NoGodBlog.com

I don't support the death penalty. It is letting them off. They don't know they're dead. No afterlife, no punishment. So..., for someone capitally convicted, paralyze them, keep them mentally active with a picture of their victim for company,

No, execute them. Don't waste our tax dollars keeping these lunatics alive for years and years.

Here are the photos of the cult members.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-child0812-pg,0,2367314.photogallery

On another ridiculous note....last night a Pastor questioned our choices for president....the first thing the pastor said was he's for the separation of church and state....how ironic....

I don't think that this post was intended to be a debate on the death penalty, but I'd like to point out that it costs significantly more to kill people than to keep them in prison for life. See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf for more details.

Atheism was once punishable by death.

Executions are so expensive because of multiple appeals, your information looked like a mix of facts and politically correct propaganda. How expensive is it to stick a needle in someones arm and be done with it? if anything the death penalty is greatly under used in this country.

Here in the uber left Peoples Republic of Chapel Hill the DA is actually seeking the death penalty in the very public Eve Carson murder case. We havent had an execution in Orange Co. since 1948 but this case has changed a lot of peoples minds on the issue. Id be happy to stick the needle or pull the lever myself on this waste of human skin if it sends a strong message that crime is not tolerated in my neighborhood:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3358693/

The cult members who killed Javon Thompson in Baltimore deserve the same fate if found guilty. Lets not let them hide behind the wall of "faith" as an excuse!

Did that idiot Rick Warren question the candidates about religious practices and there harm to children at the “Saddleback Civil Forum”? No! Is it moral to focus on gay marriage (no crime there) while never mentioning the countless children suffering under the religious banner daily? Theists are morally challenged.

I am against the death penalty because, in this and other cases, the fields of psychiatry, psychology and the pharmaceutical industry (new drugs) can benefit from this social disorders for our better future and become partially beneficial to our communities. We all know that our societies will get rid off criminals based on these judicial laws but, also, a new criminal is born every day which is something unavoidable. Studying this cases and others may provide us with, at least, some positive solutions and improvements for the future.
Sending condemned people to their death is a very religious based 'moral'; more like an act of revenge or an offering.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is the potential to execute the wrong person. I say "only", but I feel that's enough to prevent my support of it. When a case is clear-cut, it's hard to speak against it. But we can't afford to further complicate an already unruly justice system by deliniating guilty verdicts into "definately guilty" and "guilty's the verdict we're running with today". To the extent possible, injustice should be reversible. It's difficult to say "I'm sorry" to a guy you just locked up by accident for 50 years. It's impossible to say it to a guy you killed 10 years ago.

Kosher D

There are presently no means of studying criminal brains that have an expected potential to elucidate any underlying pathology. Neuroscience is just not up to the task yet. This is primarily due to the fact that functional brain imaging technology can not presently meet the specifications needed to do functional imaging of any real utility. In order to do truly useful functional brain imaging one would need to measure brain current density on a spacial scale of a millimeter (or better) and on a temporal scale of a millisecond (or better). Neuroimaging is nowhere near close to being able to do this.

NIH and NSF should be funding high risk (little probability of success for the researcher but of great value if successful) research into theoretical work that might lead to devices capable of meeting such specifications. Unfortunately they are stuck in the mud with the over-funding of fMRI, MEG, EEG and the like.

One can always somewhat haphazardly experiment with psychotropic drugs in the hope of finding a magic bullet to curtail criminal behavior. However prisoners can not be experimented upon without consent of the prisoner. Prisoners are actually considered a special class of vulnerable experimental subject. Special hoops have to be jumped with review boards to use them use subjects in experimentation.

Alternatively one could look for genetic markers for criminal behavior. What one does with such markers is very problematic.

That said. I do not like the death penalty either. Furthermore I think attempted murder should carry the same sentence as murder. I do not see the two criminals as being significantly different with respect to the threat they pose.

underlying pathology -> underlying pathology beyond that which is presently known.

I have never seen a rational argument in favor of the death penalty. Basically, I'm with Cynic on this.

What said:

I think attempted murder should carry the same sentence as murder. I do not see the two criminals as being significantly different with respect to the threat they pose.

Sometimes, someone will contemplate committing a crime, and then back off at the last minute. Or they may be struggling with their conscience and subconsciously make an error that stops them from going thru with it. A crime and an attempted crime are not really the same thing, either morally or pragmatically.

What, thank you for your comment/reply!
Too bad neuroscience is just not up to the task yet. Question, what is so problematic about the genetic markers as the alternative for criminal behavior?

NotSoFast - I can give you a rational argument for the death penalty: The Murray-O'Hairs' murders.

If David Waters had been executed for the murder he committed when he was younger, he wouldn't have been able to murder the Murray-O'Hairs and Danny Fry.

