US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

-We really need a few paragraphs from God on what a soul is and, more to the point, what a person is...

[Rusty Edge]

The life and soul at conception crew will point out that birth control pills don't prevent fertilization, they prevent survival.

In the current millennium, I'm inclined to use the beating heart standard for the beginning and ending of human life. Not as fine a standard as thinking, but it's a lot more definitive. I don't like the state-imposed death penalty, either.

[Buster's Uncle]

I don't like any of it, but can't be sure what should be Law - it's a convicted person's duty to be out preaching against sin, for sure.

[Unorthodox]

I like all of it, so there. 

Pro Choice and kill the criminals.  In fact, none of this 20 years death row crap.  1 appeal and be warming up the chair during the trial. 

I think there's untapped potential in PPV executions as well. 

[Buster's Uncle]

And the baby-killing?

[Unorthodox]

What of it?  Gots no problem with abortion.  IMO, that is between the mother and her god.   

I'd take a slightly modified stance to Rusty's heartbeat though.  TECHNICALLY the heart starts beating something like 4 days after conception, which is practically no time, and some people will cry foul at that stage.  It starts circulating blood at about 6 weeks after gestation, and seems as reasonable a cutoff as any to me, with allowances for special circumstances.   


That said, there's a fantastic horror short about all the babies a doctor aborted coming back to visit him on Halloween, their treat buckets the buckets he sloshed them into during the operation...I could find the title swiftly if anyone's interested. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay; I respect the consistency of the stance.

[Unorthodox]

You'll find my stance on pretty much EVERYTHING religiously based is it shouldn't be against THE LAW. 

Against my personal religion/code/etc DOES NOT mean I should advocate that it be against THE LAW.  My belief in my right to practice my own religion is only as strong as my belief in YOUR right to practice YOURS.  Therefore I have no qualms being, sometimesl literally, devil's advocate in defending someone's right to do something I might find "sinful". 

Same goes for free speach. 

If you truly believe in Freedom of Religion/Speach, you are REQUIRED to defend the right of those that use it in ways you find repugnant. 

As for the Death Penalty:

Legally, it's horribly broken right now, I'll happily concede.  I don't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid.  The argument that it costs more than life with no parole is countered by my one appeal and death following verdict counter.  This brings it back into the realm of deterrent it was originally meant for, and is hella lot cheaper than life/no parole.  In fact, I'd argue there should be no life/no parole and a hell of a lot more executions.  I don't see the reasoning behind life/no parole as anything other than making someone get warm fuzzies based on their religion.  Society benefits none that I can see.  Makes no sense to give convicts room and board when hunger is still an issue.  I'd be happy going so far as modifying the old joke into "feed the convicts to the hungry" as a potential solution if hunger REALLY becomes a crisis...


As for Abortion:

Soul/etc is an invalid argument legally. 

The heartbeat is as good an indicator as any arbitrarily chosen criteria, though I'd say note heart fully formed as above. 

[Buster's Uncle]

You'll find my stance on pretty much EVERYTHING religiously based is it shouldn't be against THE LAW. 

Against my personal religion/code/etc DOES NOT mean I should advocate that it be against THE LAW.  My belief in my right to practice my own religion is only as strong as my belief in YOUR right to practice YOURS.  Therefore I have no qualms being, sometimesl literally, devil's advocate in defending someone's right to do something I might find "sinful".

I believe I tried to more-or-less say that a few posts up.  If you're convicted that something's wrong, persuading others of it is your moral duty - and far more effective than laws, frankly, if you pull it off.

This has been the FUNDAMENTAL error of the political church people for my entire political adulthood.  They harm the church by making themselves obnoxious - pissing the cost of their moral activism away dabbling in affairs that are Ceasar's not God's, and thus doing their duty wrong.

[Unorthodox]

Maybe, I can't read everything right now.  editted above, btw. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Me too.  Last post is three times longer now, but should explain better.

[Rusty Edge]

You'll find my stance on pretty much EVERYTHING religiously based is it shouldn't be against THE LAW. 

Against my personal religion/code/etc DOES NOT mean I should advocate that it be against THE LAW.  My belief in my right to practice my own religion is only as strong as my belief in YOUR right to practice YOURS.  Therefore I have no qualms being, sometimesl literally, devil's advocate in defending someone's right to do something I might find "sinful". 

Same goes for free speach. 

If you truly believe in Freedom of Religion/Speach, you are REQUIRED to defend the right of those that use it in ways you find repugnant. 

As for the Death Penalty:

Legally, it's horribly broken right now, I'll happily concede.  I don't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid.  The argument that it costs more than life with no parole is countered by my one appeal and death following verdict counter.  This brings it back into the realm of deterrent it was originally meant for, and is hella lot cheaper than life/no parole.  In fact, I'd argue there should be no life/no parole and a hell of a lot more executions.  I don't see the reasoning behind life/no parole as anything other than making someone get warm fuzzies based on their religion.  Society benefits none that I can see.  Makes no sense to give convicts room and board when hunger is still an issue.  I'd be happy going so far as modifying the old joke into "feed the convicts to the hungry" as a potential solution if hunger REALLY becomes a crisis...


As for Abortion:

Soul/etc is an invalid argument legally. 

The heartbeat is as good an indicator as any arbitrarily chosen criteria, though I'd say note heart fully formed as above.

Well, I didn't know that the heart started before it had a purpose. I accept your point.

Actually I can respect all of it. I just come at it from a don't trust the state with power bias/approach. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, sanctioned murder can become sanctioned mass murder, kind of thing. Life sentences aren't just for violent sociopaths, they're for people caught in the convergence of 3 strikes and you're out/ the war on drugs.

So, it's not that I find Uno's approach unreasonable or impractical  so much as I don't trust the state with where it will lead.

[vonbach]

don't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid.

Its "though shalt not murder" not though shalt not kill. Murder is the killing of the innocent.
Killing of those guilty of capital crimes is not only lawful in the Bible its required.

[Unorthodox]

don't think the argument to do away with it because thou shalt not kill is valid.

Its "though shalt not murder" not though shalt not kill. Murder is the killing of the innocent.
Killing of those guilty of capital crimes is not only lawful in the Bible its required.

Equally invalid to the argument at hand, and open to interpretation.

Life sentences aren't just for violent sociopaths, they're for people caught in the convergence of 3 strikes and you're out/ the war on drugs.

The purpose of a Life sentence is to remove the person from society.  I don't much care the reasoning.  There's a much more efficient and cost effective means to remove someone from society.  Really, what PURPOSE does a life sentence serve?  Society has admitted they can't be rehabilitated at that point.  We're done with them, it's time to let God sort it out.  Prisons just got a lot roomier, that's X# years of meals can go to the hungry, etc. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Hey Rusty - this is natural progression and relevant to the topic of the thread, really, but tell me when and where to split off into its own thread, if you like, title: "Thou shalt not kill and th' gub'ment".