What Kind Of Person Could "Execute" A Child?

[glorydaz]

If we went back to the 50's we'd still have racial segregation along with other prejudices that have been generally done away with. Going backwards isn't the answer...

Yeah, you're correct. It's just too late to change the world.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, you're correct. It's just too late to change the world.

Well, the world is constantly changing...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have a feeling that you vote for the Democrats, the party that does its best to make sure that abortion remains legal.

Am I right or wrong?

Do you think Trump is going to outlaw abortion? Seeing as how you're determined to keep on the subject then how likely do you think it is that the Republicans are gonna do anything about it?

 

[glorydaz]

Well, the world is constantly changing...

Yep, and not for the better. Evil increases by the day. All of creation groans.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yep, and not for the better. Evil increases by the day. All of creation groans.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.​

It has and it hasn't. We no longer accept women being treat as inferior to men as in prior patriarchal societies or black people as second class citizens. On the negative we have enough weapons to blow the planet to shreds etc. There's progression and regression...

 

[glorydaz]

It has and it hasn't. We no longer accept women being treat as inferior to men as in prior patriarchal societies or black people as second class citizens. On the negative we have enough weapons to blow the planet to shreds etc. There's progression and regression...

That women's pendulum has swung too far. Now women can accuse men of anything and they are to be believed. What a crock that is. I sure don't consider that progress. Just look at the destruction of the family unit. No, Arthur, I see nothing positive in the women's movement. It's become an uncontrollable monster.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That women's pendulum has swung too far. Now women can accuse men of anything and they are to be believed. What a crock that is. I sure don't consider that progress. Just look at the destruction of the family unit. No, Arthur, I see nothing positive in the women's movement. It's become an uncontrollable monster.

Without the suffragette movement you wouldn't be taken seriously on here if you were even allowed to post at all. You're exaggerating where it comes to women just being able to accuse men of anything and simply get away with it as well. Not saying there aren't times where it doesn't happen where men get a raw deal but it isn't the main. If you're referring to militant feminism then no time for that either as it doesn't represent women in the main.

 

[glorydaz]

Without the suffragette movement you wouldn't be taken seriously on here if you were even allowed to post at all. You're exaggerating where it comes to women just being able to accuse men of anything and simply get away with it as well. Not saying there aren't times where it doesn't happen where men get a raw deal but it isn't the main. If you're referring to militant feminism then no time for that either as it doesn't represent women in the main.

I don't need to be taken seriously on a web site to be fulfilled.

As I said...it's a matter of the pendulum swinging too far, and it has, without a doubt, swung too far. I'm not referring to "militant feminism" but to feminism period. It is disgusting and perverted to see what's going on. I guess we'll find out whether it represents women in the main if the Democrats succeed in their present smears.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't need to be taken seriously on a web site to be fulfilled.

As I said...it's a matter of the pendulum swinging too far, and it has, without a doubt, swung too far. I'm not referring to "militant feminism" but to feminism period. It is disgusting and perverted to see what's going on. I guess we'll find out whether it represents women in the main if the Democrats succeed in their present smears.

It's only militant feminism that advocates the extremes. The suffragette movement was what if not feminism in action and one that brought about women's rights? I'm sure plenty of blokes regarded it as extreme at the time as there might not be someone to mop up and make the dinner...

 

[glorydaz]

It's only militant feminism that advocates the extremes. The suffragette movement was what if not feminism in action and one that brought about women's rights? I'm sure plenty of blokes regarded it as extreme at the time as there might not be someone to mop up and make the dinner...

Well, I was there when it came into being, and I've watched it go way overboard. I stand by my statements.

 

[Stripe]

Meh, different topic.

Babies being executed versus imaginary six-year-olds being "murdered."

:idunno:

Presumably you would say that to execute a child would be murder.

Certainly, it is a legal process that led to babies being executed.

Sounds like you want there to be a significant difference. But goodness knows why.

Those who are honest and capable of reading comprehension know fully well that my stance of anti-abortion doesn't allow for exclusions.

Really? So a girl is raped and becomes pregnant with a Down's syndrome girl. Mother decides on execution. You're willing to call her decision wrong?

Then again, my position has always been to support babies and children AFTER they are born as well. My bad.

Tell the pro-aborts in this thread. They do not support babies before birth.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

In accordance with Sharia law? If so, then he was executed at the end of a legal process whether we agree with that particular legal system or not.

a rogue terrorist group claiming validity through their own interpretation of mooslim scripture and you call it "a legal process"?? :freak:


ok, we're done



but on your own, go look at the OED's definition of "execution"

 

[CabinetMaker]

a rogue terrorist group claiming validity through their own interpretation of mooslim scripture and you call it "a legal process"?? :freak:


ok, we're done



but on your own, go look at the OED's definition of "execution"

Your interpretation of the Bible allows you to willingly kill a six year old child. Frankly, you don't sound any different than the rogue terrorists.

 

[ok doser]

Your interpretation of the Bible allows you to willingly kill a six year old child. Frankly, you don't sound any different than the rogue terrorists.

sorry, when I said "we're done" I thought you understood that I meant "I'm done discussing this with you because I forgot that you're autistic or retarded or something"


bye :wave2:

 

[CabinetMaker]

sorry, when I said "we're done" I thought you understood that I meant "I'm done discussing this with you because I forgot that you're autistic or retarded or something"


bye :wave2:

I see. You find yourself in an untenable position created by your own interpretations and you choose to run away rather than discuss it.