That's FOUR murders committed by a murderer who was let out of prison, instead of being eliminated from society. Even if they had kept him in prison another decade, he probably would've murdered someone afterwards anyway.

But no, his life was precious to some people...lol! Oh the cost of putting him back in prison after those four additional murders! That was also a crime against the taxpayers, imho.

Oh and then he died in prison...Yeah nice plan.

Joe Zamecki
Austin

Joe,

If he had been kept in prison, he wouldn't have been able to murder the Murray-O'Hairs and Fry, either. That should have been no problem with such a depraved person.

But to your credit, you did say something sensible. Most death advocates just give a gory litany of brutal murders, and call that an "argument" for it.

he had been kept in prison, he wouldn't have been able to murder the Murray-O'Hairs and Fry, either

Thats true but the law abiding tax payer would have to shell out millions of dollars over a lifetime for the care of each convicted killer. How is that fair to those of us who work hard and arent murderers?

How is it fair to the guy who isn't a murderer but was convicted of it anyway? Seems like prison is a nice compromise.

How is it fair to the guy who isn't a murderer but was convicted of it anyway? Seems like prison is a nice compromise

With DNA testing and advances in forensics this now much, much less common. When the facts are clear beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury then I say stick the needle in the arm and be gone with the murderous human trash. The only way that the death penalty will be a deterrent is if it is quickly and consistently employed without apology.
After having a promising young life, Eve Carsons, wiped out when she had her head blown off by a couple of black thugs in my neighborhood I have become an even more ardent supporter of the death penalty. My life is too important to me to allow any compromise when it comes to being tough as fuck on criminals.

I remember an article on the death penalty from Psychology Today magazine printed about a decade ago. Can't remember the authors name but he totaled up the numbers and concluded states with the death penalty had a higher murder rate per capita than states without capital punishment.

The logical conclusion of some not so logical people was, if death is a solution for social problems for the state, then death as a solution to personal social problems is valid.

It was also determined when a country is at war, the murder rate climbs. I can't remember if he was looking specifically at America there or not.

A sick society produces sick people. Christianity and Islam are fragile sanities. Confused people are sometimes easily pushed over the edge.

I also agree too many innocent people have been incarcerated and executed. Too many people with money are guilty of pushing downtrodden over the edge. The rich rarely do time. Let them eat cake.

Kosher D

Question, what is so problematic about the genetic markers as the alternative for criminal behavior?

Once you know what the markers are then what? Forced testing and forced abortion? Forced testing and voluntary abortion? Sterilization of those with the markers?

This is incredibly messy from an ethical perspective and fraught with the potential for abuse.

NotSoFast

Sometimes, someone will contemplate committing a crime, and then back off at the last minute. Or they may be struggling with their conscience and subconsciously make an error that stops them from going thru with it. A crime and an attempted crime are not really the same thing, either morally or pragmatically.

I disagree. I am not a lawyer but I think one actual has to attempt to murder someone for the alleged crime to fall under the legal category of attempted murder. If this is so then this isn't about changing one's mind. It's about someone trying to murder someone but failing. Often these criminals fail in their murder attempt because they think the victim is dead and leave the scene thinking they have done what they intended to do. Such an individual poses the same threat to society as someone that is successful in committing the murder. See for example at the Lawrence Singleton case.

Joe

That's FOUR murders committed by a murderer who was let out of prison, instead of being eliminated from society.

He could also have been stopped if all murders are given life sentences with no possibility of parole. I simply do not understand why society has not given itself the right to lock murders up for life.

