jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (96 posts)

Kill em' All

  1. eyeofh profile image61
    eyeofhposted 7 years ago

    So here's the question that confounds me the most:

    Why is it that conservatives can argue for the death penalty in one breath and expound the virtues of being pro-life in the next?  Likewise, a liberal will protest the death penalty until they are blue in the face and then trot to the next town over to argue for a woman's right to end her child's life.

    Anyone?

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      one word: Perspective. When you love the person attack the situation. When you hate the situation attack the person. Its about not being able to hate in a healthy way.

      1. eyeofh profile image61
        eyeofhposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's a great answer and a very interesting concept: Hate in a Healthy Way.  In the strangest of ways it makes sense to me.

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hate things, not people.

      2. Himitsu Shugisha profile image77
        Himitsu Shugishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Great insight, this is a great comment.

    2. ddoingit1 profile image59
      ddoingit1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We The People, are defined malice beyond the restrictions of inmortality, in the forum of congressional democratic party lines, is the nature of Bi focal Bi-partisonship past the glory of Abriham Lincoln to the maturity of Am I my Brothers Keepr, I challenge you to a duo, to fight for civil democrasy for the world to know We Hold sacrit to the desire of
      God, and We are Family of God

    3. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am going to give you my assessment, and it's not up for debate, because I most likely won't be back to this forum, to discuss this any further.

      All politicians are people of powerful positions. The only way they can stay in office is thru manipulation of the majority.

      If one person argues against the death penalty and still be pro-abortion, because these are two separate subjects. Which is what you are not doing...you are lumping them together in one topic.

      Abortion is for woman's rights and should be left up to that person, regardless of religion or government. This isn't to be tampered with, under no circumstance, because it is the woman's body and her decision alone. No one has the right to argue or debate with her about the choice she has to make.

      The Death Penalty, is brought about by government as the strongest form of punishment, which can be assigned to certain criminals, who have damaged society. Taking their life is seen as voiding a person's right to life. Which is error, because we execute war criminals for crime against humanity, Yet won't do it against the criminals who are ruining America's society(humanity).

      Your next response is going to be more likely not to be worth my response, because you are going to argue that a child is a life? Which is clearly not the case. Yes, some law(s), in some states have been made, to clearly define a 'life' of an individual, but stop short of doing what "pro-lifer's" wants. Which is life begins at fertilzation. It's not going to happen.

      The word "Life" hasn't been defined, as to when it began, except for the word 'birth' or 'born'. Life before that, is subjective to interpretations or situation or circumstances.

      I hope I helped.

      1. eyeofh profile image61
        eyeofhposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Wow! Someones got it all figured out!  Unfortunately life just isn't that simple.  I'll explain if--if you've not been too far jaded by a subject that you've obviously spent much time making your mind up on. 

        I think that abortion is wrong, but that is just my opinion.  That does not, however give me the right to judge anyone.  I know, and love people that have had abortions.  I do not agree with their decisions and yet I respect them as people.  It seems, from your tone,  that you would judge me or others who might have that opinion.  Perhaps I am wrong, and if I misunderstood i apologize.

        As far as when life begins, I do not need the government or any law to give me the answer to that.  Neither do you.  It is a silly point to argue really.  It would be better to just say "I believe a woman has the right to make her own decision about her own body, regardless of what is at stake".  Why try to make excuses for your beliefs.  It is what it is.

        Now as far as knowing what someones response is going to be and deeming it not worthy...I can only imagine you probably think I am some kind of Bible thumping Jesus Freak.  Not true.  I believe in a higher power but not in any form of organized religion.

        My opinion is simple and not laced with hate or judgement...but since it's "not up for debate, because I most likely won't be back to this forum, to discuss this any further." I guess I won't ever find out what yours is based on...

      2. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Of course we have the 'right' to debate about that choice, because it affects more than just that woman.

        1. profile image0
          Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's Democracy for you.

        2. profile image0
          Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's Democracy for you.

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So it is.

        3. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No! You are not to debate and it's NOT a right of yours, NOR should it be your concern. That's the exact problem with society, too many other people telling the individual what he or she can or cannot do.

          It's pathetic. When you start ripping away at the foundation of right of choice, then you strip people of their power to control their own life.

          How is that fair in any way, shape or form?

          It's HER BODY and NONE of your concern!

    4. aware profile image71
      awareposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      it kills me too. heres a quote of mine . a woman can kill her baby , but cant sell her p_ _ _ y.

