Dixie's idiotic signature...!

[Prakosh]

Wow Prikish, you made an impressive list of questions! In reading them, it seems to me, you want to justify abortions on the grounds that I don't care about people after they are born. This is a rather odd way to justify abortions, or anything, for that matter.

To make a long list of questions short, I would support any of those socialist programs with the money saved from federally funded abortions. just tell me where I sign the deal! See, I had rather deal with the little problem of having a million lives a year sucked down a tube first, then we can deal with what to do with the poor. I think there is enormous potential to help the poor, if they are allowed to live, instead of being sucked down a tube. For some reason, I think it's pretty fundamental to prevent this being sucked down a tube first, then we can work on solutions to the other problems.... all the help in the world will not do a bit of good for a mangled fetus in a jar.

What year was abortion made legal under Roe v. Wade; 1973??? And what did you do for the poor before 1973??? Especially the black poor in the South?? Nothing that I know if, in fact conservatives have been doing nothing for the poor since long before that. And prove that 1 million late term abortions take place in America every year.

And why aren't you out talking up the morning after pill?

More importantly, why are you holding the poor who live in America today hostage to an abortion policy that you claim is taking away money that you would be glad to give to poverty programs when the amount of money for federally funded abortions is miniscule in comparison to the 43 millions who have no health care and the millions living in abject poverty in the South itself. So why are you holding those poor people hostage to a program that they have nothing to do with?

You also didn't tell me whether or not you support the death penalty?

And even more absurd and ironic. You are here everyday talking about how we need to kill more women and children in Iraq where some speculate over 650,000 have died yet you still want more war and are still posting incendiary and inflammatory posts about Muslims in order to create more fervor for more war to kill more people. So how can you make any claims about abortion or any other life taking procedure when you care nothing about the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who have died in Iraq and seem to be speculating that we need to kill even more Muslims in your posts?

And since you didn't answer either of these questions I will repeat them:

And since we have the highest infant mortality rate and the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world (and those two statistics must be seen in relation to each other) do you support universal health care and other programs that might raise the level of health care and general health of those little children once they are born?

When was the last time you went up to Appalachia or down to the Delta and helped one of the resident of those areas world famous for the poverty of the residents by installing running water in their one of their homes?

And one other question:

What was the "solid South" and how did those primaries work?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And what did you do for the poor before 1973??? Especially the black poor in the South?? Nothing that I know

That's right... nothing that you know of, because you are an ignorant bigot who knows nothing of me or my personal life. It makes no difference what someone did for someone else in 1973, when it comes to the moral question of exterminating innocent human lives at the rate of a million per year. Of course, you don't give a shit if it matters because you are an ignorant bigot. Most ignorant bigots don't give a shit about what matters, they only give a shit about themselves and their own pathetic lives and viewpoints.

What was the "solid South" and how did those primaries work?

The Solid South was a DEMOCRAT strategy to control the elections. It effectively ended in 1972, when Richard Nixon defeated George Wallace, a Dixiecrat (aka: Southern Democrat) in the South. It had nothing to do with Republicans, it had nothing to do with Conservatives, and no matter how much you try to manipulate the facts, that's how it was. Now, I have answered your question, and you are free to create whatever lie you want to explain why Wallace, Maddox and Byrd remained DEMOCRATS during this mystical, mythical and magical transformation process you speak of happening. Frankly, I am tired of hearing the spin. Your party fractured itself over Civil Rights, deal with it! Stop trying to smear your shit onto Republicans in this silly attempt to insult our intelligence and re-write history!

 

[maineman]

who has won the south recently?

 

[Jarod]

Indeed, there are grey areas when it comes to taking lives, there is no grey area with regards to what is or isn't human life. There is no ambiguity about it, from a moral standpoint, it is wrong to take innocent human life. The government has every right to set rules, boundaries, and guidelines, regarding issues such as this, there are countless examples of it. To sluff your responsibility here, is moral laziness, and nothing more.

I have no problem with medical privacy, and people making choices with their doctors about their medical conditions, abortion is not a medical condition, it is a procedure. It is used to terminate a human life inside the womb, which required at least one vital choice to be made, in order for that to happen. I support a woman's right to choose, just not unlimited choices. From my standpoint, the woman has the right to choose to use any number of birth control methods available, the woman has a right to choose whether to have sex or not, and she also chooses to accept the consequences of unprotected sex when she has it. So, by the time a fetus is in her womb, she has made several choices already, giving her the choice to murder another human because of her previous choices, is just unacceptable to me.