all murders -> all murderers

There are a lot of misconceptions about the death penalty. To correct some: The Death Penalty in the US: A Review Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below   NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics, or others, is available upon request   In this brief format, the reality of the death penalty in the United States, is presented, with the hope that the media, public policy makers and others will make an effort to present a balanced view on this sanction.   Innocence Issues   Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 129 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).   The number is a fraud.   Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.   Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%. The totality of reviews points to an 80% error/fraud rate in these claims, or about 26 cases - a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the nearly 8000 sentenced to death since 1973.  The actual innocents were all freed.   It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900.  Nonsense.  Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had."  While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.   No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries.  However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions in the world.    Under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.   Deterrence Issues   16 recent US studies, inclusive of their defenses,  find a deterrent effect of the death penalty.   All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty have refused to say that it does not deter some.  The studies finding for deterrence state such.  Confusion arises when people think that a simple comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the tale of deterrence.  It cannot.    Both high and low murder rates are found within death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, be it Singapore, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US states of Michigan and Delaware.  Many factors are involved in such evaluations.  Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none.  No one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the behavior of some.  Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction, having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and above any lesser punishments.   Racial issues   White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.   It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases.  Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders.  This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.   Hardly.  Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment.  Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders.  White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.   Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.   Class issues   No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts.  The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973.  Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups? Not to my knowledge.   Arbitrary and capricious   About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial.  That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973.  We have sentenced 8000 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible.  I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available.  Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the  US.   Cost Issues   All studies finding the death penalty to be more expensive than life without parole exclude important factors, such as (1) geriatric care costs, recently found to be $69,0000/yr/inmate, (2) the death penalty cost benefit of providing for plea bargains to a maximum life sentence, a huge cost savings to the state, (3) the death penalty cost benefit of both enhanced deterrence and enhanced incapacitation, at $5 million per innocent life spared, and, furthermore, (4) many of the alleged cost comparison studies are highly deceptive.   Polling data   76% of Americans find that we should impose the death penalty more or that we impose it about right (Gallup, May 2006 - 51% that we should impose it more, 25% that we impose it about right)   71%  find capital punishment morally acceptable - that was the highest percentage answer for all questions (Gallup, April 2006, moral values poll). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)   81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh, with only 16% opposed. "(T)his view appears to be the consensus of all major groups in society, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, "liberals" and "conservatives."  (Gallup 5/2/01).   81% of Connecticut citizens supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross (Jan 2005).   While 81% gave specific case support for Timothy McVeigh's execution, Gallup also showed a 65% support AT THE SAME TIME when asked a general "do you support capital punishment for murderers?" question. (Gallup, 6/10/01).   22% of those supporting McVeigh's execution are, generally, against the death penalty (Gallup 5/02/01). That means that about half of those who say they oppose the death penalty, with the general question,  actually support the death penalty under specific circumstances, just as it is imposed, judicially.   Further supporting the higher rates for specific cases, is this, from the French daily Le Monde December 2006 (1): Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:USA: 82%; Great Britain: 69%; France: 58%; Germany: 53%; Spain: 51%; Italy: 46%   Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe, with 50% of those who say they, generally, oppose the death penalty actually supporting it under specific circumstances, resulting in 80% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006.   --------------------------------   Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.   copyright 1998-2008 Dudley Sharp Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.   Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491, Houston, Texas   Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.   A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.   Pro death penalty sites  homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx www(dot)dpinfo.com www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2   (Sweden) www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

"Dudley"

Do us a favor and learn how to make an effective post. If you have a point then make it rather than copying and pasting from some website.

Also it is interesting, to say the least, that you listed only pro-death penalty websites.

"I got off because of legal errors"

Oh so are you saying that these individuals were found guilty but then got off because of "legal errors". Or are you saying that you possess magical powers that can discern the guilty from the innocent without a trial.

The California Supreme Court ruled today that physicians may not refuse to provide fertility treatments to les*bians because of religious beliefs.

Dear What:

I didn't copy and paste from some website, but from my computer.

What I am saying is that anti death penalty folks have just made of thier own definitions of what exonerated and innocence mean and produce a bunch of cases that fit into those creative definitions.

Here ya go:


1)http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-innocence-fraud-of-death-penalty-opponents.aspx


2) http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/all-innocence-issues--the-death-penalty.aspx

Dudley

Making an assertion isn't an argument. Under our law a person is innocent until proven guilty so they are innocent.

Here ya go:

Here I go what? Tell us what is at these links and how they support you position. I am not going to follow your link, try to decipher what your position may be, and then try to make your assumed case for you based on where you are pointing me.

Hello all, and before I get boring, let me say that from my prospective, this thread based upon an unthinkable act committed by cult members, and the validity of an argument that would tend to excuse unspeakable conduct by cult members because of brainwash, is THE most relent thread of the last weeks, because it deals with the real issues between free thinkers and fundamentalists, and who is really responsible for the results.
By the way, Dawkins is one of my heroes, a clear thinker, an eloquent speaker, even in an interview with Fox News where he was never given a chance to finish a point.
That said, let me draw a parallel. If a junky robs a liquor store, and says, it was the drugs that made me do it, how much weight does that carry in the courts? Answer, none. You take responsibility for your own actions. Religion is no different from drugs, it's a pychocrutch that people either choose or reject, and must face the consequences for that decision.
But, cult leaders are no different from drug dealers, and their goal is the same, to become rich, powerful, and beyond the reach of the law. To become their own law.
Several of the regular contributers to this site have made me realize that they are inteligent individuals with strong conviction. I respect their opinion, and in no way feel like mine is more valid.
But, reading down this list of posts, I hear seathing hated. Understandable. A side of me wants to put a needle in every member of that group, not just the leadership.
But, that's not the answer, and early mentioned, "Dawkins" would side with me, I'm sure.
This is not new. Jim Jones wiped out his entire congregation. What we need to be pushing for are legal definitions that will put these cults outside the protection of religious freedom. Politicians will consider it a third rail, and it will be a tough row to hoe, and it will be by no means a war won, but just one battle along the way.