    5. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      i believe that is called "irony".

      wink

    6. christalluna1124 profile image77
      christalluna1124posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think murder is wrong in any way, shape or form, but the execution of an innocent baby is the worst thing that could ever happen. I do realize that there are circumstances when we have no other choice in an execution but I am still uncomfortable with it,

    7. sooner than later profile image60
      sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Can you really compare these two?

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        One seeks to punish the absolute worst offenders and the other seeks to punish society's most innocent and vulnerable.

        1. sooner than later profile image60
          sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          yes, thank you. very well said.

    8. carterchas profile image79
      carterchasposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No conflict exists.  Here's why:

      Abortion is the oldest form of birth control.  For thousands of years women have been having abortions...until around 1830.  When physicians started becoming more than faith healers they still didn't know about germs.  Laws were passed prohibiting doctors from performing abortions, not preventing women from having them.  Why?  Because doctors were treating and handling dead people and (with the same equipment) performing abortions.  Women would become infected and die.  In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe vs. Wade because the state no longer had an interest (safety) in the laws that prevented abortions.  Several other routine procedures on women are similiar to an abortion (which is how illegal abortions were sneakily performed).  Liberals do not approve of abortions, but we want to keep them safe.  Typically conservatives have fought very strongly to keep the sex education programs out of the schools;  programs that would eliminate the need for most abortions.

      Not all liberals are anti-death penalty.  However, we have problems with the way the death penalty is handled.  (1) Approximately 1.5 million dollars is spent on the Prosecution side of every death penalty case.  The defending side is lucky to have ten thousand dollars, usually not. (2) Whether the death penalty is sought or not is completely at the hands of the prosecutor.  Many jurisdiction would be happy for a long prison sentence while other jurisdiction seek death.  (3) Long term imprisonment is far more economical that the death penalty.  In addition to the added costs of these prosecutions (many would have pleaded guilty), the added security measures required for housing death row inmates is far higher than conventional inmates.  Death row inmates are also unable to do any useful work while awaiting executions.  The best argument against the death penalty is economics.  To execute one prisoner requires the equivelent of three person's life work.  We can spend the money in better ways.

      Personally, I believe that the death penalty is best used in specific cases: Planned Murder.   I think the death penalty is best reserved for those who enter a situation planning to kill.  The robber or rapist who goes too far should spend decades in prison.  Maybe they do deserve to die.  But narrowing the focus of the death penalty would save society uncounted millions of dollars.  Money that could be spent to prevent such crimes.

    9. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In the conservative view (the correct one I might add) the death penalty is applied to the guilty, and the unborn or innocent are not murdered.

      The liberal progressive view is the guilty should go unharmed or go free and the innocent destroyed.

      The question alone demonstrates the absurdity and idiocy of the LP plank

    10. mistywild profile image60
      mistywildposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      our goverments pretty messed up huh??? just believe what you believe.

    11. repstrydiefly profile image75
      repstrydieflyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's a very good question. I am not conservative or liberal, so I am going to give you an independent point of view.

      I am definitely Pro-life and I believe no human has the right to take another human's life (death penalty). It doesn't matter how much crime or destruction they did to society. There are prisons and jails and psycho wards for people like that. All they need is confinement and counseling and they could change for the positive. Freeway Ricky Ross, an infamous crack cocaine distributor in the 1980s, went to jail for 20+ years and has just been released a few months ago. Prison changed him for the positive, because he read and received education, and was introduced to a whole new world besides drug-dealing. Now he is trying to steer temporary kids in the ghetto from gangs and drugs to the positive/brighter side to life. So I don't think anybody who had a negative impact on society should be murdered. Anyways, there are many politicians who have damaged society more than anybody in history has, but they haven't been persecuted. So why should any civilian?

      I also believe that abortion is wrong in so many ways, because they don't even give the baby a chance to experience it's life. They don't know if that baby could have grew up to be a very important asset in society and save humanity in ways. I also can't grasp the concept that a mother would kill their child. If anything they could have gave birth to their child and put her/him up for adoption. That way when it gets older it can track the mother down, and the mother doesn't have to live with partial murder of her own BLOOD.

      So all in all, conservatives and liberals are so corrupt and so competitive that they can stand to their views from one issue to the next. It's actually somewhat disgusting if you ask me.