So its about punishing women who choose to have unprotected sex?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So its about punishing women who choose to have unprotected sex?

From my perspective, it's not about "punishing" anything. It is about accepting responsibility for your actions. If we as humans, simply didn't understand how women got pregnant, and they just suddenly turned up pregnant, it might be different, but we know, women who have unprotected sex know, and it is a risk taken by the action. Pregnancy is a consequence of the choice to have unprotected sex, and abortion is merely a 'pass' on personal responsibility.

Imagine if... We had a law... It says that murder is wrong and bad, we hope that no one ever has to murder another human, but if you do, and you go to the police and confess your crime, you can't be held accountable or punished and they can't charge you with murder. Now imagine, some people saying, this isn't right, people should be held accountable if they choose to murder, and then some pinhead says... but it's their "right" to choose, and you can't take it away. Does this make sense? Is this unfairly punishing people who murder, or is it holding people accountable for their actions and demanding people accept personal responsibility for their choices?

People are faced with choice everyday, and generally, with the consequences as well. This isn't like buying the wrong color shoes, or not showing up for work on time, this is willfully terminating a human life! Yet, we've established a system where people can avoid personal responsibility for their actions. And yes, I said "people" not just women, I think that men should be held equally accountable in this. In fact, that might be one of the underlying factors we should consider... that men are able to walk away from the responsibility, since they don't share the burden of child birth. With modern DNA testing, it shouldn't be that difficult to pinpoint the father, and they should be held financially responsible.

Some abortion advocates will say, what about rape? incest? life of the mother? These are not common situations, they are rare and extreme, and the element of personal responsibility is somewhat different, no one chooses to have unprotected sex in a rape, except the rapist. Abortion is a serious thing, it is the taking of innocent human life, and it shouldn't be treated the same as buying the wrong shoes.

 

[Jarod]

WE have a law, at least here in Florida, that if you feel threatened by another person, you are allowed to use deadly force to counter that threat. This law was passed with vast support from many REpublicans and the gun lobby. However opposed by most prosecutors.... due to the inability to prosecute most murders due to this law.

That is the same as abortion... bascially. If a woman feels a threat she according to Florida's new self defense law... she would have a right to murder the fetus if it were a full grown person making her feel the same threat!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

WE have a law, at least here in Florida, that if you feel threatened by another person, you are allowed to use deadly force to counter that threat. This law was passed with vast support from many REpublicans and the gun lobby. However opposed by most prosecutors.... due to the inability to prosecute most murders due to this law.

That is the same as abortion... bascially. If a woman feels a threat she according to Florida's new self defense law... she would have a right to murder the fetus if it were a full grown person making her feel the same threat!

No, I am sorry, but it's not anywhere remotely close to the same thing. First of all, if you read the Florida law, I think you'll find there is some criteria other than "feeling" involved. You simply can't go out and kill someone who you "feel" is a threat to you. Secondly, you are trying to compare a situation where no choice was made and the victim should not be held responsible for the consequences. There is a distinction between inviting someone to your home to play poker, and a burglar invading your property... the law doesn't treat these two conditions the same, there is no law that says you have the right to kill anything inside your home, because it's your home and you should have the right to choose. Again, I go back to what I previously said, if we didn't understand what happened to make women pregnant, and it wasn't a choice they made which resulted in becoming pregnant, then you might have a point. This isn't the case at all.

 

[Jarod]

You are wrong, thats the whole contraversy about this law. It is based on a subjective feeling that you feel threatened. Ill find you the wording when I am at my office tomorrow.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are wrong, thats the whole contraversy about this law. It is based on a subjective feeling that you feel threatened. Ill find you the wording when I am at my office tomorrow.

So you are claiming that you don't have to have any sort of reason or rationale other than your personal feelings? This makes no sense at all. I think you should have to at least show that you were justified in your feelings or something. IF what you say is true, I don't support the law, and I hope it is changed. As it stands, by your definition, I could come to Florida and kill you, just because I felt you were a threat to me. I somehow don't think that is the law, but you are saying it is. I can see a lot of unhappy couples planning a vacation to Florida, where they would kill their spouse and simply tell the police... I felt threatened by them. Now, you don't really believe this is what the law says, do you? I certainly am skeptical.

 

[Jarod]

No, you must be able to provide evidence that you felt threatened. If you kill a 98 lb 16 year old girl in broad daylight and you are a 350 lb body builder merely testifying that you felt threatened will not do it, no jury or prosecutor would belive you.

