To Nordberg: So either population controls do not exist, or the poor are demanding population control methods for themselves, while Bill and Melinda Gates are minding their own business:
To Nordberg: Get real. The wealthy are not only pushing population controls with countless scare tactics, they tied them to abortion:
But Kerry has gone what in better days would have been universally held to be one bridge too far. In a speech last year to the NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, he gave an intellectually suicidal summary of his views.
He began by saying that "there is no overturning of Roe v. Wade." He went on: "There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life or health." That statement of course begs the question on which the entire Congress and the state legislatures and the Supreme Court have been stalled for years, namely, Is the invocation of "health," if made by the woman alone, conclusive in authorizing abortion? If so, Roe v. Wade, which did not authorize willful third-trimester abortions, stands to be revised as the Roe-Wade-Kerry decision.
Kerry continued: "There (shall be) no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world."
This endorses abortion Chinese-style. Too many people? Too few abortions.
But the eye-popper was still to come: "We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for."
But Kerry says he personally opposes abortion. Where is he exhibiting his pride in what he stands for? Whom has he counseled against abortion? A nun somewhere, out of earshot?
To Nordberg: No they are not unless you consider China uncivilized:
To Nordberg: Nice try:
Parenthetically, the argument for abolishing the death penalty began with:
BLACKSTONE’S RATIO
Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. William Blackstone (1723 – 1780)
Take a look at the death penalty in relation to Blackstone’s Ratio.
Liberals always argue that the death penalty does not deter murder. That argument is absurd on the face of it. Execute a murderer and he/she will not murder again. Abolishing the death penalty most certainly will NOT deter murder.
The next favorite argument against the death penalty says that an innocent man cannot be brought back to life after he is executed. That line of reasoning is a piece of legal sophistry rooted in Blackstone’s Ratio.
Parenthetically, Blackstone’s Ratio depends upon who you quote. Charles Dickens put the morning line at 99 to 1 in favor of the criminals.
Blackstone’s Ratio probably made sense hundreds of years ago. It makes no sense today when you look at all of the protection criminals are given before trial in this country. Murderers are given even more protections in the form of endless appeals after they are found guilty. Twenty years or more often elapses before a murderer is finally executed. And executions are disappearing each time a state legislator abolishes the death penalty. Indeed, fewer executions take place than the number of convicted murderers released.
I doubt if all of those convicted murderers being set free are not guilty twenty years after being convicted. There is too much room for bribery and tampering with evidence to convince me that so many prosecutors made so many mistakes. Or maybe juries made all of those mistakes which does not say much for the jury system.
Life without parole is another myth.
A loophole in the 1987 life-without-parole law allows inmates to apply for clemency. In a move to clarify who might be eligible for clemency, the state Pardon and Parole Board recently enacted a policy that gives inmates with this sentence a chance for early release after 15 years.
Long before 1987 Clarence Darrow not only beat the death penalty he beat life without parole.
I believe that Leopold and Loeb beating the hangman was the most influential decision ever handed down in death penalty cases. Clarence Darrow’s entire defense was designed to beat the death penalty rather than get Leopold and Loeb off.
With their sons facing the hangman, the killers’ rich families called in a legal luminary — Clarence Darrow, 66, famed for saving 100 defendants from execution.
“Not guilty,” the original plea, would have put them before a jury, not a wise move with a pair of defendants as arrogant and unlikable as Leopold and Loeb.
Today’s touchy-feely garbage and psycho-babble gained nationwide acceptance because the Bobby Franks murder case got more publicity than did all of Darrow’s previous 100 death penalty cases combined.
Darrow, in a stunning move, changed the plea to guilty. Their case, with a parade of alienists, as psychiatrists were known in those days, would be presented to the judge, who would decide on life or death. In a three-day summation, Darrow quoted poetry, history and science in a plea for mercy so eloquent even the judge got misty-eyed. Darrow said that the boys, although not legally insane, were mentally ill and not responsible for their actions. “They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly.”
Darrow ended up with two more notches on his saved-from-the-hangman’s belt. The judge gave his clients life plus 99 years.
Life plus 99 years got lost when Leopold was paroled in 1958. Note that life without parole became another judicial myth after it was attached to a life sentence. Even worse, Darrow gave “. . . alienists, as psychiatrists were known in those days . . .” a vote in deciding guilty or not guilty. It will not be long before lawyers call upon “expert astrologists” reading tarot cards decide punishment.
You are lying as usual. The decision is personal and made by the person who is terminally ill. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html It is not like our capital punishment.