    12. johnb0127 profile image78
      johnb0127posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is ridiculous! Conservatives believe that if someone kills 100 people by going on a shooting spree, they deserve to die for the price of those that the person shot and killed. Abortion is wrong, completely wrong. Why would someone support, must less kill a baby? They must be brainless.

      So now here YOU are comparing this:

      MASS MURDERER vs. INNOCENT BABY FORCED TO DIE FOR SOME IDIOT'S MISTAKE

      It doesnt match up!

      1. eyeofh profile image61
        eyeofhposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's funny. When I asked this question the point I had in mind was that, in my opinion, NO ONE ON THIS PLANET has the right to decide who lives and who dies!  I've followed the forum and, with few exceptions, all I have seen is the extremities of both sides argue that their side has the right to make that choice.  It must be wonderfull to be sure enough about one's own place in existence to be able to make that decision about someone elses place in that same existence. 

        Well, so much for adult discussion...here's some interesting FACTS for you to consider:

        1)Not every person put to death by the American Justice System is a "MASS MURDERER"

        2)Not every innocent baby (that is about the only point I agree with) is being "forced to die for some idiots mistake"

        The real problem with the left and right is that BOTH sides are black and white when it comes to the issues that concern them, and all kinds of horrid shades of gray when it comes to the basic black and white question of RIGHT and WRONG!

        The fact that no one has realized this is the truly "RIDICULOUS" part!

  2. XTASIS profile image61
    XTASISposted 7 years ago

    hypocrisy ?

    1. ddoingit1 profile image59
      ddoingit1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hypocrasy is define by the shine of nature to reformulate the nature of beasts beyong that morning light I see the morning breaze am I not the bretheren of life, or am I the essence of deaht
      <snipped - do not promote links in the Forums>

      1. XTASIS profile image61
        XTASISposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So you're still high  ...
        Can I have some ? cool

  3. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    Kill guilty criminals that have proven to be a menace to society, the innocents aren't to be slaughtered but protected. Doesn't seem backward or hypocritical to me.

    The other way around does - kill a baby because he/she is inconvenient at this time in my life but do everything we can to prolong the life of that man who had kidnapped, raped, and killed several women and/or children.

    Not too confusing or confounding to see which makes sense. And if you believe in preserving life at all costs (I don't), you'd have to fight for both.

  4. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    There you have Humanity.

  5. Lisa HW profile image84
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    Easy, at least when it comes to early abortions (although, believe it or not, neither all Conservatives nor all Liberals necessarily believe what is commonly associated with either group):

    Conservatives often believe that unborn babies are innocent little human beings, and that death-penalty-worthy criminals have done something worthy of being destroyed, themselves.  They may also believe that the surviving family members of victims of torture and/or murder deserve to see justice.

    Liberals often believe that ending the life of an unfinished human being (particularly in the first trimester) is at times better than allowing a child to be born to a mother who can't/won't offer that child what every child needs/deserves; and therefore creates a damaged human being.  In other words, they can believe that sometimes it's better to end a life before birth than to sentence a human being to a lifetime anguish and damage.

    As far as the death penalty goes, many are more worried about killing wrongfully convicted people than about killing the real criminals.  Many are worried about "government killing" (of viable human beings) as compared to the private, personal, decision to end, say, the life of a seven-week-old fetus.   Anyone who has ever seen the "products of conception" after an early miscarriage can see there's a very big difference between that and Fred, the wrongfully convicted guy on death row.

    (As far as later abortions go, I'm sorry - I just think they take a "special kind of coldness" that is separate from the more mainstream matter of legal, early, abortions; and I have no explanation for anyone's believing those are ok.)

  6. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Don't toss me into this bucket. I'm pro-life and against the death penalty. I understand your confusion, however. I've often had those same questions.

  7. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    BTW, Aware, I love your quote. I never thought about it that way!

  8. profile image59
    songsterposted 7 years ago

    maybe the pro life -abortion debate was suped up to avoid other debates during elections, i have heard that said before.

  9. aware profile image71
    awareposted 7 years ago

    i think the death sentence should be carried out buy the victims loved ones. not the state.

    1. profile image0
      Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      An eye for an eye?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Turn the other cheek?

    2. Stimp profile image79
      Stimpposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      DING, DING, DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!!!  lol

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol

  10. MikeNV profile image74
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The bigger question is why do people keep electing Public Officials based on party affiliation and not on what they stand for and will accomplish.

    We have a very broken system, and people just keep feeding it.

  11. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    Its the ones that don't have a say that you may not notice cags.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If you are referring to the child's choice. That is a myth!