However we have a case here in PBC where a 16 year old kid was helping his family move into his new home, the move ran very late into the night. At about 3AM the neighbor heard noise and went outside to investigate. The 16 year old kid was cutting through his yard to get to the moving van. The neighbor pulled his gun and shot the unarmed 16 year old kid dead!

THe guy claimed he felt threatened and is VERY likely to get off. IN fact I know that the local prosecutors office is considering not filing charges because the dudes story fits RIGHT into Florida's new self defense law.

What percent of cases where a kid is cutting across a yard are achually a threat to the owner of that yard?

What percent of pregnancies are achually a threat to the mother?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, you must be able to provide evidence that you felt threatened. If you kill a 98 lb 16 year old girl in broad daylight and you are a 350 lb body builder merely testifying that you felt threatened will not do it, no jury or prosecutor would belive you.

Well okay now, so we find that there is a criteria besides simply "feeling" someone was a threat. You do have to show that the feeling of threat was legitimate, which is what I thought.

To make your analogy to abortion work, we would first have to assume that abortion were completely illegal, like murder. Then we could compare the FL law to allowing abortion in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, rape or incest, perhaps. Some people would undoubtedly 'beat the system' and claim rape or incest when none occurred, just to get away with an abortion, but this would not be a reason to legalize abortion or not allow for extreme cases such as rape and incest.

The case you cite is interesting, it seems to me, the man would be guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter, but not murder. He did not intend to murder an innocent kid, but he did make the decision to pull the trigger, whether he felt justified or not, and there is a consequence to that action, or at least, there should be. All I am advocating for, regarding abortion, is personal responsibility. It's not about forcing my views on others, my views would ban abortion under all circumstances entirely, because that is my personal feelings on the issue... but I realize the world doesn't operate on my personal views. I think, most people are able to draw a moral distinction between aborting a fetus conceived from a rapist and aborting a fetus for vanity and convenience. Just as, people can discern the difference between shooting an intruder and just gunning down people you don't like. Yes, the end result is the same, a person is dead... but it's about responsibility, consequence of actions, and the moral ethics of taking innocent human life.

 

[Jarod]

No, you must be able to provide evidence that you felt threatened. If you kill a 98 lb 16 year old girl in broad daylight and you are a 350 lb body builder merely testifying that you felt threatened will not do it, no jury or prosecutor would belive you.

Well okay now, so we find that there is a criteria besides simply "feeling" someone was a threat. You do have to show that the feeling of threat was legitimate, which is what I thought.

To make your analogy to abortion work, we would first have to assume that abortion were completely illegal, like murder. Then we could compare the FL law to allowing abortion in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, rape or incest, perhaps. Some people would undoubtedly 'beat the system' and claim rape or incest when none occurred, just to get away with an abortion, but this would not be a reason to legalize abortion or not allow for extreme cases such as rape and incest.

The case you cite is interesting, it seems to me, the man would be guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter, but not murder. He did not intend to murder an innocent kid, but he did make the decision to pull the trigger, whether he felt justified or not, and there is a consequence to that action, or at least, there should be. All I am advocating for, regarding abortion, is personal responsibility. It's not about forcing my views on others, my views would ban abortion under all circumstances entirely, because that is my personal feelings on the issue... but I realize the world doesn't operate on my personal views. I think, most people are able to draw a moral distinction between aborting a fetus conceived from a rapist and aborting a fetus for vanity and convenience. Just as, people can discern the difference between shooting an intruder and just gunning down people you don't like. Yes, the end result is the same, a person is dead... but it's about responsibility, consequence of actions, and the moral ethics of taking innocent human life.

You clearly do not understand the difference between murder and manslaughter or between 1st and second degeree murder.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You clearly do not understand the difference between murder and manslaughter or between 1st and second degeree murder.

Perhaps not, but I also don't know anything about this case, nor was it the focus of this thread. I merely gave my opinion based on what you told me. I do know that voluntary manslaughter is the intentional taking of someones life without malice or forethought. Damn if that doesn't sound like what this guy did, to me. Maybe not, but whatever, it doesn't matter with regard to this thread topic, or this debate.

 

[Jarod]

That is AKA second degree murder. And "Malice aforethought" can be infered by the act of taking your gun with you and or taking time to aim.

Now if you beat someone so badly that they die, while you were in a fistfight, that is your more classical third Degree murder.