On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:07:25 -0400, Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

Oops, forget I said that. The thread was getting so long I was
responding to a different part. Ideally, you'd draw the line where the
fetus could survive on it's own without physical dependence on the
mother. That's what most of the drawn lines are trying to achieve.

Anyway, just to end this in some way, my only point to you is that you
need to base your opinions on some sort of solid moral foundation. I
can respect your opinions more if they were consistent. For instance,
someone who believes that it's only God who can make a life or death
decisions and base their opinions on that belief consistently, I can
respect. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their opinions.

On the other hand, if someone believes that man can rightfully make a
life or death decision and doesn't reserve that strictly for God, and
bases their opinions on that belief consistently, I can respect that as
well. Again, I might not agree with them, but I can respect their
opinions.

But, if someone believes that man has a right to make the life or death
decisions in some cases but only God can make life or death decisions in
other cases, and the cases just happen to arbitrarily line up to
support a haphazard set of opinions, then I can't respect those
opinions. I'm sure that doesn't bother you though.

Steve

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

SEATTLE - A new University of Washington study says people are more
inclined
to shoot blacks than whites.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that statistically you stand
a higher chance of being accosted in the city by a person of color than
a white person? I guess you can blame the media for pasting the pictures
and composite drawings of the latest rapists and robbers all over the
6:00 news, for subliminally planting that bias.

Dave

That's your impression, isn't it Dave? Your question goes unanswered, but
like Rush, you draw a conclusion based on your assumption. Nice, empty
rationale.

I'm sure you'd be one of the folks who'd pull the trigger on the...

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:07:25 -0400, Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

Oops, forget I said that. The thread was getting so long I was
responding to a different part. Ideally, you'd draw the line where the
fetus could survive on it's own without physical dependence on the
mother. That's what most of the drawn lines are trying to achieve.

But there's no sure fire way of know when the fetus possesses a
conciouness, and a "soul", and therefore is considered an individual,
and not just the product of the mother's genetics.


Anyway, just to end this in some way, my only point to you is that you
need to base your opinions on some sort of solid moral foundation.

I believe that I have.


I can respect your opinions more if they were consistent.

The problem is that there is no consistency when it comes to the taking
of life. Even the Bible provided certain cases where killing is
justified (Such as in the case of war). In those cases, these
"justified" killings, were in response to "bad" people, who, as long as
they are alive, pose a threat to society. An unborn fetus, cannot be
judged by the same criteria, so it is not justified.


For instance,
someone who believes that it's only God who can make a life or death
decisions and base their opinions on that belief consistently, I can
respect. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their opinions.

On the other hand, if someone believes that man can rightfully make a
life or death decision and doesn't reserve that strictly for God, and
bases their opinions on that belief consistently, I can respect that as
well. Again, I might not agree with them, but I can respect their
opinions.

But you are basing this on a philosophy of "all or nothing". There is
very little in life, which falls into that catergory



But, if someone believes that man has a right to make the life or death
decisions in some cases but only God can make life or death decisions in
other cases, and the cases just happen to arbitrarily line up to
support a haphazard set of opinions, then I can't respect those
opinions. I'm sure that doesn't bother you though.

What you call "haphazard", I call "conditions". Life is full of
conditions. There is no universal truth. "Evil" people truly deserve to
be put to death. Innocent children (Born or unborn) do not.


Dave

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

SEATTLE - A new University of Washington study says people are more
inclined
to shoot blacks than whites.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that statistically you stand
a higher chance of being accosted in the city by a person of color than
a white person? I guess you can blame the media for pasting the pictures
and composite drawings of the latest rapists and robbers all over the
6:00 news, for subliminally planting that bias.



That's your impression, isn't it Dave? Your question goes unanswered, but
like Rush, you draw a conclusion based on your assumption. Nice, empty
rationale.

Much like the conclusion you made, which stated that since minorities
are convicted of a disproportionate amount of crime, then white people
must be given a "wink and nod" and let go. A nice empty rationale.

Your failure to consider the obvious, is whay you guys on the left will
always be out of sync.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

in NYC, any one of those cops could have defused the situation
with
one
shot, and put the guy down for good with 2-3 shots. Instead, he
was
executed.


You're right. It would seem then that the NYC police department
needs
a
few lessons in marksmanship. A few good shots would have done the
job,
without wasting all that good ammo......

Dave


What an utterly stupid remark. If you'd been their supervisor, would
that
have been your primary source of disappointment with those cops?
They
wasted
so much ammo?


Well, maybe not. Maybe their feet smelled as well......