NeoWolfe

I'm making a second post, not because I left something I wished to say unsaid regarding the origen of the thread, but because of where the subject turned. It's like the game of "gossip" where the end result is rediculously deviated from the original message.
Point 1: When originally, a person was convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, it has been amended to "shadow of a reasonable doubt." The state hires the best and the brightest with the offer of showing their prowess, to convict people represented by public defenders. I would estimate it at about once a month when a person held in prison from ten to twenty years for rape or murder or the like, is released because DNA evidence unquestionably exhonerates them. The question inevitably comes to mind, how many innocent convicts sit in prison still, because no such evidence was preserved for retest. The prosecution is allowed to imply, bend interpretation of fact, and the defense has nothing except to try to refute rehearsed testimony by law enforcement officers. There is no wing of law enforcement that investigates the defense side of the story. If you can afford it, you do it yourself. Innocense of the rich.
Under those circumstances, you would like to stick a needle in someone's arm?
Scott Peterson is sitting on death row, and the prosecution has no crime scene, no murder weapon, no physical evidence except a bag of cement. Nothing. They have the bodies of the victims recovered months after they announced their theory of what occurred publicly. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but, according to what I have read, it is impossible to clean up a crime scene in such a way as to completely escape detection. Blood in the grout between tiles. Blood on textiles, behind layers of paint. Most importantly the founding fathers obviously intended that it was better that a bad guy get away, than put an innocent man in prison or to death.
Apparently, most of you have a hell of a lot more trust in our justice system than it deserves,or than I have.

NeoWolfe

There is considerable evidence that John "Keating Five" McCain lied to Rick Warren and America about his cross-in-the-sand story at the xian love fest this past week.
See:

http://tinyurl.com/6m4vk3

There are many ways a person can become brainwashed and believe they aren't causing harm to a child...

These cult members SHOULD be tried and punished. Period.

However,

I hate death. But more than that, I hate needless death. More than that, I hate needless death of innocent children.

What hypocrisy...

So Dave...I'm sure you're aghast when an "innocent child" survives an abortion and yet is still left to die alone on a metal table...?

Somehow I doubt it...

As I stated. Brainwashing comes in many forms. There are those on the pro-death side who are just as brainwashed as these cult members...

"It was only after the forum, when Senator Obama got caught in his twisting of the truth that his campaign put out a clarifying statement that it was the Senator himself who was actually wrong on the facts. He did indeed vote against a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was identical to a federal piece of legislation that sought to protect babies who survive abortions.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/senator-obama-

I am becoming increasing convinced that very few of you have any merit as free thinkers. You bicker like kindergarteners about things that even evangelical idiots don't care about.
The thread originator mentioned Mr Dawkins. I mentioned him as well. Have any of you examined his works or public appearances?
I'm going to get bashed for saying this, but I dont care. When things of revelevence are placed at forum, we have people being really "rad", and people being really "ozzy", and people being really immature.
Being a free thinker is not telling religion to go "F" themselves, its about being mature enough to understand where we as a race have gone wrong and think in terms of our human nature and how we can help our fellow human beings to rise above.
No wonder none of you have heard of Dawkins. Too busy being ozzy to get a clue.

NeoWolfe

NeoWolfe,

I'm with you on this one. What we have with our justice system is little more than a CHANCE at justice.

In addition to the points you've made there is the decision of the jury to factor in. I served on a jury and was shocked to find that although the judge had not instructed, or so much as hinted, that we make an example of the defendant should we find him guilty, that was the goal of most of those on the jury. There was no question but that the man was guilty as he admitted as much on the stand, but the overwhelming opinion was that he be given the maximum sentence allowed. I stood against the other eleven and eventually two others joined me. I could have hung the jury but after wittnessing the 'hang him high' attitude I thought the next trial and jurors might give him what this the majority of these jurors wanted to give him. We compromised, but in my view (considering this wasn't a murder trial) the mandatory guidelines were out of line to begin with.

Neowolfe lays down the law!

The thread originator mentioned Mr Dawkins. I mentioned him as well. Have any of you examined his works or public appearances?

Just about everyone here has read Dawkins "God Delusion" and heard some of his lectures. Do you have something you would like to say about it? Well say it.

Being a free thinker is not telling religion to go "F" themselves, ...

and its not about others telling us what it's about.

Neowolfe

You seem to see your role here as a thread wrangler. Is this true?

GF&G

Jury duty can be a real illuminating experience with respect to group psychology. I was shocked my first time. There were those that needed rock solid 100% never-going-to-get-it-in-the-real-world proof to convict and there were those that you would nudge awake in time for them to yell "hang em high".

I'm sure Reason will love this.

from McClatchy News

Hispanic fertility drives U.S. population growth

If it weren't for Hispanic births, the U.S. could be confronting long-term population declines similar to those in Germany, Japan and other industrialized countries. Hispanics are the only ethnic group now producing more than two children per family, according to a Census Bureau report released Monday.

