically, abrogating the potential child support cost and commitment requirements that would fall to the father. :cry:
When I read the literature about the pre-Roe climate, it appears that the motivation of the women who fought for abortion rights was the protection of women in a desparate situation from back-alley quacks who often left them maimed or dead. When abortion was illegal no one could know whether or not the credentials of the practitioner were legitimate or not. Everything had to be done in secret.

More practically, people may choose to use a right for what you may consider to be insubstantial or downright ridiculous reasons. Many people "waste" their lives on sex, drugs and alcohol, but we would not remove from them their freedom of choice. Rights may not be removed because someone uses them friviously!

I agree, I agree, I agree!! But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:
Some groups do badmouth it. However, my millenial children have been exposed to the teaching of abstinence in school at the 5th and 7th grade levels. So it is being taught and has been since at least the mid-90's. In religious school and at home my children are thoroughly taught the Jewish view of the holiness of sex and how it is to be properly used and enjoyed. We must remember that we, as parents, are most responsible for teaching our children properly and appropriately. What some groups say should not deter us from this sacred duty.

This gets to what I think will be one of the principal issues of this entire 4T and ensuing Crisis... Individualism, and the responsibility that must accompany it.
I agree. For this to be accomplished we must use social sanctions for immoral behavior. I do not want the US Government cast in the role of a moral policeman. I do not want my liberties limited by the opinions of some hot-farting fundamentalist. I will take moral responsibility for my actions, thank-you!
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4955 at 12-05-2002 11:42 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
12-05-2002, 11:42 AM #4955
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
Stonewall, if life precedes all other rights, what does the "pro-life constitutionalist" do with the issue of capital punishment?
Explicit reference is made to capital crimes in the Constitution thereby establishing that capital punishment is consistent with original intent and in no way unconstitutional (emphasis added):


AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


I think this is related not only to the abortion issue but to the petering out of the culture wars in general. (I am trying to stay on the topic here ;-)) Several states (Illinois in particular, under a Republican governor) are taking a very hard look at the death penalty.
I often see an equality drawn between abortion and capital punishment but the two are not equal. With respect to capital punishment, a subject has been charged with a crime, tried in court, convicted, and sentenced. He has been given due process of law before being deprived of his life, as the Constitution requires. With respect to abortion, a subject is never charged with a crime, much less tried, convicted, and sentenced. There is no due process of law whatsoever. Of course, due process naturally is only required if there is a life of which to be deprived in the first place. So we return once again to the eternal question with regard to abortion. :wink:

Now perhaps because of the fear surrounding 9/11, those of us who support abolishing capital punishment will not get very far. But I still think it's worthwhile to talk about whether or not the death penalty is moral or even constitutional.
I'm with you. I have always supported the death penalty in the past but I find that I no longer can because the federal government has plainly shown, time and time again, that it is utterly incompetent to administer justice. I don't want any of these guys holding the power of life and death over anyone. We ought to have an immediate moratorium on use of the death penalty, at the very least.

But I am not going to try to argue that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it plainly is not (it is explicitly referenced in the Constitution). Nor is there any necessary equality between capital punishment and abortion. We can simply argue that no man is competent to hold the power of life and death over another man. Or we can argue that the federal government, time and time again, has shown itself utterly incompetent to be trusted with such awesome power. We can request that the Constitution be amended to ban it. But it will never be legitimately unconstitutional until the Constitution is so amended.







Post#4956 at 12-05-2002 11:42 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
12-05-2002, 11:42 AM #4956
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
Stonewall, if life precedes all other rights, what does the "pro-life constitutionalist" do with the issue of capital punishment?
Explicit reference is made to capital crimes in the Constitution thereby establishing that capital punishment is consistent with original intent and in no way unconstitutional (emphasis added):


AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


I think this is related not only to the abortion issue but to the petering out of the culture wars in general. (I am trying to stay on the topic here ;-)) Several states (Illinois in particular, under a Republican governor) are taking a very hard look at the death penalty.
I often see an equality drawn between abortion and capital punishment but the two are not equal. With respect to capital punishment, a subject has been charged with a crime, tried in court, convicted, and sentenced. He has been given due process of law before being deprived of his life, as the Constitution requires. With respect to abortion, a subject is never charged with a crime, much less tried, convicted, and sentenced. There is no due process of law whatsoever. Of course, due process naturally is only required if there is a life of which to be deprived in the first place. So we return once again to the eternal question with regard to abortion. :wink:

Now perhaps because of the fear surrounding 9/11, those of us who support abolishing capital punishment will not get very far. But I still think it's worthwhile to talk about whether or not the death penalty is moral or even constitutional.
I'm with you. I have always supported the death penalty in the past but I find that I no longer can because the federal government has plainly shown, time and time again, that it is utterly incompetent to administer justice. I don't want any of these guys holding the power of life and death over anyone. We ought to have an immediate moratorium on use of the death penalty, at the very least.

