Electric chair to return

[asjssl]

Oh yeah, that's right. It's ok to kill them because without the umbilical they can't survive so they aren't really alive or a person. That means it's also fine to kill scuba divers and astronauts I guess because they too aren't truly alive or a person in their environment without the umbilical. Blah, blah, blah. Still wrong.

If your so passionate about how wrong abortions are...I would hope you go out and help ALL these ( or as many as you can) unwanted children that are born to parents who do NOT want/ take care of them...they need lots & lots of hugs & love..and shirt n shoes too..soooo they do not end up on death row because nobody ever loved them...open your arms.. there's thousands n thousands n thousands of these children...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[LDB]

Not that it's anyone's business but my first involvement with a sanctioned children home began 36 years ago during college. I can't save the world but I can do my part. You, like most liberals, are all uppity with the blah blah and what ifs that may or may not ever transpire but murdered is murdered and dead is absolute.

 

[layoutshooter]

If your so passionate about how wrong abortions are...I would hope you go out and help ALL these ( or as many as you can) unwanted children that are born to parents who do NOT want/ take care of them...they need lots & lots of hugs & love..and shirt n shoes too..soooo they do not end up on death row because nobody ever loved them...open your arms.. there's thousands n thousands n thousands of these children...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

But you guys want to use FORCE, like jail and guns, to make us do what we believe is morally wrong. In the case of the draft, and war, there was a process, where one could legally object, and be relived of that particular duty. We, who have the SAME moral objections to abortion that antiwar objectors, had towards war, have no such option. We ONLY have two choices, go against everything that we believe in or face jail, or an attack from the IRS. Does that seem right to you? What gives you the RIGHT to go against MY morals? Are my pro-life morals not worth protecting just as the pro life morals of those who did not want to go to war?

Dead is dead.

By the way, the ONLY reason that children here are not adopted is due to government regulations and red tape. Which is why, when many Americans try to adopt they head to Russia or China. The government would rather kill than allow adoption.

Abortion IS a killing, there is NO other way to end the life of something that is alive. The fetus, or what every stage of life that human was in at that time is ended. By injecting chemicals, cutting them up, sucking them out. There are people who are scared from the saline immersion they survived, or those who are missing limbs that were cut of in the attempt, and lived to tell about it.

 

[asjssl]

Not that it's anyone's business but my first involvement with a sanctioned children home began 36 years ago during college. I can't save the world but I can do my part. You, like most liberals, are all uppity with the blah blah and what ifs that may or may not ever transpire but murdered is murdered and dead is absolute.

Well at least you are doing something to help...most just flap there gums...and do nothing..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Turtle]

Oh yeah, that's right. It's ok to kill them because without the umbilical they can't survive so they aren't really alive or a person. That means it's also fine to kill scuba divers and astronauts I guess because they too aren't truly alive or a person in their environment without the umbilical. Blah, blah, blah. Still wrong.

That's about the 5th or 6th time over the years that I can recall where you've used the umbilical analogy. It doesn't get any less lame. In fact, just the opposite.

 

[RLENT]

Oh yeah, that's right. It's ok to kill them because without the umbilical they can't survive so they aren't really alive or a person.

Under current US law fetuses are not held to be full persons until they are born.

Part of that stems from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution - a document which some evidently profess ought to be fully supported ... and not just the parts that one likes - which states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

You are certainly free to believe - as a religious or philosophical matter - otherwise. No one from the government will force you or yours to have an abortion.

However - thankfully - what the religious Taliban in the US are not permitted to do is enforce their religious views on, and restrict the actions of, others in terms of those other's reproductive rights and private medical care in furtherance of those rights.

I know this just drives those - most particularly men evidently - who believe they have a mandate from the Almighty to enforce their will on others, just absolutely nuts.

It's probably something that they need to reconcile themselves with ... or not ...

