XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: swayser@optonline.net   
      
   David V. wrote:   
      
   > Don Swayser wrote:   
   >   
   >> under_the_bridge wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> golddodgearies@yahoo.com (golddodgearies) wrote   
   >>>   
   >>>> supertroll47@xmsg.com (under_the_bridge) wrote   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> My recomendation is to have abortions within the first three months   
   >>>>> of pregnancy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Doesn't prove it's not murder, dum-dum. (The parents prove it is.)   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It doesn't prove anything.  That was just my recommendation.   
   >>>   
   >>> Is it a greater sin to abort an unwanted fetus, or to have an   
   >>> unwanted child which you may not financially and personally be able   
   >>> to care for?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Unwanted by whom. There's a long waiting lists for adoptions.   
   >   
   >   
   > Where? In California most adoptions are coming from overseas.   
   >   
   Yes, because American girls are killing their unborn babies, so   
   American's who want to adopt are forced into it.   
      
   >>> Since the question is partially concerned with the will   
   >>>  of the fetus, it is close to unanswerable.  What does the baby   
   >>> want?  A similar question is one of euthanasia.  Should we kill poor   
   >>> people if their lives are miserable?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Seems two entirely different situations. If a chile[sic]   
   >> is unwanted it should be surrendered for adoption....   
   >   
   >   
   > How are you going to adopt over a million babies a year?   
   >   
   Do this. Type adoption into a search engine and see the ads for adoption   
   services. If, as you say, foreign babies are being imported to fill the   
   demand, and there is enough business to keep all these private services   
   profitable, then that should answer your question.   
      
   >>> We are free to make choices.  Should murder be legal? The death   
   >>> penalty is.  The fetus, if it feels itself to   
   >>>  be murdered, simply has no recourse.  But then,   
   >>> killing a killer is not much recourse in my opinion.   
   >>> Two wrongs do not make a right.  All you do when you "punish" someone   
   >>> is destroy not one, but two people.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Falacious[sic] premise and conclusion drawn from it. You (society)   
   >> don't destroy two people. The killer has destroyed one. Destroying the   
   >> destroyer prevent him or her from destroying another human life.   
   >> That's the principal justification for the death penalty.   
   >   
   >   
   > No, it isn't. Revenge is the main goal of capital punishment.   
   >   
   Then why isn't Susan Smith and Andrea Yates on death row?   
      
   >> Another is deterence[sic]....   
   >   
   >   
   > It isn't a deterrent.   
      
   Oh? How do you know. Murder has dropped to a rate as low as back in the   
   sixties. Wasn't it in 1972 that the Supreme Court started voiding death   
   penaty cases? That's not fair, I know that it was being quite well aware   
   of it at the time. I also remember many crtics saying that the murder   
   rate would increase, which it did. Now, the death penalty has been   
   reinstated in most states and golly gee, we see the murder rate plunging   
   like a stone through thin air. And you, like the good little liberal you   
   are, claim it isn't a deterrent. Perhaps you'd like to explain EXACTLY   
   how you know it isn't a deterrent. Please don't use any condemned   
   prisoners "testimony" since I'd have this slight suspicion it wasn't   
   quite objective. And leave the brain dicers out too.   
      
   --   
   If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an   
   equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.   
   Carl Schurz (1829-1906)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)