Toronto Escorts

schaivo lifers willing to kill

F

feminista

On CNN they are doing a story that a lifer has offered a large sum of money for someone to kill terry's husband. And another man was caught trying to steal a rifel so he could rescue Terry by any means necessary.


Most pro lifers are also pro-death penalty.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
feminista said:
Most pro lifers are also pro-death penalty.
Yes, isn't that so hypocritical?

What's also hypocritical is that most anti-capital punishment people are pro-choice.

I'm anti-death. I am not a big fan of the death penalty or abortion (though I understand certain rare circumstances need difficult decisions)
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
Peace Rally

Another one for you..

Peace rallies almost always seem to end up in violent confrontations!!

Attended a Large Peace Rally in Toronto a few years ago. I expected a bunch of peace loving beatniks singing Kum ba ya (don't know how to spell that), smoking pot and basically a mellow happy crowd... Instead, 1/2 of the marchers were shouting obscenities, and slogans like "let's kill Bush".

I have not attended another peace rally since...
 
F

feminista

I have not attended another peace rally since...[/QUOTE]

Who is labelling it a "peace" rally. Usually it is anit-war or anti-bush or anti-something. The last time I was at a rally in Toronto is was opposing Human Life Internationals AGM in Toronto. There was no violence and the worst thing that happened was that women were taking there tops off.

The lifers actually had addressed the horrors of the canadian toplessness laws in their newsletter.

I'm sure they were all traumatized by the naked orbs.
 
F

feminista

Don,

I am prochoice and against the death penalty. I do not see any hypocrisy in that.
 

superquad1968

Lucifer's Assistant
Nov 26, 2003
659
0
16
Hell. Where Else?
www.terb.ca
feminista said:
Don,

I am prochoice and against the death penalty. I do not see any hypocrisy in that.
I think why a lot of people see it as hypocritical is that at it's base level it is death (the fetus) vs life (the criminal). In the same way, some people believe it is hypocritical to be against abortion but for the death penalty.

To be consistent you could be pro-life and against capital punishment (everyone lives) or pro-choice and for the death penalty (everyone dies). Don't mean to be so simple but at it's core...

How you rationalize it after that is up to you. :)
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
If I remember correctly, it was billed as a march for peace... This was about 3 years ago
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
superquad1968 said:
I think why a lot of people see it as hypocritical is that at it's base level it is death (the fetus) vs life (the criminal).…edit…
Actually, the Schiavo case and abortion have distinct similarities. In both instances the subject would unable to live without the constant intervention of sophisticated medical maintenance techniques.

Never forgetting the man who claims always "to err on the side of life" denied so many appeals for clemency as Texas' Governor: If we withdraw those techniques from the Texas Death Row murderer, she will live, since there will be no one to administer the lethal injection, and pronounce death.

'Course Texas could build their version of Ol' Sparky, the Florida electric chair that has more than once set fire to its intended victims. And which humanitarian Governor Bush won't do anything to replace. Seems to me there's plenty of hypocrisy in Tallahassee, if we're trying to draw inferences from abortion and death penalty to help us in this case.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
superquad1968 said:
To be consistent you could be pro-life and against capital punishment (everyone lives) or pro-choice and for the death penalty (everyone dies). Don't mean to be so simple but at it's core...
SQ - exactly.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
superquad1968 said:
I think why a lot of people see it as hypocritical is that at it's base level it is death (the fetus) vs life (the criminal). In the same way, some people believe it is hypocritical to be against abortion but for the death penalty.

To be consistent you could be pro-life and against capital punishment (everyone lives) or pro-choice and for the death penalty (everyone dies). Don't mean to be so simple but at it's core...

How you rationalize it after that is up to you. :)
Actually, I don't think many people who are in favour of abortion, see it as taking a human life. To take an extreme case, I recall learning in school that IUDs may function like abortions in the first 24 hours of fertilization (I forget the details but I think it had to do with keeping the fertilized egg off the uterus walls but it has been years since I was in high school so my memory could be very wrong here). Few (other than religious fanatics) would argue that this fertilized egg was human life. As some point it would become human. However, I have the impression that those in favour of abortion would argue that it is not taking human life as it has not developed for enough to be human.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
oldjones said:
Actually, the Schiavo case and abortion have distinct similarities. In both instances the subject would unable to live without the constant intervention of sophisticated medical maintenance techniques.
hmm.. interesting analogy.

Though I think the "subject" in the case of abortion doesn't need any "sophisticated medical maintenance techniques" to live... simply just let it live and grow until the mother gives birth. Yes birth is often done in a hospital but it has been successfully done before the days of hospitals or... any technologies!
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
someone said:
Actually, I don't think many people who are in favour of abortion, see it as taking a human life. To take an extreme case, I recall learning in school that IUDs may function like abortions in the first 24 hours of fertilization (I forget the details but I think it had to do with keeping the fertilized egg off the uterus walls but it has been years since I was in high school so my memory could be very wrong here). Few (other than religious fanatics) would argue that this fertilized egg was human life. As some point it would become human. However, I have the impression that those in favour of abortion would argue that it is not taking human life as it has not developed for enough to be human.
Yes, I was going to mention that. Many pro-lifers, especially the passionate ones, don't see it as taking a life. It also helps them justify their actions. Just like pro death penalty try to find some justifiable excuse to kill someone (whatever that is).