      Abortion is the right of the mother. Abortions will not be done a whim. No doctor in their right mind would perform one, done under those circumstances.

      The ability for women to get abortions is a right that isn't to be violated, but must be monitored. It's not practical to abort a child at 6 or 7 months. No that's just dumb and no doctor would do it.

      The Laws are defined by each state, as to when 'life' begins or is considered a child.

      What's missing is an exact definition for what is considered a life-form? No one is willing to make that distinction, because the dramatic effects, for which it would change.

      1. readytoescape profile image61
        readytoescapeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Actually that's just dumb, that decision has been made, abortion supportors just choose to ignore it. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the perpatrator is charged with the murder of two, the mother and the child. The age of the fetus doesnt matter, in the eyes of the law a life is a life.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The LAW has never been absolute. Investigate it, check it out for real. See for yourself, how many are actually charged for both murders.

          Unless, you're getting your information from drama-time tv...then yeah, you'd think they are.

          Seriously, look into it.

      2. sooner than later profile image60
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        well, what a solid argument. One hospital back east was delivering babies and then leaving them in soiled 'comfort rooms' until they died by starvation.(it was safer for the mother) So, some new laws were created because of that. 
        The Clintons even agreed that babies upon birth have rights, but anything prior....?
        One "professor" in Boston Mass. was teaching in his classrooms that mothers should be able to 'abort' three months after delivery. Why? because it would give her a chance to see if it was really right for her.

        you really want to talk about rights? You really think a babies choice is a myth. You know- as the doctors are cutting the baby inside the mother, the baby is doing everything possible to not be touched and cut.

        this is why you discust me cags. You speek so assertive like you have all knowledge.
        You guys all laugh and have cliche little remarks about the religions of the world- but you sure have life figured out. Don't you?

        P.S. I will not be responding to your rubish any longer.

        thats all it is. REALLY.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And, do you know WHY? everything you mentioned happened? Do you even have a damn clue to the underlying cause that makes those actions happen?

          Are you paying attention yet?

          You call yourself a human being, you're pathetic. It's easier to punish ALL for because of what one individual does. Even, in a case by case basis, yes it is ugly. But, punishing everyone who is that person isn't RIGHT either. Stripping aways a person's individual RIGHT OF CHOICE isn't the answer.

          Do you get it? Or are you too pig-headed to understand?

  12. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    "for the wages of sin is death"

  13. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    "for the wages of death is sin"

  14. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    continued "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "gift of every individual to have an individual mind and belief whether it causes group separatism or not"

  15. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    ready, I agree btw.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am glad to see. big_smile

  16. lostgirlscat profile image59
    lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago

    Capital punishment: Fiscally unwise, morally questionable, and I think it crueler ( and therefore am for) locking them up for life, paired up with a "diametrically opposed ideological room-mate."

    Pro-life/Pro-choice: Mothers' body, choice, ultimately her religous beliefs, knowledge, and the consequences of her action are her own.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Abortion is a contradiction to life.

  17. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    "her body?"

    Thank you Lord for giving me brains and wisdom. Grant me more patience for the fallen. Take a piece of 'her body' as she takes the life of your children. Maybe an arm will do, the first time. Maybe a leg the second time. Maybe her neck the third time.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And, that is specifically WHY church and government are NOT to be mixed.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What did it say about a 12 year old girl that becomes raped and pregnant?

  18. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    your judgment will be most painful cags.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Judgement is for the sad.

      1. sooner than later profile image60
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        prepare to be sad.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How can I be? I'm in control of my own life. I don't hurt people. I don't damage society. I say what I honestly feel. And, my actions are honest, because my cause is higher than myself.

          I have no ignorance about Life, but do have ignorance in other areas. However, I also don't think I am better than anyone and I have come to an understanding that the outlook 'what is in the best interests of society' isn't properly looked after.

          The sacrifice of individual right of choice is constantly challenged and weighed against that of society, and shortly, the government will be ripping apart the Constitution. I'm advocating for the rights of individuals to maintain power over their life.

          So, I don't see where you expect me to be sad? You must have the wrong impression, or simply didn't read my profile.

          Either way, what you think is coming to me, is only in your imagination. So, let's keep it real. You don't like my honesty, then don't comment on my comments or make snied remarks to bait me.

          You may feel like you're justified in your actions, but the truth is - morally you're wrong.

