Gosh, I agree 100% with this post and your previous post. What on earth is the world coming to? :o) I Knew there was a reason I chose you as my running mate! :o)

Honestly, I fear that one day we may return to life before Roe V Wade and that is a terrifying thought. Somehow no one seems to care about what happened before and could happen again. I also think that a lifetime in prison is much worse punishment than a painless death. Since I cannot guarantee that 1)someone sentenced to death is guilty of the crime 2)sentencing someone to death will not incur bad karma for myself and break a spiritual law (I know you don't agree there), I do not think I could ever vote for someone to get the death penalty. However, if a crime against my daughter as some I've read about were to occur, I would not vote for a death penalty, but just insure it happens on my own. However, i would take my time at it to ensure that the criminal experienced thrice the pain and suffering he/she caused. Not logical I know, but there you have it.



>>>Is imprisonment not a punishment? That's the element I keep mentioning and you're cutting it out for the third time. Or fourth.
>>
>>Of course it is. It goes without saying. But to me some killers are so heinous and perverted jailing them isn't doing the justice.
>
>Took you what, three days? But OK, it's down to an opinion now. IMO (opinion again), there are some forms of imprisonment where they'd think capital punishment was the easier way out. I'd add one more: oblivion. Their names should be erased from the public record. They should be forgotten. Nobody should remember them. What they did, how heinous it was - yes. Their names - just code.
>
>>>Really, Sam, I'm getting a bit deurinated with this stool. Answer this one or I'm walking out on this.
>>
>>You are impatient.....
>
>I did say so... but I'm still here.
>
>>>>You and I have very different values about life. Here's another annoying question for you, using your view, how is abortion not murder?
>>>
>>>In pretty much any definition except the right wing it is not. What is taken out is not a person. What is gained, however, is that people freely decide when do they want to be parents, and when they want to have children, these children are welcome. They aren't an accident, they come when they have someone who wants them. IMO, a much better way to be welcomed into the world than to be born because your mother had no other recourse, and then later, when you grow up, learn that you were poor all your life because your mother had to quit school to keep you alive.
>>
>>Not a person? Last time I saw a 4 month pre-term, it sure looked like a human to me.
>
>American beer looks like beer, so what. But I'm talking about 1st trimester only. Beyond that, only to save the lady's life or in other medical emergencies. And that 1st trimester should be freely available, no hoops to jump through, no delays, no red tape. I've heard of stories where doctors were inventing reasons to delay, just to get the pregnancy beyond 1st trimester. That's low.
>
>>So a human life is at the whim of someone's desire to keep them or not. This is great.
>
>And we're talking about a potential human life. Later in life, she may choose to have children when she wants and when she's healthy, ready, with a partner - whatever this potential kid may have lacked. You may call it a whim, but isn't that among the most important decisions you make, ever? When to make more people? And that's somehow better left to accident than to a well thought decision? You prefer one's life to be a result of reverse Russian roulette than of one's parents' desire to have a kid?
>
>>So when does a baby/fetus become a human worth saving? Abortion is as premediated as you can get. Using your logic, it's murder.
>
>Huh? It is premeditated - don't know of any cases of accidental abortion. But murder? Who exactly is the victim?
>
>It's not a baby until it's born - and whatever the medical definition of that is. I am not a woman and cannot be a judge of that. So can't any priest, for that matter.
>
>I think that this whole story is just a masked "all your life are belong to us", i.e. there'll be various moral issues brought to light, shuffled and rehashed any way you want, just as long as the goal is to have the Righteous Right be the overlord over life and death: they will decide when one is to be born, and when one is to be killed (or murdered, never mind) - you will have no choice if you're raped (or date-raped, or hypno-raped or made pregnant in any other way), you don't belong to yourself anymore, just like you will have to day when they say, if your lawyers are bad enough. That's the culture of life-and-death in their hands.
>
>(and this juncture of right to life and death punishment was not something I put together in this thread - you did that; it is together in your mind)
>
>The same person to whom the whole civilization is entrusted to, the mother - the one who has to pass the basics of the human culture to the next human - is what, at the same too stupid to know when to make the next human? Why trust her with that whole ultimately important task, if you don't trust her to know when to do it?
>
>>>Are you saying you'd rather have a 15-year old girl who was raped have a child? You'd trust her to be able to overcome the trauma of rape, the trauma of being forced to have a birth against her own will and without having a say in the matter, the trauma of having a child at an age when she's completely unprepared for parenthood - or the trauma of separation if child is given for adoption... she's somehow supposed to handle all that? It's only 6 years before the law would trust her to handle a glass of beer.
>>
>>Sixteen year olds? How about twenty-five year olds (and older)?
>
>And why would there be a difference? The cases are the same.
>
>So, what would you recommend to that 15-year old girl? And what would you recommend to her if she was 25?
>
>>Number of abortions due to real health reason is so miniscule compared to the main reason.
>>Again I know there are some situation where it has to be done.
>
>Good to know that you do. So what's wrong with the main reason? Have anything against it? Say so, then.
>
>>Life is full of trauma isn't it? And life is full of doing things we don't want to do. So if it's inconvenience for our lives, we just kill it? Trauma either strengths us or it beats us down (then majority of us get over it). When are we going to grow up?
>
>If we become a nation of teenage mothers, we won't. They get kicked out of school, or just can't finish it because they have a baby, and the fathers are gone or unknown or overdosing, and your solution to the whole rigmarole is to tell them they must bear the child or they are killers? So the poor kid has a kid, and she has to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat and can't get anything better paid because she had to drop out, and then the kid is taken away from her because she's a bad mother. The kid goes to foster care and in a number of cases joins a gang.
>
>Is that the growing out of the trauma you wish on these forced birth kids? Their parents didn't know jack about contraception, weren't educated in that direction, in most cases didn't have a clue - porn industry doesn't teach that, it's just a business - and this will bring just another generation which again won't have a clue, and will keep making the same mistakes. Charities will probably have a field day, they'll never run out of recipients this way.
>
>>>BTW, I actually don't like abortions, and don't recommend them at all. That's the last means of contraception, when everything else fails. Abortion is traumatic, even in countries where they can be done freely, without having to fear a bomb or a mob while in the clinic.
>>
>>You are the master of bringing up rare occurrence.... there must be a one word to say this.
>
>Rare occurrences work in this country. There was one attack once, yet we're all searched on the airports, right?