But I am not going to try to argue that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it plainly is not (it is explicitly referenced in the Constitution). Nor is there any necessary equality between capital punishment and abortion. We can simply argue that no man is competent to hold the power of life and death over another man. Or we can argue that the federal government, time and time again, has shown itself utterly incompetent to be trusted with such awesome power. We can request that the Constitution be amended to ban it. But it will never be legitimately unconstitutional until the Constitution is so amended.







Post#4957 at 12-05-2002 11:42 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
12-05-2002, 11:42 AM #4957
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
Stonewall, if life precedes all other rights, what does the "pro-life constitutionalist" do with the issue of capital punishment?
Explicit reference is made to capital crimes in the Constitution thereby establishing that capital punishment is consistent with original intent and in no way unconstitutional (emphasis added):


AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


I think this is related not only to the abortion issue but to the petering out of the culture wars in general. (I am trying to stay on the topic here ;-)) Several states (Illinois in particular, under a Republican governor) are taking a very hard look at the death penalty.
I often see an equality drawn between abortion and capital punishment but the two are not equal. With respect to capital punishment, a subject has been charged with a crime, tried in court, convicted, and sentenced. He has been given due process of law before being deprived of his life, as the Constitution requires. With respect to abortion, a subject is never charged with a crime, much less tried, convicted, and sentenced. There is no due process of law whatsoever. Of course, due process naturally is only required if there is a life of which to be deprived in the first place. So we return once again to the eternal question with regard to abortion. :wink:

Now perhaps because of the fear surrounding 9/11, those of us who support abolishing capital punishment will not get very far. But I still think it's worthwhile to talk about whether or not the death penalty is moral or even constitutional.
I'm with you. I have always supported the death penalty in the past but I find that I no longer can because the federal government has plainly shown, time and time again, that it is utterly incompetent to administer justice. I don't want any of these guys holding the power of life and death over anyone. We ought to have an immediate moratorium on use of the death penalty, at the very least.

But I am not going to try to argue that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it plainly is not (it is explicitly referenced in the Constitution). Nor is there any necessary equality between capital punishment and abortion. We can simply argue that no man is competent to hold the power of life and death over another man. Or we can argue that the federal government, time and time again, has shown itself utterly incompetent to be trusted with such awesome power. We can request that the Constitution be amended to ban it. But it will never be legitimately unconstitutional until the Constitution is so amended.







Post#4958 at 12-05-2002 11:55 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-05-2002, 11:55 AM #4958
Guest

ABORTION

Folks, in an Awakening, science (like collectivism) gets trashed. People opt for the individual spiritualism, instead. Ergo, up and coming transformations such as nuclear energy are co-opted by clean-burning coal energy. And little babies, with arms, toes, eyes and ears, are dumped in the trash in favor of "privacy rights."

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.

Either we are going to amend Roe v. Wade peacefully, or not so peacefully. That much is a plain fact.







Post#4959 at 12-05-2002 11:55 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-05-2002, 11:55 AM #4959
Guest

ABORTION

Folks, in an Awakening, science (like collectivism) gets trashed. People opt for the individual spiritualism, instead. Ergo, up and coming transformations such as nuclear energy are co-opted by clean-burning coal energy. And little babies, with arms, toes, eyes and ears, are dumped in the trash in favor of "privacy rights."

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.

Either we are going to amend Roe v. Wade peacefully, or not so peacefully. That much is a plain fact.







Post#4960 at 12-05-2002 11:55 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-05-2002, 11:55 AM #4960
Guest

ABORTION

Folks, in an Awakening, science (like collectivism) gets trashed. People opt for the individual spiritualism, instead. Ergo, up and coming transformations such as nuclear energy are co-opted by clean-burning coal energy. And little babies, with arms, toes, eyes and ears, are dumped in the trash in favor of "privacy rights."

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.