So, you think it was OK that several cops shot an innocent man over two
dozen times, and found he had no weapon?


Do I think it's ok? Do you think it's proper to ask me, or anyone else's
opinion on this subject, when they were not involved? Maybe if you get
all the facts before you jump to any conclusions, you might find a very
good reason why things unfolded the way they did.

What I think, is irrelevant. I was not there.

I should've known you'd use your usual ploy - the one you reserve for times
when you notice that you've painted yourself into a corner.

Speaking of corners: Go sit in the corner and drink your chocolate milk.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


There is no societal benefit to legalizing controlled substances.

Dave, don't even touch this issue again. It requires intellectual acuity
akin to the physical capabilities of an olympic gymnast.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

It's no
coincidence that the rise in the number of women seeking abortion,
parallels the rise in promiscuity, and the decline of morality, with
reagrd to sex.

There has been a rise (per capita) in the number of abortions? I'd love to
see the data you looked at to come to that conclusion, particularly since
doctors tend to keep patient information private.



How can you even possibly imagine for a single second that
women don't think about the life altering changes their body undergoes
during pregnancy and childbirth? You just aren't thinking clearly.

I'm not? I am all too aware of the psychological contemplation, which
many women go through. My response to this, is that they weren't giving
those things much thought, while they were lying on their back, in some
dirtbag's bedroom. Personal responsibility dictates that you take
actions to minimize risk BEFORE it happens, not after.

Right. Minimize risk. Women shouldn't walk from a dormitory to a classroom.
They could be raped.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

SEATTLE - A new University of Washington study says people are more
inclined
to shoot blacks than whites.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that statistically you
stand
a higher chance of being accosted in the city by a person of color
than
a white person? I guess you can blame the media for pasting the
pictures
and composite drawings of the latest rapists and robbers all over the
6:00 news, for subliminally planting that bias.



That's your impression, isn't it Dave? Your question goes unanswered,
but
like Rush, you draw a conclusion based on your assumption. Nice, empty
rationale.

Much like the conclusion you made, which stated that since minorities
are convicted of a disproportionate amount of crime, then white people
must be given a "wink and nod" and let go. A nice empty rationale.

Your failure to consider the obvious, is whay you guys on the left will
always be out of sync.

Dave

Whites aren't given a wink and a nod, just humane treatment and more chances
to get it right. Blacks aren't given the same opportunity.

Blacks and whites consume drugs in equal amount per capita.

Blacks comprise six times the number of people in prison than whites.

What possible conclusion could you draw other than unequal treatment?

What possible conclusion could you draw other than unequal treatment?



Disparate economies. Poor people commit more crimes than middle class and
wealthy people do.

Much of the "race" problem in the US is really an economic problem. Long term
history of unequal oppportunities (a few current exceptions prove the rule) in
employment, housing, and education.

Even after desegregation, it is still a tougher job to be a racial minority in
America than it is to be white.

"jps" wrote in message
...

Blacks and whites consume drugs in equal amount per capita.

Blacks comprise six times the number of people in prison than whites.

What possible conclusion could you draw other than unequal treatment?




jps, now that you have had time to think about what you wrote here, do you
realize how illogical what you wrote is? It makes as much sense as saying.

"Fish and turtles swim in water.

Bear's and birds **** in the woods. , but whenever people talk about
animals defecating in the woods they always talk about the bears.

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from this is if given a
choice, most people would prefer to be **** upon by a bear than a bird.

While I have no idea if your facts are correct, it really does not matter,
you take two completely unrelated facts, and then try to draw some
conclusion from them.

I agree that the legal representation that any poor person receives is
considerably below what someone receives who can afford an excellent
attorney. I would also agree that the quality of legal rep. effects the
outcome and the sentence given to the client. The facts you present did not
do anything to prove your point, or to convince anyone that you are doing
anything but spewing forth your preconceived notions.

The reasons your analysis is faulty, include but is not limited to: Are the
people in prison, sent to prison for using drugs or for selling drugs? Are
black and whites equally represent in trafficking of drugs? Is there a
difference in sentences from people selling drugs based upon race in which
both clients used the same attorney? If a black using a qualified attorney,
is his sentence similar to a white person who commits the same crime who
uses a similarly qualified attorney? What percent of people are in prison
for drugs and drug related charges and what percent are in for other crimes?

Statements like the one you made is the reason you will always be viewed as
an idiot by both Conservatives and Liberals. You and Rush Limbaugh are on
equal footing as far as spouting off BS and then making illogical
conclusions, without any facts or info to back up your claims.