Phreeky still thinks the abortion debate is about the fetus only. After all these years he still doesn't understand that women have rights. He may be shocked to learn they can vote now. They can even walk down the street unaccompanied by a man. Yep. It's true.

And he loves to regurgitate and consume anti-choice myths about common D and C procedure.

So Dave...I'm sure you're aghast when an "innocent child" survives an abortion and yet is still left to die alone on a metal table...?

Well I guess after the recent JAMA article that laid to rest the abortion and depression myth he is looking for a new one.

This is part of the problem:

Study: Many Americans Believe God More Powerful at Saving Lives Than Doctors

and

Jacobs said he frequently meets people who think God will save their dying loved one and who want medical procedures to continue.

"You can't say, 'That's nonsense.' You have to respect that" and try to show them X-rays, CAT scans and other medical evidence indicating death is imminent, he said.

Relatives need to know that "it's not that you don't want a miracle to happen, it's just that is not going to happen today with this patient," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405765,00.html

Ozzy? Rad? Where are you from, Neowolf? Or, perhaps, when are you from? ;-) I'm feeling a little out of touch.

Anyway, I agree with you. (And not just because What doesn't.) Though you're right about the maturity thing, it is nice to occassionally tell the religious to fuck off though. ;-)

Comment from: Phreedm

As I stated. Brainwashing comes in many forms. There are those on the pro-death side who are just as brainwashed as these cult members...

Comment from: What

Phreeky still thinks the abortion debate is about the fetus only.

Need I say more?

The original thread highlights the death of a child and how Dave "claims" to hate the death of an innocent child...

So What...here's a basic question with only a yes or no answer...

If a child survives an abortion, passing that line that every prochoice person states is when a fetus becomes a person...should it be allowed to live...?

Spanders...have some guts and answer this one also. Do you have as much compassion for the child that survives an abortion as you do for puppies at a pound...?

A blob of cells in the first trimester of a pregnancy is not a child. What phreedum is referring to are partial birth abortions which were always exceedingly rare and are now outlawed in the USA. He and his church obviously dont know how to make that distinction.

alex

But I'm sure phreedm and every other member of his church have contacted every hospital and abortion clinic, alerting them to the fact that if by chance they have a fetus that survives an abortion, any one of congregation will gladly and immediately adopt it and pay for all its medical expenses.

Because they don't just want to complain about what's happening to these poor children! No, they want to DO something about it!

alexatheist:

A blob of cells in the first trimester of a pregnancy is not a child.

So, at what point in your mother’s pregnancy did such a “blob of cells” magically transform itself into what you now regard as yourself?

karen:

I'm sure phreedm and every other member of his church have contacted every hospital and abortion clinic, alerting them to the fact that if by chance they have a fetus that survives an abortion, any one of congregation will gladly and immediately adopt it and pay for all its medical expenses.

Because they don't just want to complain about what's happening to these poor children! No, they want to DO something about it!

So why am I not aware of any atheist campaign to either reduce the number of abortions (i.e. the feigned battle cry by Democrats to appease the NAGs) or to place abortion survivors in loving homes? Please do educate me on such matters.

jcc said
"So, at what point in your mother’s pregnancy did such a “blob of cells” magically transform itself into what you now regard as yourself?"

I would say not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that’s not until several months into a pregnancy.

JONATHAN SMITH:

I would say not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that’s not until several months into a pregnancy.

Well, that’s sorta subjective and not very scientific, dontcha think? Out of curiosity, which “necessary brain connections” are you referring to, and who should decide which they are, and at what specific time of gestation do said “connections” take place? And what about children whose brains, due to a congenital defect (i.e Down’s syndrome), never make such connections, but are otherwise healthy and can function minimally in society?

Mention abortion and the freaks come out of their holes. Get over children. Women have rights too.

Scientists don't look for "magical transformations", JCC. Fetal development is a gradual process. (And if you were so keen on having us educate you, you'd read up on it on your own.)

Around the 21-22nd week of gestation is the earliest point at which the human brain is wired up to the point where it could conceivably be conscious in any way we commonly regard it. This is when dentritic growth occurs and synapses are established. Without these, "thought" cannot occur.

JCC said "Well, that’s sorta subjective and not very scientific, dontcha think?"
Wrong!! Science understands a great deal about fetal development,as shown in this statement.

Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life--conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex--those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing--as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother's abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother's voice). In spite of these rather sophisticated abilities, babies enter the world with a still-primitive cerebral cortex, and it is the gradual maturation of this complex part of the brain that explains much of their emotional and cognitive maturation in the first few years of life.

Cynic:

Fetal development is a gradual process. (And if you were so keen on having us educate you, you'd read up on it on your own.)

I’m quite well apprised on the stages of fetal development, thank you; what I was asking for was evidence of atheists making a concerted effort to reduce the number of abortions or, more importantly, showing compassion for abortion survivors by attempting to find loving homes for them.