  19. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    Give me the baby.

    the first questions in abortion topics- what about? What if?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Questions are usually how answers are found. Is this new to you? So make every woman that gets raped have the baby and give the baby to you? Is this logical to you?

      1. sooner than later profile image60
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        yes it is logical. I garantee I could find homes and manage the rape victim babies. I can't compete with the 3 million "mistakes" america produces.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You are not logical if you wish to make every raped woman go through 9 months of birth for a child she unwillingly conceived. Are you Satan?

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Abortion is a contradiction to life.

  20. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    I know someone who has endured greater suffering.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Couldn't be more painful than being forced to have sex then forced to have the kid in result of that rape. Did he get raped and give birth?

  21. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    no. He had children that grew up to like his mortal enemy. Then they laughed at Him and spit on his face, then killed Him.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would rather be spit on and killed than be raped and forced to have the kid as a result.

      I agree that abortion is contradiction to life. There is no absolute answer to abortion.

      In some ways, it should be illegal because it teaches that life is unimportant. Other ways it would be wrong to tell someone it's illegal for them to get an abortion like a rape.

      1. sooner than later profile image60
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        yeah, how would you like your beautiful baby to never love you?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          We didn't get an abortion. My child also isn't the result of my wife being raped. Just because we had an ideal pregnancy doesn't mean everyone does. Have you lived everyones lives? Have you been raped before?

          1. sooner than later profile image60
            sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            how would you feel if your child didn't love you still? all the good blessings considered.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What is the point of the question?

              1. sooner than later profile image60
                sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You didn't get the connection to Jesus? Thats what we did to Him. thats my point.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe Jesus should have explained more instead of leaving so much open to interpretation. I didn't read where he said force a raped child to have a baby. If he did say it, I want no part of him.

                  1. mistywild profile image60
                    mistywildposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    at it again marine lol good to see you back, I will not argue with you, so please let's not, however I was raped multiple times as child. Does that mean God/Jesus hates me? No, it means there is EVIL in this world, and yes, God lets that evil exist so we can be a free people. We all have freewill, as you know, some just love to abuse it. No arguing, if you would like to talk, remember I said talk, further about this please email me. No arguing here or on email, I would like to talk rationally with you. Your friend.

  22. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I hate abortion, especially when it's used as a form of birth control. Don't think for a minute that this doesn't happen. I've had high school students who had already had as many as 3 or 4 by the time they were seniors. I am realistic enough, however, to understand that regardless of laws, women will continue to somehow have abortions. If Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, the women would resort to nasty "back alley" procedures. I do STRONGLY support laws against late-term abortions, however, except in cases where the mother's life is threatened.

    We need to work together on ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies instead of tearing each other up on the issue of abortion. I think even the "most left" liberal would agree that abortion is not a good thing, even though they defend a woman's choice to have one. I don't know anyone who is "for" abortion itself. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. I'm all for placing condoms in high school lockers!

  23. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    How can it be true than the death penalty costs more? If you killed them right after the verdict, it doesn't.

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's not how it works in the US. The criminal would have a sea of appeals and other legal processes at his disposal that would cost taxpayers more than feeding and housing him for life.

  24. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    So many girls and women now consider the father irrelevant anyway, the baby belongs to the mom. I'd keep my baby alive. I can't say that I wouldn't give him/her up for adoption, that would depend on how I felt during the pregnancy.

    1. sooner than later profile image60
      sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ohh yeah. Well welcome to a nation of illigitimate babies are encouraged. I bet 90% of rape babies are "mothers" trying to get their boy friends in jail because they were fighting.

  25. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Good night Marine.

    See you tomorrow? Maybe? lol

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes! GN to all. You are all insane! lol

  26. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    ridiculous.

    1. profile image0
      lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      1. profile image0
        Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What? That was the best I had to offer that line of thought. big_smile

  27. Bibowen profile image91
    Bibowenposted 7 years ago

    I believe in the right to life, but rights are not absolutes. You can forfeit your rights in some cases. Your rights will be sharply curtailed if you commit a crime and go to prison, for example.

    A person that kills someone with malice forfeits his right to live.

    There is a consistency here but it doesn't surround the principle of life; it surrounds the principle of innocence and guilt. Innocent people should not be punished and guilty people should.

    Babies should not be killed by their mothers because those infants are innocent; a man that breaks into the home of a family, kills the husband, rapes the woman, and then tortures her to death has forfeited his right to live. He is guilty; in this case, he should die for it.

  28. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    Because they are completely different issues all together.

 
working