I personally do not think a fertilized egg is yet human but after 2 weeks it is since all organs are developed to some degree.

All I know is every woman I knew who was pregnant started calling her fetus inside her as "my baby" the instant they found out they were pregnant.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Don said:
hmm.. interesting analogy.

Though I think the "subject" in the case of abortion doesn't need any
"sophisticated medical maintenance techniques" to live... simply just let it live and grow until the mother gives birth. Yes birth is often done in a hospita; but it has been successfully done before the days of... any technologies!
Well Don, what if the woman refuses? At the risk of hijacking this thread, the issue is who decides for the woman that she must let it live and grow if she never wanted it in the first place?

Like the Schiavo case at least in part, the issue is the power and duty of the state to intervene against the right of individuals to decide for themselves.

Clearly, cases get way more complex when one or both parties claim to be best representing the interests of the helpless. That's why it distresses me to see the demagoguery attaching to cases like these and making soap opera of them. It makes it almost impossible for thoughtful people to try to derive general rules of responsible behaviour that have a hope of guiding us in many situations (we sometimes call these laws).
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
oldjones said:
Well Don, what if the woman refuses? At the risk of hijacking this thread, the issue is who decides for the woman that she must let it live and grow if she never wanted it in the first place?
I guess that is the million dollar question and the hot debate for several decades in the US. Who decides?
 
F

feminista

the issue is who decides
PRECISELY.

That is what makes abortion access like the schaivo case.
She said -according to multiple sources, that she would not want to be artificially sustained if she had a health crisis.

No one should supercede her wishes. In law if there is no utterance or living will the right to decide goes to the spouse. When the religious right doesn't approve they attempt to circumvent the law. It is her choice or his not theirs.

I have a problem when an interest group wants to intervene in personal lives to promote their political agendas. It is one thing to demonstrate and lobby and quite another to hold someone elses body hostage to your beliefs.
 
F

feminista

Re: abortion. The "lifers" are against the Emergency Contraceptive Pill. (ECP/MAP) This pill prevents pregnancy. The lifers often oppose use of birth control pills also. Opposition to both of these along with sex-ed in many cases, causes more abortions.

Sorry, but under what circumstances is a zygote a person?
When an acorn is a tree I guess.

In pregnancy there is a woman involved and if her body must be used to sustain the growth of another entity until it becomes a person then she must consent. If she does not she must be able to rid herself of this parasite.

We would never allow a dying person to save themselves by using the organs or body of another unconsenting adult. Why would we bestow a zygote/embryo/fetus with more rights than an actual person?
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
someone said:
Actually, I don't think many people who are in favour of abortion, see it as taking a human life.
feminista said:
In pregnancy there is a woman involved and if her body must be used to sustain the growth of another entity until it becomes a person then she must consent. If she does not she must be able to rid herself of this parasite.

We would never allow a dying person to save themselves by using the organs or body of another unconsenting adult. Why would we bestow a zygote/embryo/fetus with more rights than an actual person?
Wow, the latter sure is an example of the former! Like I said, it helps people justify their beliefs.

Parasite! I've never heard someone use that term. I've heard "cancer" and "group of cells" but never "parasite." Even most pro-choice people I know call it a life.

Majority of women call it "baby".

I respect your views but to be honest I find your lack of regard for a fetus scary. Even more scarier than the religious right nuts.
 
F

feminista

PARASITE= "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host".

from www.dictionary.com

not only does it not contribute anything it is a burden to her body.

The only difference in definition between a Z/E/F and a parasite is that a parasite is of a different species then it's host.

I have a child. (which i referred to as a fetus while I was pregnant) Believe me I felt the burden of pregnancy but that does not mean I was not happy to be in that condition. That being said it was pregnancy that made me more prochoice then ever. I would never tolerate that condition against my will.

Perhaps being a male you can't relate to the parasite analogy. I assure U that women who have been pregnant can, especially when they are educated as to the unseen toll it takes on their bodies.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
I never disputed the definition of the word. Of course in a base definition it applies. My shock was the fact that you think of the fetus as one. As I mentioned I never met any woman who though of their fetus as as just a fetus or parasite. It was always a "baby." Even when relatives I know who got an abortion (mainly to abort female fetuses because they need a son) didn't think of it as a parasite but that they had ended the life of a baby.

But like you said I am male so I really can't understand. If majority of women do feel this way then I'm wrong.
 
F

feminista

Don said:
As I mentioned I never met any woman who though of their fetus as as just a fetus or parasite. It was always a "baby." Even when relatives I know who got an abortion (mainly to abort female fetuses because they need a son) didn't think of it as a parasite but that they had ended the life of a baby.
Did you ask every woman you've met what their thoughts were on the fetus??


Don said:
I never disputed the definition of the word. Of course in a base definition it applies. My shock was the fact that you think of the fetus as one.
Obviously I don't think the fetus IS a parasite. It is LIKE one.

Don don't confuse objectivity with disdain.

I agree that most women refer to the fetus they intend to keep, as a baby. That does not mean that while pregnant they don't also feel that the fetus is a drain on them (ie parasite). They are tired, nauseous and rabid with hormones. (now Don don'y go off bcuz of my "rabid" analogy). While they may not use such terse or base language I'm sure many share the sentiment.

U R very sensitive. I am somewhat insensitive. Let's deal with the content instead of dwelling on specific words.
 
Toronto Escorts