Without these, "thought" cannot occur.

Ok, so what is the impetus of “thought” then? Do you regard consciousness to consist solely, or is somehow the manifestation, of thought alone?

JONATHAN SMITH:

Again I ask: who gets to decide when and what constitutes a fetus’ transformation into a human being in the womb? And what about the mentally handicapped children who wouldn’t pass that test but are otherwise healthy and can function minimally in society?

JCC: Secularists have been pushing condoms, so yeah, I'd say that'd a pretty concerted effort to prevent abortions, yeah.

As for consciousness and thought -- yeah. We are our minds and bodies. You're not going to find papers on the "soul" in science journals.

This is classic:

Get over children. Women have rights too.

I guess by that “logic,” women somehow bypass being children once themselves.

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until movement of the fetus, up until 1869. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses.Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor.
Insisting when a fetus is a human being is not an objective scientific fact. Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue either and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.

JCC

Get over it. Women have rights.

JCC

I guess by that “logic,” women somehow bypass being children once themselves.

Did I suggest that women were not once children? What the hell are you blabbering about?

Jonathan

I think your falling into the typical trap set by xians. The legal argument is not and never has been principally dependent upon the definition of a human being.

Cynic:

Secularists have been pushing condoms, so yeah, I'd say that'd a pretty concerted effort to prevent abortions

Preventing conceptions and preventing abortions are two totally different political footballs.

As for consciousness and thought -- yeah. We are our minds and bodies. You're not going to find papers on the "soul" in science journals.

Maybe you don’t get out as often as you should: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul published by HarperOne, written by Mario Beauregard, a neuroscientist from the University of Montreal, and Denyse O'Leary, a science journalist, is one such text.

Jcc,

Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello says Bigfoot is real.

WHAT: I would agree with your point,that's why I finished my post with "we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights."
If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn’t they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman.

I'm sure we will never resolve the abortion issue on this forum. However, I think that no one - whether they are pro-choice, or pro-life - thinks that a 2 month old fetus is a "baby."

If a woman has a stillborn baby, there is usually a funeral and burial.

I have never heard of someone having a funeral for a misscarriage.

jcc

So why am I not aware of any atheist campaign to either reduce the number of abortions (i.e. the feigned battle cry by Democrats to appease the NAGs) or to place abortion survivors in loving homes? Please do educate me on such matters.

I am not aware of any atheists who are anti-choice. Atheists I am aware of seek to reduce abortion through the proper use of other birth control methods, and most do not agree with late-term abortion. In the exceedingly rare case when a fetus survived an abortion, I would think any atheist would want it placed in a loving home. And those people who are staunchly and rabidly against a woman's freedom of choice should be lined up around the block, waiting to take responsibility for the child. I have not yet come across a single atheist who falls into this category.

While I myself am in no position to adopt a child, I do contribute financially and with hands-on familial love to the raising of two boys taken away from their crackhead mama, and being adopted by a friend of mine. How many kids not your own do you love and help support?

JCC wrote"Maybe you don’t get out as often as you should: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul published by HarperOne, written by Mario Beauregard, a neuroscientist from the University of Montreal, and Denyse O'Leary, a science journalist, is one such text.

What's wrong with the book is the implication that Marion Beauregard has scientific evidence that "spiritual experiences are actual connections to a presence outside ourselves, and that their power to transform our lives is a power which derives from an authentic encounter with an outside reality."(God) We all know he has no such evidence. Instead he's interpreting the bahvior of the nuns in terms of what HE'D like to believe and not what he actually observes.
Publishing with a genuine IDiot like Denyse O'Leary also destroys his credability.

Besides, I said paper, not book. Anyone can get a book published.

Publishing with a genuine IDiot like Denyse O'Leary also destroys his credability.

Yeah. When I saw Denyse O'Leary, I figured, well, no point going any further.

Jonathon

I like your style and clarity of thought.

Cynic

I said paper, not book. Anyone can get a book published.

You and I know differently but most xians that I have communicated with give greater credence to books than peer reviewed articles. I know. It's retarded.

So, at what point in your mother’s pregnancy did such a “blob of cells” magically transform itself into what you now regard as yourself?

Right there is your problem, jcc. There was no magic involved, just biology. I know that religious folks tend to think in simplistic black and white absolute terms but human development isnt as cut and dry as that. There isnt a set moment when every clump opf cells first becomes a baby, its a gradual and more subtle process than that. However, I can tell you that this transition does not take place before the second trimester. I am just as uncomfortable with very late term abortions as you are but thats not what Im arguing here.

So why am I not aware of any atheist campaign to either reduce the number of abortions

Actually there is a very strong secular, though not specifically atheistic, campaign to reduce abortions: its called realistic and comprehensive sex education in school.

