Here's a statement from Tom Colburn.
"On the death penalty, he said: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life." He said he performed two abortions to save the lives of mothers who had congenital heart disease, but opposes the procedure in cases of rape. "Under the mores we live under today, my lineage wouldn't exist," Coburn said, explaining that his great-grandmother was raped by a territorial sheriff. "
He's a candidate for a republican Senate seat.
Here are the Dems that might be up against him:
Brad Carson, Carroll Fisher Monte Johnson, Jim Rogers, and W. B. G. Woodson
We all don't live there, but if you know someone, maybe they should know about this.
As for our discussion purposes, what's your stance on this topic. I don't mean abortion, so don't everyone start pumping that issue. I mean more so a person who feels that the death penalty should be allowed while abortion shouldn't because of morals. Personally I think it's a huge conflict of interest. I mean what the hell? Are we trying to save every life or do we have to be honest that that statement should include banning the death penalty if it's to be made into a moral argument at all.
"You do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."
Ruby Morrigan
"Though I don't know why I chose to smoke sess
I guess that's the time when I'm not depressed
But I'm still depressed, and I ask what's it worth
Ready to give up so I seek the Old Earth
Who explained working hard may help you maintain
to learn to overcome the heartaches and pain"
Music while you read?
2 comments:
Well Josh, I think your comments are interesting, and I I think the problem is that too often these issues are looked at in a black and white sense. But if anything suggests the stupidity of the American public it's that support can be gained for a politician based on an issue like abortion, when if you dig deeper into the candidates platform, it's obvious that there are some incongruities in the two statements: Capitol punishment is right; abortion is wrong. The justification seems to be that one is a case of a criminal and the other is the case that life is precious. Well, when the pope can be looked to as having more sense in this matter than the average pro-life politician in America, I have to get a little worried. And I'm not trying to pope bash here, but I am suggesting that the Catholic church has been pressed(particularly with the abuse scandals) and found to house a variety of very basic contradictions in doctrine that has existed for years. So when the pope stands up and says the correct moral answer, that is if you strongly believe that life is that precious, that capitol punishment is just as bad as abortion. Now I'm pro-choice all the way, you all know this probably. I'm pro-choice because I believe this isn't a political issue and should never be. There again I have to steal some of your comment Josh and point out the white male thing is dominant here. Why we get to sit on our high horse and criticize arabic traditions that heavily rely on partriarchy, and then we think we can start doing practically the same thing by taking away options from a woman on childbirth. It's similar to the recent debate that the pill should be outlawed or not given out by pharmacists that believe an unproven claim that a fertilized fetus won't stick to the uterine wall because of the pill and so that's an abortion. Like hell it is. If you're going into the act with the idea that you're not going to attempt to have a child, why does whitey want to get up on my shit?!?
Another strong white asshole debate on the gays is this whole connection with beastiality. Now I haven't posted anything about the recent box turtle statements made by a couple of senators, but this is truly an ignorant argument. To say that because of the nature of two persons of the same sex getting together that giving validity to those relationships would allow people to marry turtles and have sex with rabbits and whatever sick shit these men come up with in their own minds. They are just statements to embolden an already biased viewpoint and smoke and mirrors to fool you into thinking that because a candidate says something that fuels your ethics side, that they aren't going to take money from your children, send them to war or decide that they don't deserve basic health care. I could rant on these contradictions all day, but what I really want to hear from you all is the response to this particular argument, because I think it's specious. I think that morality is a black and white thing when it comes to defining values, but that laws must understand the grey areas because value systems of different origin(religious, famlilial, "I was raised by TV") often have misunderstood differences that should be accounted for. I've always been against the death penalty, but I wouldn't ever pus the politics of it, because I feel it's a state's rights issue that has been handled by those folks on their own. I do raise the abortion debate though, because I think it's an infringement on equality. I think it's not the governments right to make the choice before the incident. I also don't believe that the argument that any life is good life is valid either. Nature proves to us that the fittest survive, and even the bible clearly speaks of sacrifice or life as being an ordinary thing. So from my perspective, we live in a modern age where it makes more sense to decide what sort of life a child will be raised in before deciding whether that birth should happen. The reason why this shouldn't conflict with a true pro-life debate, is because I believe the choice should involve two people and perhaps a counselor if needed, but those two people are the parents of course. I don't believe mandates like the one child per family imposition or that child birth should require licensing(though an argument could change me here) or anything like that, because I think it's not the government's place, period. But again, I'm not interested so much in why you're for or against either of these topics, I just want to know how a moral minded person could choose two obviously contradicting platforms, and even to go beyond the frey and accuse abortion doctors of being criminals, esp. when in this particular case the candidate admits to being one of those doctors.
You guys are so close to what I'm looking for in this discussion, and you keep getting trapped into the singular issues. Pete, your comment about your personal beliefs is not contradictory. What I'm referring to is. So let's put it in your words sort of. Let's take your mom getting bashed with a brick. Let's say your aunt and your mom were having a pleasant day, and this brick maniac comes from out of no where, smacks momma with a brick killing her instantly, and then takes a swing at auntie who gets knocked to the ground. Bricks decides to rape them both and auntie, still alive gets pregnant. Now, there are several incidences that happen. First the man is arrested and there's the possibility of giving him the death penalty(and Josh is right, it's waay more expensive to kill someone on death row than to leave them in prison for life, not that that's cheap either). Then auntie decides that she can't cope with bearing this child and goes for an abortion.
One quick not here on Pete's "partial birth abortion". Such a term does not exist in any medical book. This was a partisan bill designed to get closer to banning abortion. I'm sorry to blast that comment, but this is true. What you're referring to Pete is a late term abortion. That is already illegal, and for good reason. Both the mother and child are at extreme risk in those cases, and the fetus does have the characteristics of a human being. The "dilation and extraction" method often called the "partial birth" in lay terms should have been the main target of that bill, because it is a particular nasty and traumatic surgery.
Back to the point. So we've got two possible deaths happening here. In my view both have justifiable reasons. But my question is, how could you be against the one and not the other? That's the contradiction that I brought up. This candidate for senate would push for the murderer to be killed, but he'd be against the abortion and if the abortion happened, he'd be for killing the doctor that carried out the procedure. Explain the moral or ethical or logical reasoning behind that please? I don't think anyone can, so feel free to expound upon the problems with this argument, because there are many.
Post a Comment