You forgot to add context to the first quote - if there is any?

Wow, what an utterly worthless argument, BTP. Surely you could have come up with something better. Dobson is so evil and so insane and this is the best you can do?

Dave

Hmmm...I'm going to have to say that this arguement is at best poorly thought out. This is comparing apples and oranges. Pro-choice decisions are stating that "everyone can do this", while death penalty decisions are decided on a case by case basis.
I might turn the question back on you and ask "Why do you trust judges to legalize the prevention of innocent human life, but distrust them to end lives that are proven (through a VERY exhaustive process) to be dangerous?"

Proven? Tell that to the innocent on death row, which you know do exist.

Q. "Would you vote for a candidate who would support the killing of 5 year old boys and girls whose parents no longer wanted them?

No.

Q. Would it matter whether or not you agreed with that politician on economic matters or other issues?

No.

Q. Would you get under a 'big tent' with a party that had this one teeny weeny flaw which they might call 'pro-choice on child eradication' within its platform?

Why not? What's good about "child eradication'"? (Regardless of the method or age at which they meet their demise)

Q. Did Mr. Dobson's 'big tent' just happen to hold a man who let 150 people die that he could have saved with a simple signature?

Do you mean 150 criminals who have been wrongly convicted or 150 criminals properly convicted through our system of justice?

Q. Is George Bush's embrace of the death penalty okay with James Dobson because those people were "guilty"?

Yes - If guilty under the law...

Q. Who said all those people executed in Texas while Bush was Governor were guilty?

Juries of their peers -- plus state judges -- and state appeals judges -- and federal appeals judges -- and the US Supreme Court...

Q. So, judges have perfectly sound judgment on death penalties, but are totally untrustworthy on abortion issues?

Yes -- under our law -- judges have "perfectly sound" judgment on death penalties, but they could be totally untrustworthy on abortion issues...

The Constitution specifically gives judges the power to punish crime... There is nothing in the Constitution that gives federal judges the right to make decisions on abortion issues --

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Which Amendment covers abortion?

Q. The same judges?

Yes.

Q. Did some of these untrustworthy judges perhaps let a few innocent people get the death penalty?

If they are innocent they had the opportunity to convince us of that... Unfortunately-- there are no guarantees in life... And if there is a problem -- the voters have a way to remedy it... We have met the enemy -- and it is us...

No one wants to execute an innocent person...

Q. Surprising just how Mr. Dobson's absolutism on life and death is just flexible enough to be meaningless...

Not so fast... it's not meaningless (see the above)...

But to give this some perspective -- Over 40 million abortions have been performed since 1973 -- has that number (of innocent people) been exceeded on death row?

I would add this distinction.

Pro-choice -- An individual deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a fetus/baby to term.

Capital punishment -- Government killing those it deems unworthy of remaining alive some likely innocent of what they're accused of.

In the first a woman acting on her own behalf or of her own free will. (Admittedly preventing a birth in the process. Oh I know you anti abortion folk can call it murder.)

The second the government acting as an agent for us all killing in our name possibly in error.

I don't know how many toward the left end of the spectrum would agree with me but the above (in very simplistic terms) expresses why I'm pro choice and anti death penalty. I would not dictate to another what to do in the case of abortion but do not want the government killing in my name.

It's interesting that many on the other end would position themselves oppositely believing that the unborn are innocent victims and those put to death deserving of that fate.


I for one can not see anyone who believes in Christ supporting the death penalty. Exactly which of the words attributed to him support such an idea? Which of the ten commandments?

Sure you can go back to the old testament and cite eye for an eye but Christs' positions were virtually opposite.


>"Would you vote for a candidate who would support the killing of 5 year old boys and girls whose parents no longer wanted them?<

He's way out there with this comparison.

I think you make a good point btp. If they are to be consistent they have to be against capital punishment unless of course they don't accept Christ.

On a side note I actually have more respect for the anti abortion folks who are against it in the case of rape and incest. I'll cut some slack with the life of the mother angle but at least they're consistent. If they believe it's murder how is it alright to kill when the product of rape or incest? Those with this exception want to have it both ways.

Note to realcon & whoever else - did not view your post before pesting mine. Just to head off any confusion.

Re: Comment 6

Pro-choice -- [euphemism for pro-abortion] -- The sanitized name for describing abortion -- the focus has to be on "abortion" -- considering that the one who has the most at stake is the one being aborted -- not the one choosing whether or not to kill a human being at an early stage of its growth..

Capital punishment -- Government carrying out the punishment of those it deems unworthy of remaining alive -- because they have shown themselves unfit to live in our society...

Bite me, Mr. RealCon. I am pro-choice, yes. I am NOT pro-abortion. I do not agree with it at all; I just believe the government has NO right to get into what should be a personal decision of the woman involved.

Me on the other hand, I'm pro-abortion. Pro death penalty too. Generally in favor of whatever gets the population down.