Alex

Whats more since the definition of what is human is not precise then how can one answer JCC's question about at what point in development this transition to human takes place. But all this what-is-human discussion just plays into the hands of the anti-choicers. Women have rights.

JONATHAN SMITH:

If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn’t they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman.

I have no doubt that Stephen Hawking shares your sentiments on that completely…

karen:

I am not aware of any atheists who are anti-choice.

Which is to be expected.

most [atheists] do not agree with late-term abortion.

Which is quite unexpected.

those people who are staunchly and rabidly against a woman's freedom of choice should be lined up around the block, waiting to take responsibility for the child.

What makes you think no one is? Are you saying the entire right-to-life movement is nothing but lip-service?

How many kids not your own do you love and help support?

I don’t know. My tithe through my church supports many charities—not the least of which are orphanages…but why do you try to falsely portray being pro-life with having to adopt or find a home for every abortion survivor? I also adhere to the principle of ending world hunger, but can I personally feed every hungry child in the world? Come on karen, be practical.

JONATHAN SMITH:

What's wrong with the book is the implication that Marion Beauregard has scientific evidence that "spiritual experiences are actual connections to a presence outside ourselves, and that their power to transform our lives is a power which derives from an authentic encounter with an outside reality."(God) We all know he has no such evidence.

How do you know he has no such evidence? Have you read the book?

Instead he's interpreting the bahvior of the nuns in terms of what HE'D like to believe and not what he actually observes.

That sounds like an assumption on your part. But the larger point about the study on the nuns wasn’t proving the existence of God, it was disproving the existence of the fabled “God-spot” in the brain that materialist neuroscientist have touted for years. While you’re to be commended for at least doing a cursory search on the book and its authors, you seemed to have fallen into the all too common atheist trap of jumping to conclusions without learning all the facts first.

Publishing with a genuine IDiot like Denyse O'Leary also destroys his credability.

I believe you forgot to preface that sentence with “in my opinion.”

Cynic:

Besides, I said paper, not book. Anyone can get a book published.

…and anyone can publish a research “paper.”

karen:

When I saw Denyse O'Leary, I figured, well, no point going any further.

I must confess to having that same reflexive reaction to names like Dawkins, Hitchins and Shermer… but in the interest of objectivity, I strive to overcome such emotional responses. :-)

alexatheist:

However, I can tell you that this transition does not take place before the second trimester.

Really? Then when did this child undergo that transformation?

http://tinyurl.com/6lnocx

She didn’t get a third trimester… and she sure looks human to me…

Really? Then when did this child undergo that transformation?

Uh, in the second trimester. Reread my words. I have no issue with abortions in the first trimester. Second and third, yes.

Errrr JCC,

No, anyone most certainly CANNOT get a published paper in a journal. This requires what is called peer-review. This is in stark contrast to getting a book published, which requires nothing but dollars.

Why don't you take a look at Beauregards published paper list on the NCBI website....wow surprise, surprise..absolutely NO MENTION of any of the gibberish in this book, just titles like: In vivo measurements of brain trapping of C-labelled alpha-methyl-L-tryptophan during acute changes in mood states.

Still, no doubt this is due to the evil bias of atheistic scientists on the peer review committee...people who would no doubt gleefully finish of those who survived abortion.

You are a fool.

I should rephrase the first part of my previous post...anything can be published as a book, but anything can most certainly not be published as a paper.

This debate reminds me of my all time greatest FSTDT quote:

"I am 100% pro-life, unless your talking about the death penalty, in which case I am 100% pro-death."

That really says it all doesn't it?

What,

I'm wit'cha sister! Women do have rights!!!

IMO, life means a self sustaining organism.

For example:
An appendage/limb; such as an arm or leg can only survive as long as it is connected to central body organs/brain. Although one can make the argument that appendages are
living things too, one cannot make the point that an appendage is self sustaining life. If life were so easily defined, one individual could actually give birth to many
deaths.

For example: Amputating one finger at a time could result in 10 deaths; assuming both thumbs were removed too.

A fetus on the other hand is potential life that depends upon its mother's nutrient rich uterus for survival. Much like an appendage, a fetus is not self sustaining life
until it is capable of living outside the womb; independent of its mothers organs. Consequently, non-self sustaining life has no say in self sustaining life issues.

That being said, once a child is born, living, and breathing on its own; it is self sustaining life.

JMO

I believe you forgot to preface that sentence with “in my opinion.”

Whereas YOU think you're the standard-bearer for 'objective reality.'
Really, truly - I'd like just ONE, that's right, only ONE former atheist to show up here, & tell us all that your constant barrage of inanities changed his/her mind.
Maybe then I wouldn't imagine you w/a jester's cap any more, or hear the bells jingle when you harry the lot of us w/your delusional ideology.

JCC

…and anyone can publish a research “paper.”

Here is my question for you. Is it really possible that somebody can be as stupid as your statement implies and still be able to breath?