That means it's also fine to kill scuba divers and astronauts I guess because they too aren't truly alive or a person in their environment without the umbilical. Blah, blah, blah. Still wrong.

As was noted earlier: lame ...

But then, for some, lame - and the attendant emotional temper tantrums that often accompany it - is apparently the only level of discourse they appear to be capable of.

 

[skyraider]

Some facts and figures on the chair in question:

The electric chair

 

[skyraider]

American Female executions 1903 - 2013 Some ladies that were ......

 

[RLENT]

Bloodlust and thirst for vengeance?

What else can account for the desire to deprive someone else - who likely has not directly harmed one - of their life ?

Bloodlust - noun:

1. a desire for bloodshed

2. the desire to kill or to see people killed.

and

vengeance - noun:

1. punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong

Simple yes or no question: Are you for capital punishment ?

Now that's a definite Wow moment.

Oh ... it is indeed ...

 

[muttly]

What else can account for the desire to deprive someone else - who likely has not directly harmed one - of their life ?


and


Simple yes or no question: Are you for capital punishment ?


Oh ... it is indeed ...

I see you avoided addressing my post # 40, where I said something like ' I see both sides of this'. 'This' being the capital punishment issue and both sides of the argument.

 

[Moot]

So this is what a forward thinking state does . . .

What are we becoming?
Tennessee 'ready' to use electric chair if need be

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party. I read the article Ragman posted. To me it appears to be nothing more than a juvenile bluff by the state of Tennessee. If we can't obtain the ingredients for a lethal cocktail then we will cook the condemned's cauliflower with the electric chair, so there! Nah nah, na nah na.

 

[Moot]

Our evolution in terms of harnessing technology seems to far exceeded our evolution in terms of our own humanity.

That's why future executions performed by the electric chair will have the power supplied by renewable, non-polluting sources like wind and solar.

 

[LDB]

It isn't my argument. I just point out the extension of the faulty argument to the other human beings who could be murdered without thought or consequence using the same incorrect thinking.

 

[Moot]

One way to keep capital punishment and dramatically reduce or even eliminate mistakes would be to hold the prosecution equally liable for incorrect verdicts of the death penalty. If someone is executed and later exonerated of the crime, then the prosecution should share the same exact fate which they incorrectly fought to impose on the innocent. If the actual prosecutor involved is no longer living, that's OK, as whoever holds that position currently can take his place. I seriously doubt prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to seek the death penalty nearly as often as they do now.

Good luck finding 12 people that would ever return a guilty verdict.

 

[RLENT]

I see you avoided addressing my post # 40, where I said something like ' I see both sides of this'. 'This' being the capital punishment issue and both sides of the argument.

I'll be happy to address it further - as soon as you answer the question I posed as to whether you are for or against capital punishment.

 

[muttly]

I'll be happy to address it further - as soon as you answer the question I posed as to whether you are for or against capital punishment.

Nothing is stopping you from addressing it right now. The sentence was 'l see both sides of this'. How does that statement square with your assertion that you made of me?

 

[RLENT]

Nothing is stopping you from addressing it right now.

Sorry - wrong answer.

Ball is in your court.

 

[jaminjim]

I'll be happy to address it further - as soon as you answer the question I posed as to whether you are for or against capital punishment.

Oh no, another unanswered question. Here we go again.

 

[muttly]

Sorry - wrong answer.

Ball is in your court.

Sorry wrong answer. I'll take it as a capitulation on your part.

 

[RLENT]

Sorry wrong answer. I'll take it as a capitulation on your part.

You can take it anyway you'd care to ... I'm not under any particular obligation to address posts of yours that are addressed to others.

As to capitulation, there would have to be some contest or argument going on, in order for that to occur. Trust me on this one: there really ain't.

I said I'd be happy to address it further - once you answered my question. If you are unwilling to unambiguously state your position on the issue, then clearly you aren't really very interested in getting my take on that post ...

Thanks for playin' tho' ...