Dave

Hmmm, I was a little concerned about the first quote of my post, it is particularly assinine as it stands and I believe he probably meant it in the context of an example of other types of life and death decisions being equivalent to abortion decisions but would sound different in different contexts.

So, when an anti-choice person says "we must save unborn children", it would somehow sound different if they were to say, "we can support legally ending human lifes AFTER they are born (if they are declared criminals by judges (but we hate judges and don't trust their judgment (but we DO trust them to kill people (we just don't trust them to save people (we fully SUPPORT their judgment on death (but they can NOT be trusted to have a judgment on life))))))"

Now to a couple specific items people have brought up:
"I might turn the question back on you and ask "Why do you trust judges to legalize the prevention of innocent human life, but distrust them to end lives that are proven (through a VERY exhaustive process) to be dangerous?"

Well, my answer to this is that I DO trust judges in both cases. I myself am a law and order kind of guy and I support Policemen, Judges, and the rest of our legal system (even lawyers and lawmakers, to some extent). How did it become conservative to hate judges and the rule of law? Punks and gangsters have long hated judges and the rule of law. If you hate and disrespect Judges and the American law they represent, you are being UN-AMERICAN and on the same side as criminals everywhere.

Also you say death penalties go "through a VERY exhaustive process", whoop-de-doo, I think we have shown that laws concerning the rights of women to control their own bodies are not considered lightly. The laws as set by our founding fathesr and other laws passed by our representatives as selected by the people of America (not just appointed by a few church members, but actually voted by the majority of American's) support legalized abortion in some cases. These were not quick and easy decisions, just because you may disagree doesn't mean you can pretend these issues weren't and still are considered very thoroughly.

A different point, terminology can be the key to how this argument sounds, "Pro-choice -- [euphemism for pro-abortion] -- The sanitized name for describing abortion -- " Sounds meaningful, eh? But if I say, "Pro-life--[euphemism for a bunch of old men voting on what control younger women have over their own bodies" -the sanitized name for describing a religious government", well it sounds different.

But the main point I am trying to make, which I don't think is too obscure, is that the basis of one of Mr. Dobson's main arguments is that people can never vote for anyone who ever supports abortion because there is NO wiggle room on killing human life. And he uses this save lack of wiggle room to attack judges, but it is only these SAME judges who give him the wiggle room to support George Bush, the poster boy of ending human life via the death penalty.

If you believe nobody innocent was ever executed, you might check out this site: The Innoncence Project

>>How did it become conservative to hate judges and the rule of law?<<

It didn't, BTP. RealCon and his ilk aren't really conservatives in most meaningful ways. The have right wing social agendas, but philosophically they are exploitative statists. His choice of name is typical. He calls himself 'RealCon' to shore up his conservative credentials because he knows at heart that his beliefs really aren't conservative. It's just like the people who call John McCain a RINO, because they know that they're not real Republicans and if they can stygmatize the real Republicans it helps to legitimize them.

Dave

I have no quarrel with putting a convicted murderer away for life -- provided it is for life...

But killing the unborn has no justification..,

... if you are Mr. RealCon.

Re: Comment 12

Dave and his ilk aren't really conservatives in the most meaningful ways...

A true conservative believes in keeping what we had in this country before the hippies came along with their "counterculture:...

A true conservative believes in holding to traditional values. The traditional values of this nation are those embodied in the Constitution, not those invented in the last 100 years by fundamentalist revisionists who try to twist our traditions into their theocentric mold.

Dave

One difference between abortion and the death penalty is that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, whereas the Constitution at least mentions prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course at the time that the Constitution was written, cruel and unusual punishment could not have meant the death penalty since that was perfectly legal.

What would have been so wrong with leaving abortion issues up to the states? It's not in the Constitution, and, if you believe it's murder, then states have always had the right to create their own criminal codes and legislate against muder. That way, some states would legalize it and others wouldn't.

RealCon: But killing the unborn has no justification..,

Far as I can see it needs no justification.

Obviously -- you can't see very far...

Indeed, JR. Something's just inherently wrong with saying 'killing the unborn'. It just doesn't make any sense.

Dave

Good heavens, Mr. JR!

Yeah -- Let's kill all the misfits...

Natalie, I believe he is saying a woman does not need to justify her decision to anyone. It is between her and her doctor.

Oooooh, that's different. And he is correct about that. Whew!

Thanks, Steve.

Dave -- although I disagree with you -- at least you are able to clearly state a position... Can't say that for some of the folks here...

It seems to me that the candidate that intiates an optional war that results in the deaths of over 1800 "boys and girls" that are very much wanted by their parents is the politician and the party that advocates a "pro-choice on child eradication" policy. As a Christian, the failure of Dr. Dobson and other prominant Christian leaders to even consider this, let alone condemn it makes me furious.