Atheon

I'm wit'cha sister! Women do have rights!!!

Well I am a bro but would be delighted to become an honorary member of d' sistahood.

JCC
Sorry for not responding any sooner to you ,but I live in Florida with all the nasty weather to deal with!
You said " have no doubt that Stephen Hawking shares your sentiments on that completely"
Your point being that we can compare a fetus with a adult scientist who has full brain fuction,to make his own choices?
You said
"How do you know he has no such evidence? Have you read the book?"

I really tried to read the book for about a week and I finally decided it's not worth the effort. It's just about completely unreadable. It's a very poorly written book, which reaches unsupportable conclusions by ridiculous contortions of logic. The format of the book is to throw out some briefly stated "fact" about the awesome power of the brain which the authors purport is unexplainable by natural processes, followed by hammering the reader with the weight of multiple authorities in quote after quote, and it doesn't matter whether said authority actually supports the issue in contention.
It describes fMRI studies of nuns experiencing, they say, mystical feelings of various intensities. The results: their brain activity during these episodes is complex, therefore the materialists are wrong when they assign simple causes.How on earth can you mix supernatural feelings with natural brain functions?
All this mixed in with near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences as evidence for an external source for the mind, and credulously state that psychic powers like telepathy and telekinesis are real!!
Sorry my Friend this book just does not hold water,(like your position).
Oh yes,if you think ID is a valid scientific theory, worthy of my respect, then please state your evidence for it.That should be interesting reading!!

JONATHAN:

Oh yes,if you think ID is a valid scientific theory, worthy of my respect, then please state your evidence for it.That should be interesting reading!!

Oh, I can summarize it for ya:
DNA is a codex, it shows 'intelligent design' (despite the redundancies & obvious errors), the universe is held together via the glue of black holes, pretty much an extension of 'look, everything existing proves it!'

Jonathan

I like your use of "my friend". Because of the association of the phrase with John "Keating Five" McCain I started using it as a substitute for "f you".

What,

Well I am a bro but would be delighted to become an honorary member of d' sistahood.

My apologies! LOL!

Welcome to da brudah hood.

Jonathan

Oh yes,if you think ID is a valid scientific theory, worthy of my respect, then please state your evidence for it.

More importantly the ID deluded need to propose a test that would falsify ID. Even a hypothesis tested and shown to be wrong is of value but without a test a hypothesis is of less value than wrong one.

JONATHAN SMITH:

Sorry for not responding any sooner to you ,but I live in Florida with all the nasty weather to deal with!

You and everyone else in Fay’s path are in my prayers.

Your point being that we can compare a fetus with a adult scientist who has full brain fuction,to make his own choices?

Yes. My children, who are minors, each possess “full brain function,” but in the eyes of the law, they are not able to make their own choices in matters that directly affect their safety—yet even atheists must regard them as being fully human, so, yes, it is a valid comparison.

How on earth can you mix supernatural feelings with natural brain functions?

Easy—by acknowledging the fact that humans beings have a spiritual nature. And I’d go so far as to assert that our spiritual nature is our primary nature.

Sorry my Friend this book just does not hold water,(like your position).

Again, that’s your opinion. No scientist worth his salt can plausibly fail to acknowledge or discount the enormous power the immaterial concept we call love (which is, by its very nature, a spiritual phenomenon) has on each and every one of our lives. Also the fact that disorders like OCD and many types of anxieties and phobias can be treated—not medicinally—but by the conscious altering of the will, lends tremendous credence to the separate existence of the mind from the brain. And the fact that the placebo effect can actually affect mortality rates is astonishing—and yet it has no plausible materialist explanation. But besides all that, I know by virtue of my own experiential being, by my own perception, that my consciousness does not and cannot be merely the manifestation of firing neurons in my brain. It is my will that is directing those that fire as a result of my cognition, not the other way around. The essence of my being is not the result of what I’ve experienced or what external stimuli I react to—I am far more than that. How sad (and pitiable) that anyone can actually believe that their consciousness is somehow only comprised of physical electrical circuitry…

So, sorry, until you can prove the negative—that the soul doesn’t exist, then it’s your position on abortion that can’t “hold water.”

Oh yes,if you think ID is a valid scientific theory, worthy of my respect, then please state your evidence for it.That should be interesting reading!!

Apparently you missed my exchange here with alatham on that a couple of months ago.

JCC

You have to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever communicated with. It is going to take sometime to respond to each of your ridiculous assertions. Maybe later this evening. For the moment I will just tackle the most astonishingly stupid things I have ever seen written.

And the fact that the placebo effect can actually affect mortality rates is astonishing

You do realize why a placebo treatment is labeled as a placebo? BECAUSE IT HAS NO EFFECT. If a treatment does have an effect then IT IS NOT A PLACEBO.

Your mind is chaotic place. You must be