Oddly enough, I actually am quite impressed with your willingness to clearly state that you would execute a child. I think you are absolutely wrong but at least you are willing to stand up for what you believe.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Really? So a girl is raped and becomes pregnant with a Down's syndrome girl. Mother decides on execution. You're willing to call her decision wrong?

I will call your characterization of the mothers action wrong. A mother cannot decide to execute her baby. She can choose to have an abortion which we all agree is a form of murder. But the mother did not file charges against the fetus. The mother and fetus did not go to court. The fetus certainly didn't commit a capitol offense worthy of execution.

Abortion is legal, not right and certainly not just, but it is legal. I think you are attempting to argue that since it is legal is an execution. You are wrong and you create a serious problem for your position bay equating the two terms. Once again: if you say that executions as punishments for capitol crimes are good and just and you call abortion an execution, you imply that abortion is legal and just. If abortion is murder then you imply that executions are also murder and therefore illegal and unjust. If you would stick to real definitions instead of sensationalizing every topic you touch through intentional use of incendiary language you might start to come across as a rational person.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I will call your characterization of the mothers action wrong. A mother cannot decide to execute her baby.

Sure she can. Mothers execute their babies all the time in our current society. In fact, in the last 30 seconds of you reading this response, there were about 40 executions of babies in their mothers' wombs.

She can choose to have an abortion which we all agree is a form of murder.

I wouldn't say "all", but at least you and I agree on this much.

But the mother did not file charges

Sure she did. She did when she made the claim of "this baby is an inconvenience for me," or "this baby is the result of rape," or "this baby is the result of incest," or "this baby was going to kill me," or "it's just a bit of tissue, and/or is part of my body, so I can do what I want."

against the fetus baby.

You called it a baby above, the least you could do is remain consistent.

The mother and fetus baby did not go to court.

One doesn't have to be in a courtroom to go to court.

The fetus baby certainly didn't commit a capitol offense worthy of execution.

Right, because the baby is innocent, and therefore any charges brought against the baby (see above) are not only false witnesses, but any action to end his or her life is murder.

Abortion is legal, not right and certainly not just, but it is legal.

Which just means that the law is corrupt, and should be abolished. Don't you think?

I think you are attempting to argue that since it is legal is an execution. You are wrong and you create a serious problem for your position bay equating the two terms. Once again: if you say that executions as punishments for capitol crimes are good and just and you call abortion an execution, you imply that abortion is legal and just. If abortion is murder then you imply that executions are also murder and therefore illegal and unjust. If you would stick to real definitions instead of sensationalizing every topic you touch through intentional use of incendiary language you might start to come across as a rational person.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Sure she can. Mothers execute their babies all the time in our current society. In fact, in the last 30 seconds of you reading this response, there were about 40 executions of babies in their mothers' wombs.

Actually, when using proper definitions for "abortion" and "execution", not a single baby was executed. There were, however, a number of babies that were murdered in an abortion.

I wouldn't say "all", but at least you and I agree on this much.



Sure she did. She did when she made the claim of "this baby is an inconvenience for me," or "this baby is the result of rape," or "this baby is the result of incest," or "this baby was going to kill me," or "it's just a bit of tissue, and/or is part of my body, so I can do what I want."

None of those are a legal charge under the law. Any law. They are what she is using to justify her actions. If you disagree please produce the penal code that lists:

• Inconvenience of a child
• Baby as a result of rape
• Baby as a result of incest
• Baby is a bit of tissue
• or any other justification you choose to trot out

Please show us one penal code that lists any of these as a criminal offense and I will concede your point. Otherwise you just look foolish and undermine your own argument in exactly the same way stripe dose.

One doesn't have to be in a courtroom to go to court.

Within the context of this conversation, yes, one must absolutly go to court to be sentenced to a legal execution under the law. When you don't go through the courts and you "execute" somebody then you are a murderer. Pretty simple concept.

Right, because the baby is innocent, and therefore any charges brought against the baby (see above) are not only false witnesses, but any action to end his or her life is murder.

Still waiting for a penal code that lists criminal charges a fetus (which is a baby that is still within the mothers womb) could possibly be guilty of.

Which just means that the law is corrupt, and should be abolished. Don't you think?

Yes, abortion as a form of birth control should absolutely be illegal.

 

[ok doser]

sorry, when I said "we're done" I thought you understood that I meant "I'm done discussing this with you because I forgot that you're autistic or retarded or something"


bye :wave2:

I see. You find yourself in an untenable position created by your own interpretations and you choose to run away rather than discuss it.

nope

not even close

about what i'd expect though, because of the reasons listed above

bye again! :wave2:

 

[ok doser]

I will call your characterization of the mothers action wrong. A mother cannot decide to execute her baby. She can choose to have an abortion which we all agree is a form of murder. But the mother did not file charges against the fetus. The mother and fetus did not go to court. The fetus certainly didn't commit a capitol offense worthy of execution.

Abortion is legal, not right and certainly not just, but it is legal. I think you are attempting to argue that since it is legal is an execution. You are wrong and you create a serious problem for your position bay equating the two terms. Once again: if you say that executions as punishments for capitol crimes are good and just and you call abortion an execution, you imply that abortion is legal and just. If abortion is murder then you imply that executions are also murder and therefore illegal and unjust. If you would stick to real definitions instead of sensationalizing every topic you touch through intentional use of incendiary language you might start to come across as a rational person.

ASD?

OCD?

other?

both?