Political Crossfire Forums

obama08 · Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 54

REPUBLICANS PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS!
I know I made it slightly long, but im sure it will be worth the read.

Ramesh Ponnuru, the author of “The Party of Death” outlines his case against abortion by stating that the democrats, the media, and the courts have a “disregard for life”.
I cannot begin to state how many problems there are in what this man is trying to say.

To start off, out of all democrats, less than 50% are “pro-choice”, and almost the majority of pro-choice people do not condone late term abortions. One thing we do not see on his cover is that there are republicans who are pro-choice.

One thing he also fails to mention in his book is the fact that since abortion was made legal the crime rate in America has significantly been reduced. Many times, the people who are getting abortions tend to be poor black women in big cities, who’s children if not aborted would have in many cases become hooked into gangs, violence, drugs, and just causing more crime within big cities.

Isn’t this what so many republicans want? I’m not calling them racist but we do understand from hurricane Katrina our republican administration did not have a very big heart for the thousands of black people ravaged in New Orleans…which leads to my point, aren’t they happy these black children are aborted?

I like the term he uses…“The Party of Death”. It’s a phrase conservatives are going to love because it uses one of the biggest generalized titles that I have ever seen come out of a conservative book…well besides Ann Coulters “GODLESS” b/s.

But lets talk about “death” on both parties. Like I said before, less than 50% of democrats are pro-choice. Which leads to my question….what percentage of republicans are pro-war? See because out of every republican that I have ever talked too…almost all of them favor the war in Iraq. This compared to when I talk to a lot of democrats, they tend to not be too favorable of the pro-choice agenda.

How about the history of the death penalty. If you look back Republicans have always been the bigger favors on it. Notice how I say “the bigger favors” because I’m not going to be like Ponnuru and suggest there aren’t people who favor the death penalty from the Democratic Party.

And my last issue…gun control. How would it be if we all had free access to guns? The death and crime rate in big cities would sky rocket, and if abortion was made illegal as well, the crime rate would soar even higher. Talk about a disregard of life…I see it way more in the Republican party then in the Democratic.

JayDubya · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1894 Location: Texas

Take that last point to the gun control forum, but you're dead wrong.

As for the rest of your spiel, if you want to talk about Republicans and Democrats on the matter of death penalty and abortion...

Democrats wish to protect convicted murderers and make it legal to kill the unborn. Republicans wish to protect the unborn and to execute convicted murderers.

I find the latter to be infinitely more logical.

obama08 · Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 54

Quote: but you're dead wrong.

Alright then maybe you would care to go each point and correct me?

Other than sitting there saying "your dead wrong".

Back yourself up buddy.

JayDubya · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1894 Location: Texas

That specific comment was in reference to the gun control statement. It has little to no relevance to the topic of abortion. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you but don't wish to perpetuate an argument of that nature in the wrong forum, i.e. "...you're dead wrong, but we can talk about that later, in the appropriate forum."

You then continue to bring up other tangents like Katrina and the Iraq War.

Rather than simply rudely roll my eyes, I condensed and summarized that spiel for relevance, and it's one I've seen a million times before...

Republicans tend to support the death penalty, Democrats tend to support abortion.

I feel fairly consistent and logical in my beliefs on this matter, as I'm sure you do. In general I believe myself to be more Libertarian than Republican, but I also realize that few Libertarians believe as I do. Premeditated murder is a social wrong that cannot be permitted - people that commit this act violate the social contract in such a manner that they cast away their very humanity.

I feel abortion to be nothing less than premeditated murder by a medical doctor pissing all over his Hippocratic Oath. As above, I have strong feelings on this topic.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Murder requires it be illegal, since it is not illegal it is not murder.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Selfish_Meme wrote: Murder requires it be illegal, since it is not illegal it is not murder.

Or also cruel and barbaric. If it's cruel and barbaric it is murder no matter how legal it is.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

No, only illegally with forethought, and malice, committed by a sane person.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

You can "murder" someone without it being illegal. I don't think all abortions involve the abortionist murdering the fetus. I think most of them (since they are done "on time" before the fetus can feel it) do not involve murdering. Although I do still believe that sometimes (although they are not supposed to) late term abortions occur and use cruel or inhumane methods. Those would most certainly involve the murdering of the fetus.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

No you can 'kill' someone without it being illegal, you can't murder someone legally.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8556

straw man wrote: You can "murder" someone without it being illegal. I don't think all abortions involve the abortionist murdering the fetus. I think most of them (since they are done "on time" before the fetus can feel it) do not involve murdering. Although I do still believe that sometimes (although they are not supposed to) late term abortions occur and use cruel or inhumane methods. Those would most certainly involve the murdering of the fetus. "Killing" denotes ending life. "Murdering" denotes ending life through illegal means.

If I shoot you in the head, that is murder.

If the state does the same thing through capital punishment, it is killing.

Murder implies, and requires, illegality.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Selfish_Meme wrote: ...you can't murder someone legally.

Sure you can, if you are cruel or barbaric about it. Check your dictionary.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

JayDubya wrote: Take that last point to the gun control forum, but you're dead wrong.

As for the rest of your spiel, if you want to talk about Republicans and Democrats on the matter of death penalty and abortion...

Democrats wish to protect convicted murderers and make it legal to kill the unborn. Republicans wish to protect the unborn and to execute convicted murderers [Ek0nomik Note: Murderers, who are alive.]

I find the latter to be infinitely more logical.

Yeah, that's much more logical. :roll:

By even making that argument, you are falling into what you're using to punch at Democrats with.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

straw man wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: ...you can't murder someone legally.

Sure you can, if you are cruel or barbaric about it. Check your dictionary.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1303&bold=||||

nope cruel or barbaric is not relevant to the legal definition of murder.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Straw Man, I got beat in this argument too.

I'm not afraid to admit it, plus it was hardley an argument, just definitions. Selfish_Meme is correct, murder deals with the legality of the situation. Killing itself could be applied to both scenarios.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

I don't understand, why MUST I use your "legal definition" in my application of the word?

Why may I not use my perfectly valid definition of the word?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Because then I could say quite validly that a fetus is a frog and therefore I have the right to do whatever I please with it. Murder is a legal term, so it is defined legally.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8556

straw man wrote: I don't understand, why MUST I use your "legal definition" in my application of the word?

Why may I not use my perfectly valid definition of the word? Because, your definition of the word is invalid for there is a stark difference between murder and killing.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Thats also a big issue with the whole debate, people use their own definition of a word, which in a lot of cases like 'life' can mean quite a number of different things.

There are lots of dictionaries online and some words are necessary to be defined legally for application in courts, we should make use of those resources.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

If I say, "I'm going to the bank to make a deposit into my checking account", are you going to say, "that's impossible. There's no way to increase your checking balance by going to a clump or mass of earth or slope beside a river. It can ONLY be a bank if it is a clump of earth or slope."

Maybe you could say:

"In order for it to be an "account" it HAS to be an oral or written summary of an event that took place. How can you make a deposit into that? That doesn't even make sense."

I mean I understand perfectly clear what the first definition for murder is and it's legal ramifications. What I DON'T understand is why I'm not allowed to use definition #2 instead.

Ek0nomik, do you have a link to where you got stumped on this?

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Selfish_Meme wrote: Because then I could say quite validly that a fetus is a frog...

Validly? So if you look up fetus in the dictionary, one of the definitions will be "a frog"?

Link?