Moreover, if one believes that the taking of human life is immoral, laws that permit abortion but do not require it do not force anyone to act immorally. On the other hand, imposition of the death penalty, [particularly given the serious questions about the procedural defects in many cases] requires us all to act in a manner that many consider immoral. In my mind, this is a significant differance that is rarely discussed.

comment #15 boild it down to the nut of the matter

RealCon sez..
*A true conservative believes in keeping what we had in this country before the hippies came along with their "counterculture:...*

nursing an almost 40 year old Grudge...

before that it woud have been those damned Greasers and their devil made Rock and Roll Music

before that the Swing Kids with all that wild dancing

before that the jazz folks and their floosy Flappers and loose morals..

before that the Suffrage Women who defied their husbands and refused to stay in the home and >gasp< wanted to Vote!!

before that the Abolishionists, wanting to get rid of the cheap labor that nobody else wanted to do

on and on, ad nauseum

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Dobson Thread

>>It seems to me that the candidate that intiates an optional war that results in the deaths of over 1800 "boys and girls" that are very much wanted by their parents is the politician and the party that advocates a "pro-choice on child eradication" policy. As a Christian, the failure of Dr. Dobson and other prominant Christian leaders to even consider this, let alone condemn it makes me furious.<<

If you accept the idea that fetuses are living, conscious human beings, there IS a key difference between them and soldiers who are dying in Iraq. The fetuses didn't volunteer to be aborted, while the soldiers are old enough to make decisions and chose to join the army with full awareness that they are likely to be sent to war. That's a pretty important difference, and reprehensible though Dobson and his nutcase followers are, they aren't wrong to draw that distinction.

Dave

Glad to see all you -- ex-tr-ee-mus lib-ee-rals -- mustering your forces to maintain "killing the unborn"...

The issue of "choice" -- properly stated -- is the "choice" of death of one who otherwise would live... that is the "only real choice"...

National Geographic has a new TV show covering "Terrestrial Life" -- life on other planets -- Scientists say they would be exuberant to find a "living single cell" anywhere else in the Universe -- they would call it "life" -- and they would certainly not want to kill it... even knowing that it is but a "single cell",,,

The program says -- "Life is pretty tough -- once you get it started -- it's very hard to quench...". (but not on this planet!)

In this country -- we kill several million unborn each year -- up to the point where "viability" (can it live after it is extracted outside the mother if we don't kill it now?) is the criteria to douse the "thing" with a chemical strong enough to make Zyklon B -- (a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill typhus-bearing lice and other pests) -- look like Kool Aid...

But -- Real Conservatives want to thank you -- and the Supreme Judicial Court of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts -- for doing more to defeat John Kerry -- than the quagmire in Iraq -- and all the other problems of this administration -- could ever do...

By "being in our face" -- you have enabled the election of Bush -- who can then appoint Federal Judges (non-activist - that is) to the bench -- who will follow the Constitution as it was written... not as lib-ee-rals might want it to be -- and no "penumbras")...

Non urinat in ventum!

BTP, does your whole life revolve around conspiracy theories? Thank the heavens for blogs... otherwise all that wasted energy would not have an outlet.

"It seems to me that the candidate that intiates an optional war that results in the deaths of over 1800 "boys and girls" that are very much wanted by their parents is the politician and the party that advocates a "pro-choice on child eradication" policy. As a Christian, the failure of Dr. Dobson and other prominant Christian leaders to even consider this, let alone condemn it makes me furious."

You are right in being furious...

But the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the issue of abortion (life or death of the unborn)...

It has everything to do with politics...

Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it launched?

Thousands of American casualties and billions of (borrowed) dollars later -- the truth is still being kept from Americans by the mainstream media...

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

What impresses me about RealCon is his ability to be on the wrong side of absolutely every issue. I wonder how he feels about social security and tax reform...

Dave

Re; Comment 32

"What impresses me about RealCon is his ability to be on the wrong side of absolutely every issue. I wonder how he feels about social security and tax reform..."

Probably the same "wrong side" as Dave.

"BTP, does your whole life revolve around conspiracy theories?"

I admit I have a fondness for conspiracies, but sometimes conspiracies are true. For instance, back before the Iraq war, when George Bush was saying that he hadn't decided whether to go to war or not, many of us believed that he was flat out lying and war was ineveitable.

Just recently it turns out that our belief in a conspiracy of George Bush deciding to war Iraq first and trying to make up a reason second was shared by that other completely freaking liberal hotbed known as the British Intelligence services...

But, hey, if you just don't hold George Bush accountable for his own words OR hold him accountable for the results of his actions, why, other than that he is our greatest American President ever and a natural favorite of the Almighty. If you DO pay attention to the things he says and compare them to what he does, you might suspect him of being an old Texas oil flim flam man (Am I the only one who remembers that the show Dallas was based on the well accepted premise that Texas oil men had the ethics of weasels?)

BTP...

Nobody said ANY president was accountable... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That should be a basic theory on conspiracy 101.

>>Probably the same "wrong side" as Dave.<

There's a depressing through - me and RealCon agreeing about something.

Dave