FoxHastings said: ↑ Then can I assume you are against all wars and criminal executions and CEOs of companies who knowingly produce products that kill people . (just to name a few)? Are you not aware that executions, wars and CEO'S products kill innocent people?!!!! Are you really contending that everyone killed in war, pregnant women , children,etc. are all bad people, not innocent ????
No. With wars, CEO products, and especially executions, we do our best to mitigate loss of innocent life. We don't purposely target civilians, we fine and even jail CEOs for defective and dangerous products, and we have a high standard for evidence to sentence a murderer to death. As a side note, I'm not for every war we engaged in. I'm for defending ourselves and our allies against invaders.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Then can I assume you are against all wars and criminal executions and CEOs of companies who knowingly produce products that kill people . (just to name a few)? Are you not aware that executions, wars and CEO'S products kill innocent people?!!!! Are you really contending that everyone killed in war, pregnant women , children,etc. are all bad people, not innocent ???? They still get killed. Excuse No. 1 Seldom. Excuse No. 2 The innocent are still executed. Excuse No. 3 Excuse No. 1 , they still die. OK, there were all YOUR reasons for killing INCONVENIENT born people and women have their reasons for killing their fetuses. Your reasons are not better nor more important than women's.
There's a big difference in purposely killing an unborn baby and someone accidently dying in the situations presented.
No,no, no.....no one dies "by accident" in an execution or war or the deliberate overlooking of safety in products.
So are people accidentally run over by cars. The main point is intent. We try our best to mitigate civilian casualties. Do you advocate mitigating the loss of innocent lives of the unborn due to abortions? Maybe it's seldom because it's seldom that products causes the death of innocent lives. That remains to be proven in the US. Besides, as I said, we do our best to mitigate loss of innocent life. As long as we try to mitigate loss of innocent lives and we do a decent job of it, I still support the death penalty. Your last paragraph confuse me. I never advocated for killing innocent lives. These aren't reasons to kill innocent lives. These are things we are doing to mitigate loss of innocent lives.
We're going around in a circle here....INCONVENIENT innocent lives are taken all the time, in war, executions and by the greedy( CEO's , corporations). That is a statement of fact. Mitigate all you want.....women who have abortions are hardly the only people who find some lives INCONVENIENT. If someone attacks you then that person is INCONVENIENT and you may kill that person in self defense.....and so can women..
The first one depends on your definition of accident. If accident simply means without intent then yes, executing an innocent man is accidental. Neither the justice system nor the executioner intended to kill an innocent man. Second one is false. There are plenty of scenarios where you can accidentally kill innocemt lives in most, if not all senses of the term "accident." a hostage situation goes south, the enemy is using civilians as shields and hitting civillians is inevitable, a bomb dropped at the wrong time, an artillery shell falls short or long of the intended target, mistaken identity, etc. The last one is the only one I agree with. That's negligence and there are laws that try to stop that.
I never stated otherwise. Okay? No, just no. The reason I may kill someone in self defense (which btw isn't my goal. My goal in a defensive situation is to eliminate the threat my any necessary means) is because he is presenting a lethal threat or trying to cause great bodily harm. It's not out of inconvenience.
Getting the needle in an execution isn't an accident. . War kills innocent people. The end. Prove that NO war ever killed innocent people. It does NOT matter what the "intent " or circumstance was, the innocent are still DEAD. It still happens and the REPUBLICANS are against the regulations that could alleviate it.
So you think it's convenient to be attacked and harmed by another? I call it a BIG inconvenience... I think Anti-Choicers like to make up the rules on whether something is inconvenient or not.....they don't get to. AND pregnancy cause bodily harm , some temporary and some permanent(it can even cause death)....women have the same right you have to defend themselves from bodily harm. And no, repubs do NOT consider all life precious...