Either we are going to amend Roe v. Wade peacefully, or not so peacefully. That much is a plain fact.







Post#4961 at 12-05-2002 12:24 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-05-2002, 12:24 PM #4961
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
With respect to capital punishment, a subject has been charged with a crime, tried in court, convicted, and sentenced. He has been given due process of law before being deprived of his life, as the Constitution requires.
In theory, yes. But many death sentences have been overturned due to incompetence of defense attorneys, perjury on the part of witnesses who have an axe to grind against the defendant, evidence tampering, poor police work, etc. So in a good number of these cases, "due process" hasn't been realized.

Of course no justice system is perfect, and not all murderers will ever be caught and sentenced. But the stakes are so high in death penalty cases; mistakes, once made, are irreversible once someone has pulled that switch or given that injection.

I often wonder how executioners manage to get up in the morning and face themselves.







Post#4962 at 12-05-2002 12:24 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-05-2002, 12:24 PM #4962
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
With respect to capital punishment, a subject has been charged with a crime, tried in court, convicted, and sentenced. He has been given due process of law before being deprived of his life, as the Constitution requires.
In theory, yes. But many death sentences have been overturned due to incompetence of defense attorneys, perjury on the part of witnesses who have an axe to grind against the defendant, evidence tampering, poor police work, etc. So in a good number of these cases, "due process" hasn't been realized.

Of course no justice system is perfect, and not all murderers will ever be caught and sentenced. But the stakes are so high in death penalty cases; mistakes, once made, are irreversible once someone has pulled that switch or given that injection.

I often wonder how executioners manage to get up in the morning and face themselves.







Post#4963 at 12-05-2002 12:24 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-05-2002, 12:24 PM #4963
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
With respect to capital punishment, a subject has been charged with a crime, tried in court, convicted, and sentenced. He has been given due process of law before being deprived of his life, as the Constitution requires.
In theory, yes. But many death sentences have been overturned due to incompetence of defense attorneys, perjury on the part of witnesses who have an axe to grind against the defendant, evidence tampering, poor police work, etc. So in a good number of these cases, "due process" hasn't been realized.

Of course no justice system is perfect, and not all murderers will ever be caught and sentenced. But the stakes are so high in death penalty cases; mistakes, once made, are irreversible once someone has pulled that switch or given that injection.

I often wonder how executioners manage to get up in the morning and face themselves.







Post#4964 at 12-05-2002 01:09 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-05-2002, 01:09 PM #4964
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: ABORTION

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
.....

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.
First of all, MRI is not used in pregnancy,. Ultrasound is. Secondly, what you see depends on when in development. Looking at a recently implanted blastula (around week 4) is not going to convince anyone that what is there is a baby. It has not developed to that point yet.

Finally, science cannot answer the legal question of when a fetus is a human being with rights under the law. That is a legal question. Science can only give details of what happening at any point in the development of a fetus. In the early weeks the developing zygote does not have even the three germ layers we associate with animals. The blastula develops the cavity we see with cealomates. The gastrula has the three germ layers arranged normally. This is accomplished by it turning inside out and forming the neural tube. Then the stages of development have the zygote resembling various stages of our evolutionary heritage. At one stage rudimentary gills are seen on the neck. Only at about 12 weeks gestation does the zygote look human. We call that the beginning of the fetal stage. Further development continues to develop the brain and organs that allow for independent life.

Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works.

If every mother-to-be out there does know what is happening and when then she can decide for herself what is proper.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4965 at 12-05-2002 01:09 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-05-2002, 01:09 PM #4965
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: ABORTION

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
.....

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.
First of all, MRI is not used in pregnancy,. Ultrasound is. Secondly, what you see depends on when in development. Looking at a recently implanted blastula (around week 4) is not going to convince anyone that what is there is a baby. It has not developed to that point yet.

Finally, science cannot answer the legal question of when a fetus is a human being with rights under the law. That is a legal question. Science can only give details of what happening at any point in the development of a fetus. In the early weeks the developing zygote does not have even the three germ layers we associate with animals. The blastula develops the cavity we see with cealomates. The gastrula has the three germ layers arranged normally. This is accomplished by it turning inside out and forming the neural tube. Then the stages of development have the zygote resembling various stages of our evolutionary heritage. At one stage rudimentary gills are seen on the neck. Only at about 12 weeks gestation does the zygote look human. We call that the beginning of the fetal stage. Further development continues to develop the brain and organs that allow for independent life.

Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works.

If every mother-to-be out there does know what is happening and when then she can decide for herself what is proper.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4966 at 12-05-2002 01:09 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-05-2002, 01:09 PM #4966
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Re: ABORTION

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
.....

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.
First of all, MRI is not used in pregnancy,. Ultrasound is. Secondly, what you see depends on when in development. Looking at a recently implanted blastula (around week 4) is not going to convince anyone that what is there is a baby. It has not developed to that point yet.

Finally, science cannot answer the legal question of when a fetus is a human being with rights under the law. That is a legal question. Science can only give details of what happening at any point in the development of a fetus. In the early weeks the developing zygote does not have even the three germ layers we associate with animals. The blastula develops the cavity we see with cealomates. The gastrula has the three germ layers arranged normally. This is accomplished by it turning inside out and forming the neural tube. Then the stages of development have the zygote resembling various stages of our evolutionary heritage. At one stage rudimentary gills are seen on the neck. Only at about 12 weeks gestation does the zygote look human. We call that the beginning of the fetal stage. Further development continues to develop the brain and organs that allow for independent life.

Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works.

If every mother-to-be out there does know what is happening and when then she can decide for herself what is proper.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4967 at 12-05-2002 02:03 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
12-05-2002, 02:03 PM #4967
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
In theory, yes. But many death sentences have been overturned due to incompetence of defense attorneys, perjury on the part of witnesses who have an axe to grind against the defendant, evidence tampering, poor police work, etc. So in a good number of these cases, "due process" hasn't been realized.
I agree and lately all we seem to see is incompetence and corruption in federal law enforcement. Is there any sign of the offensive vermin being flushed out and the many, many wrongs being righted? Nope. Normally, it would be a good thing to have an alleged Christian as Attorney General because, obviously, you would expect that he is relatively incorruptible and would have no tolerance for any corruption going on below him (and therefore would FINALLY CLEAN IT UP)! I say "normally" however. In fact we do have an alleged Christian as Attorney General and HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANY OF IT! He will not lift a finger to do a damn thing about it! What kind of a Christian is this? His fruits appear less wholesome than his secular predecessors, for crying out loud!

This is why I can no longer accept the death penalty at the federal level. In fact, the federal government ought to be forbidden from even investigating and prosecuting any crimes until all that vermin is flushed down to its proper home (the vermin named in that 60 Minutes whistleblower piece, for example). But nothing is happening and apparently nothing will ever happen.

God bless the good people in federal law enforcement who are forced to work among and under that human garbage, and there have to be a lot of good people in there. But the rest of them can go to hell. They have no credibility left. Just go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Get the hell out of our lives, vermin, and don't even think about bothering us (you know, We The people, YOUR BOSSES).







Post#4968 at 12-05-2002 02:03 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
12-05-2002, 02:03 PM #4968
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
In theory, yes. But many death sentences have been overturned due to incompetence of defense attorneys, perjury on the part of witnesses who have an axe to grind against the defendant, evidence tampering, poor police work, etc. So in a good number of these cases, "due process" hasn't been realized.
I agree and lately all we seem to see is incompetence and corruption in federal law enforcement. Is there any sign of the offensive vermin being flushed out and the many, many wrongs being righted? Nope. Normally, it would be a good thing to have an alleged Christian as Attorney General because, obviously, you would expect that he is relatively incorruptible and would have no tolerance for any corruption going on below him (and therefore would FINALLY CLEAN IT UP)! I say "normally" however. In fact we do have an alleged Christian as Attorney General and HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANY OF IT! He will not lift a finger to do a damn thing about it! What kind of a Christian is this? His fruits appear less wholesome than his secular predecessors, for crying out loud!

This is why I can no longer accept the death penalty at the federal level. In fact, the federal government ought to be forbidden from even investigating and prosecuting any crimes until all that vermin is flushed down to its proper home (the vermin named in that 60 Minutes whistleblower piece, for example). But nothing is happening and apparently nothing will ever happen.

God bless the good people in federal law enforcement who are forced to work among and under that human garbage, and there have to be a lot of good people in there. But the rest of them can go to hell. They have no credibility left. Just go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Get the hell out of our lives, vermin, and don't even think about bothering us (you know, We The people, YOUR BOSSES).







