Shocking online video sparks anger, death threats

[joeydb]

Shocking online video of girl throwing live puppies into river sparks anger, death threats

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...eath_thre.html

It's absolutely horrible that someone would do this -- to destroy innocent life without necessity.

As Pope John Paul II termed it, the "Culture of Death" continues unabated.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Shocking online video of girl throwing live puppies into river sparks anger, death threats

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...eath_thre.html

It's absolutely horrible that someone would do this -- to destroy innocent life without necessity.

As Pope John Paul II termed it, the "Culture of Death" continues unabated.

You mean..like the Death Penalty?

sorry Joey..couldn't resist

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You mean..like the Death Penalty?

sorry Joey..couldn't resist

where does innocent apply with your post?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You mean..like the Death Penalty?

sorry Joey..couldn't resist

No problem...just read a little more carefully next time.

Since we are talking about innocent life, I would say abortion is the closer parallel.

The death penalty as practiced in the United States is subject to due process of law -- anything else would be tyrannical. Every opportunity must be used to make truly sure that the sentence applies, and with the slightest doubt the death penalty must be stayed.

Abortion on the other hand has no due process, and is responsible for at least 40 million deaths since 1973. How many death sentences have been carried out since 1973?

[Antitrust32]

the irony of liberals. Death Penalty is the worst thing ever.. but go ahead and suck your child out with a hoover and throw it away in the trash whenever you please!

not that we need an additional 40 million kids out there.. but its the parents in most cases who should have been aborted.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the irony of liberals. Death Penalty is the worst thing ever.. but go ahead and suck your child out with a hoover and throw it away in the trash whenever you please!

not that we need an additional 40 million kids out there.. but its the parents in most cases who should have been aborted.

To end something, that has no developed nervous system, is not the same as killing a puppy, or a person. If something has a brain, and can feel pain, then there's some case to be made. Otherwise, these are not comparable. If it were, then you could just go eat 2 raw eggs, n' stop eating scrambled eggs.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

To end something, that has no developed nervous system, is not the same as killing a puppy, or a person. If something has a brain, and can feel pain, then there's some case to be made. Otherwise, these are not comparable. If it were, then you could just go eat 2 raw eggs, n' stop eating scrambled eggs.

but something that is already in process of developing a nervous system, and will have that system in only a short time.. is okay to kill... but killing someone who's committed a 1st degree murder felony is not okay?

Doesnt one deserve it more than the other? Why is it okay for one and not the other? the nervous system is right around the corner.. and the fetus has a much more promising future than a murderer on death row.

I'm just curious. I'm pro death penalty and pro abortion. While I find it disgusting to have abortions as persistent means of birth control instead of taking a damn pill, those arent the type of people we need raising kids in this country anyway. Population control.

[ateamstupid]

That's terrible. People like that have serious mental issues and should be locked up.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

To end something, that has no developed nervous system, is not the same as killing a puppy, or a person. If something has a brain, and can feel pain, then there's some case to be made. Otherwise, these are not comparable. If it were, then you could just go eat 2 raw eggs, n' stop eating scrambled eggs.

It's more fundamental than that. To point to the presence or absence of one organ or structure is not sufficient.

If you found the DNA of a fertilized zygote at a crime scene, you'd assume that there was a unique person there, distinct from the mother and father. And you'd be correct.