Like I said, depends on your definition of "accident." Sure, the action itself was intentional (sticking the needle in), but the intent behind it wasn't (they thought they were sticking the needle into a murderer). However, I suppose "unintentional" would be a better word for it. Again, I never stated otherwise. You were disputing the idea that innocent casualties of war are accidents, not whether or not they count as deaths. First part of your sentence, again, never stated otherwise. Second part of your sentence, that's a thread onto its own as to whether the regulations you may advocate would alleviate the loss of innocent lives due to negligence.
We still have wars whether we intentionally kill innocent people or not, they DIE, dead is dead, killed is killed.... Seem to be back to excuses for AntiChoicers not really thinking "ALL life is precious " as they claim...
The human-selling racket brings in big bucks, under the guise of "adoption fees". When a pregnant white woman comes into the "pregnancy counseling center", the reaction there is "CHA-CHING!". https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91834&page=1 --- When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's mind is of a practice that was outlawed in America nearly 150 years ago — the buying and selling of human beings. ---
I object to your usage of the term itself. You can't have it both ways by disputing the accuracy of the usage of the term "accident" to describe an innocent man being executed while in another post grossly misuse the term "inconvenient" to describe almost being killed. Inconvenience is when you have to wait 2 hours at the DMV. Being shot at by an active shooter and having to defend yourself is a threat to your life and you are trying to preserve your life. You and I will never come to an agreememt on this so I'm just going to leave it alone. Neither do democrats.
Please show me where have I disputed this. First off, I'm trying to keep this thread on topic. If you want to talk about regulations to keep people from dying then start a thread on that subject. Second, just because we may disagree on whether a certain regulation is needed to prevent negligence doesn't mean I don't care about innovent lives. We all want to save innocent lives. We just have different points of view on how to accomplish that. The less you demonize your opposition, the more you can work together to come to a solution.
Guess we won't agree on what's convenient since you seem to think you define the word. It's a fact so I'm sure you'll disagree. They don't claim to..
OkeyDoket then....lets head to the Anti-Choicers who claim all life is precious but would make an exception in the case of rape, suddenly THAT fetus isn't quite so precious ????. Then we could head for the Republicans who continually try to cut funding to entities like Welfare, WIC, SNAP,etc., that aid CHILDREN...aren't THEY "precious life"?
Not all republicans believe that. I myself believe that the life of the unborn should be preserved unless it immediately threatens the life of the mother. This is an example of two people disagreeing on what the solution to the problem should be. Conservatives as a whole believe that the free and private market is best suited for providing programs such as what you listed than to have government run it. However, this is off topic.
I'm not saying getting shot at is convenient (unless the alternative is far worse). What I'm saying is you're misusing the term. Again with the demonization. I don't hate facts. I don't purposely disagree with facts. I simply cannot agree that your statement is a fact. We've argued in the past about this and we never came to an agreement. Actually they do. They simply don't think the unborn is a life. They will fight for minority rights and animals, however.
...and Repubs won't. And you're wrong about Democrats not believing the fetus is a life. It's alive, but it isn't born so has no rights . Repubs want to give the fetus more rights than anyone else.
. Many do. Pregnancy does threaten the life of women. And it causes bodily harm. You disagreeing won't change that. And it's a sight more INCONVENIENT than a 2 hour wait at the DMV. . But they haven't done that and they still want to cut funding to programs that aid those "precious lives" who aren't precious to them after they're born. Read the title of this thread.
Actually, the republicans were the driving force in establishing equal rights. We still are for equals rights but we think that most of what the left fight for is either unnecessary or counterproductive. An example would be the BLM movement. The vast majority of the people shot by police posed a letgal threat to the officer. It has little to do with race. And that is your opinion.
Then go talk to them. I'm not one of them. I'm not going to bother with this. Again, different topic for a different thread. I didn't realize this thread was about Welfare and SNAPS programs.
Collateral damage and innocent deaths are part of war, it isn't intentional and the military does it's best to avoid it. Driving to the store, there is a chance you could kill a pedestrian, it's not on purpose and also an accident. Killing an unborn baby is on purpose.