Post#4969 at 12-05-2002 02:03 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
12-05-2002, 02:03 PM #4969
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
In theory, yes. But many death sentences have been overturned due to incompetence of defense attorneys, perjury on the part of witnesses who have an axe to grind against the defendant, evidence tampering, poor police work, etc. So in a good number of these cases, "due process" hasn't been realized.
I agree and lately all we seem to see is incompetence and corruption in federal law enforcement. Is there any sign of the offensive vermin being flushed out and the many, many wrongs being righted? Nope. Normally, it would be a good thing to have an alleged Christian as Attorney General because, obviously, you would expect that he is relatively incorruptible and would have no tolerance for any corruption going on below him (and therefore would FINALLY CLEAN IT UP)! I say "normally" however. In fact we do have an alleged Christian as Attorney General and HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANY OF IT! He will not lift a finger to do a damn thing about it! What kind of a Christian is this? His fruits appear less wholesome than his secular predecessors, for crying out loud!

This is why I can no longer accept the death penalty at the federal level. In fact, the federal government ought to be forbidden from even investigating and prosecuting any crimes until all that vermin is flushed down to its proper home (the vermin named in that 60 Minutes whistleblower piece, for example). But nothing is happening and apparently nothing will ever happen.

God bless the good people in federal law enforcement who are forced to work among and under that human garbage, and there have to be a lot of good people in there. But the rest of them can go to hell. They have no credibility left. Just go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Get the hell out of our lives, vermin, and don't even think about bothering us (you know, We The people, YOUR BOSSES).







Post#4970 at 12-05-2002 02:47 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-05-2002, 02:47 PM #4970
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Re: The abortion thing

Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68
That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".
whoa. that's just weird.

in my high school, it was more that we didn't really care whether or not "they" thought it was ok.


TK







Post#4971 at 12-05-2002 02:47 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-05-2002, 02:47 PM #4971
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Re: The abortion thing

Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68
That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".
whoa. that's just weird.

in my high school, it was more that we didn't really care whether or not "they" thought it was ok.


TK







Post#4972 at 12-05-2002 02:47 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-05-2002, 02:47 PM #4972
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Re: The abortion thing

Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68
That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".
whoa. that's just weird.

in my high school, it was more that we didn't really care whether or not "they" thought it was ok.


TK







Post#4973 at 12-05-2002 04:36 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-05-2002, 04:36 PM #4973
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
.....

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.
First of all, MRI is not used in pregnancy,. Ultrasound is.
I should have said "some mothers" today, while tomorrow "every mother-to-be."

You claim, "Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works."

This is true in such countries as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where dictatorships rule within the confines of Marxist dictum of "opium of the masses." In America we tend to base a lot of public policy on the latest "scientific study." Why else do you think SUVs are under such fire right now?

That some "science" turns out to be bogus, like global warming, does not discount that other revelations aren't helpful to the public. Like the big Alar scare back in the eighties. :wink:







Post#4974 at 12-05-2002 04:36 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-05-2002, 04:36 PM #4974
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
.....

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.
First of all, MRI is not used in pregnancy,. Ultrasound is.
I should have said "some mothers" today, while tomorrow "every mother-to-be."

You claim, "Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works."

This is true in such countries as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where dictatorships rule within the confines of Marxist dictum of "opium of the masses." In America we tend to base a lot of public policy on the latest "scientific study." Why else do you think SUVs are under such fire right now?

That some "science" turns out to be bogus, like global warming, does not discount that other revelations aren't helpful to the public. Like the big Alar scare back in the eighties. :wink:







Post#4975 at 12-05-2002 04:36 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-05-2002, 04:36 PM #4975
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by elilevin
Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
.....

Thankfully, science and technology aren't totally destroyed in the process (during a successful Awakening, anyway), and today MRI imaging is showing every mother-to-be out there, across the fruited plain, just what "it" really is people are aborting. Not a good thing for the "privacy" argument.
First of all, MRI is not used in pregnancy,. Ultrasound is.
I should have said "some mothers" today, while tomorrow "every mother-to-be."

You claim, "Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works."

This is true in such countries as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where dictatorships rule within the confines of Marxist dictum of "opium of the masses." In America we tend to base a lot of public policy on the latest "scientific study." Why else do you think SUVs are under such fire right now?

That some "science" turns out to be bogus, like global warming, does not discount that other revelations aren't helpful to the public. Like the big Alar scare back in the eighties. :wink:
-----------------------------------------