In article ,
says...

On 5/10/2013 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:12:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:

In Afghanistan, religious extremists commit murder with their own
hands. In Merika, religious idiots have others handle their sins.

Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within
50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.

Is that better?

I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.
Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?

Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.

As a whole, I bet Anwar al-Awlaki would have rather been water boarded
a few times and be in Guantanamo with a chance to get out. They would
have a pretty hard time finding him guilty of anything in an American
court. Speech, even anti-American speech is still protected.

All that said, I still think he should have been killed ... but I
would kill the remaining bomber too.

Death penalty should be taken up by the religious before us atheist
"libruls" don't ya think?

The good news is that more states are either passing legislation
against or refusing to put people to death. It's not a deterrent,
never has been never will be.

But, the killing of babies in the womb is just a woman's choice.

You really should read more on the physical sciences instead of what FOX
tells you.

You forget, I have a daughter who was a very very pre-mature baby. When she was born her
nipples on her breasts hadn't formed yet, the formed within a week. But, she was alive and is
now 19 years old.


My daughter also was saved from the womb and certain death 7 weeks
early... Now she is a motocross champion...

What championship did she win?

In article om, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 5/10/2013 10:02 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/10/13 9:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making him
eligible for the death penalty if convicted.


I'm not a defense attorney, but if I were, I would advise Mr. Castro to
cop a plea that might get him life in prison without parole. The
prosecutor says he is going to try to get the death penalty for the
miscarriages, as you say, but I wonder if even the right-wingers on the
U.S. Supreme Court will uphold such a sentence.

Why wouldn't they?

Really, I mean they don't mind killing when it fits THEIR agenda...

On 5/10/13 1:25 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 5/10/2013 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:12:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:

In Afghanistan, religious extremists commit murder with their own
hands. In Merika, religious idiots have others handle their sins.

Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within
50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.

Is that better?

I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.
Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?

Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.

As a whole, I bet Anwar al-Awlaki would have rather been water boarded
a few times and be in Guantanamo with a chance to get out. They would
have a pretty hard time finding him guilty of anything in an American
court. Speech, even anti-American speech is still protected.

All that said, I still think he should have been killed ... but I
would kill the remaining bomber too.

Death penalty should be taken up by the religious before us atheist
"libruls" don't ya think?

The good news is that more states are either passing legislation
against or refusing to put people to death. It's not a deterrent,
never has been never will be.

But, the killing of babies in the womb is just a woman's choice.

You really should read more on the physical sciences instead of what FOX
tells you.

You forget, I have a daughter who was a very very pre-mature baby. When she was born her
nipples on her breasts hadn't formed yet, the formed within a week. But, she was alive and is
now 19 years old.


My daughter also was saved from the womb and certain death 7 weeks
early... Now she is a motocross champion...

What championship did she win?



Surviving Teen-Hood at PsychoSnotty's

In article ,
says...

On 5/10/13 1:25 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 5/10/2013 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:12:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:

In Afghanistan, religious extremists commit murder with their own
hands. In Merika, religious idiots have others handle their sins.

Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within
50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.

Is that better?

I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.
Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?

Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.

As a whole, I bet Anwar al-Awlaki would have rather been water boarded
a few times and be in Guantanamo with a chance to get out. They would
have a pretty hard time finding him guilty of anything in an American
court. Speech, even anti-American speech is still protected.

All that said, I still think he should have been killed ... but I
would kill the remaining bomber too.

Death penalty should be taken up by the religious before us atheist
"libruls" don't ya think?

The good news is that more states are either passing legislation
against or refusing to put people to death. It's not a deterrent,
never has been never will be.

But, the killing of babies in the womb is just a woman's choice.

You really should read more on the physical sciences instead of what FOX
tells you.

You forget, I have a daughter who was a very very pre-mature baby. When she was born her
nipples on her breasts hadn't formed yet, the formed within a week. But, she was alive and is
now 19 years old.


My daughter also was saved from the womb and certain death 7 weeks
early... Now she is a motocross champion...

What championship did she win?



Surviving Teen-Hood at PsychoSnotty's

Poor thing certainly deserves a prize for that.

On Friday, 10 May 2013 14:25:06 UTC-3, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On 5/10/2013 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:

In article , says...



In article ,

says...



In article , says...



On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:12:47 -0400, wrote:



On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:



In Afghanistan, religious extremists commit murder with their own

hands. In Merika, religious idiots have others handle their sins.



Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within

50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.



Is that better?



I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.

Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?



Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.



As a whole, I bet Anwar al-Awlaki would have rather been water boarded

a few times and be in Guantanamo with a chance to get out. They would

have a pretty hard time finding him guilty of anything in an American

court. Speech, even anti-American speech is still protected.



All that said, I still think he should have been killed ... but I

would kill the remaining bomber too.



Death penalty should be taken up by the religious before us atheist

"libruls" don't ya think?



The good news is that more states are either passing legislation

against or refusing to put people to death. It's not a deterrent,

never has been never will be.



But, the killing of babies in the womb is just a woman's choice.



You really should read more on the physical sciences instead of what FOX

tells you.



You forget, I have a daughter who was a very very pre-mature baby. When she was born her

nipples on her breasts hadn't formed yet, the formed within a week. But, she was alive and is

now 19 years old.





My daughter also was saved from the womb and certain death 7 weeks

early... Now she is a motocross champion...



What championship did she win?

Yeah...you'd think Snottie would have boasted and proclaimed that championship across the land.if and when it happened.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:


Might help you learn to spell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E

And it's great music besides!

John H.

Another troll.

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:


Might help you learn to spell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E

And it's great music besides!

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:55:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

Ohio gets it right.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 5/10/13 9:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him
eligible for the death penalty if convicted.


I'm not a defense attorney, but if I were, I would advise Mr. Castro
to
cop a plea that might get him life in prison without parole. The
prosecutor says he is going to try to get the death penalty for the
miscarriages, as you say, but I wonder if even the right-wingers on
the
U.S. Supreme Court will uphold such a sentence.

-----------------------------------------------

Yeah. I am not a death penalty advocate because it bothers me to
think of how many innocent people may have been executed over the
years.

In this case though, my initial thought was execution by the slowest
and most painful means possible. But it might be better for him to be
sentenced to life but with no provisions to be held in a separate
facility in protective confinement. Let him live with the rest of
the hard core inmates. They don't take too kindly to his kind of
criminal activity. I'd give him a year, at best, to survive.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.