Are you actually pro-life?

[Stephanie]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I am pro keep your hands out of womens pussy's and stop mandating what people should do with their bodies. What does that make me you loser Millenniial?

You realize that most Millenials are pro-death, right?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Can you or can't you?

If you can't then all you have is libel.

But then if I can't prove someone in the CIA ordered it either, then what? Does that mean that no one ordered it? No it doesn't.

It gives us a place to start looking for a traitor.

Was Bush smart? He's not stupid. However he's not that smart. Also, he probably didn't order it, someone within his govt probably ordered it, most likely Cheney.

I see now it's Cheney's fault. They have a name for people who think like you.

But it's not that hard to get something done without leaving a trail. I mean, kids could do it.

Good. Then we'll have the traitors in no time and we can string them up along the National Mall in DC.

*****CHUCKLE*****

To be honest, you seem to be playing a game, and I'm not interested in silly little games.

Really????? I also notice that you didn't answer the question.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Do you think I like wasting my time on trolls like you?

I'm sure you'd rather spend more time with trolls like yourself. Since you feel unequal to the task.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

 

[Unkotare]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

There's that liberal relativism again.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

That's what I'm saying, yes. If you think "feed the poor and they'll breed" then you're not pro-life. If you think "let him die" then you're not pro-life. If you think we should be executing people then you're not pro-life. To be pro-life requires more than just opposing abortion.

 

[defcon4]

If you think "feed the poor and they'll breed" then you're not pro-life.

"They will breed.." huh?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm utterly against it and have been since about twelve. The last couple threads were more or less experimental restatements of their talking points.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio
I'd like to work with you on more constructive approaches to ending abortion that don't target women
but focus on men and women not having sex if one or both partners aren't in agreement to have children.

Whatever it takes to enforce that idea, that it is either abusing sex or the relationship,
if one or both partners doesn't want or isn't prepared to have children yet is having sex.

This is better addressed on a personal level, but it would help if prochoice and prolife groups worked in UNISON so we share a unified message and enforce the same direction, not divide against and obstruct each other.

How can we work together? there is a faction of Prolife Democrats within the party.
What can we do to work more effectively to prevent and end abortion.
With the challenge of staying within Constitutional bounds and not passing laws that are unfairly biased
and/or working on mutually agreed legislation that both sides support as preventing abortion without
targeting or discriminating against women, penalizing or punishing them while not holding the men accountable.

With the challenge of staying within Constitutional bounds and not passing laws that are unfairly biased

Abortion laws that allow murder are not Constitutional, and are pretty biased against the tiny human in the womb....

Dear 2aguy
Our gun laws still allow people to abuse guns and murder,
yet it is unconstitutional to pass laws restricting gun rights without consent of the people affected.

The problem is we haven't devised laws that all sides agree with yet,
so just like ACA is unconstitutional, we are stuck with compromised laws
until we agree what to REPLACE them with.

 

[emilynghiem]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

That's what I'm saying, yes. If you think "feed the poor and they'll breed" then you're not pro-life. If you think "let him die" then you're not pro-life. If you think we should be executing people then you're not pro-life. To be pro-life requires more than just opposing abortion.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio
Then if you push far enough NOBODY is Perfectly Prolife, not even God,
because we all allow people to die or do things that are going to lead to death.

 

[2aguy]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

That depends.....are they fighting wars to save lives, executing murderers to keep them from killing again...that is pro-life to me......

 

[Impenitent]

H

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

Whoa there buckaroo!

You can be procharity but not for govt welfare that rewards enabling behavior!

You are not distinguishing the POLITICAL/LEGAL label from the reality of what people support.

I can be for education but against what public schools are doing wrong to mess it up.

I can be FOR national defense but against abuse of military for unjustified war and war crimes.

I can even be AGAINST abortion and 100% for preventing it in 100% of all cases,
and yet Legally support prochoice where any laws are passed by free choice and consensus
since I find that more constitutional.

I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution.

Just because you are LEGALLY for the choice of abortion, war, executions, etc.
doesn't mean you can't be 100% against these things. making them legal or illegal is a separate
level from the real work it takes to prevent them in practice! Sometimes keeping them legal
takes political pressure off so groups can work together to PREVENT more cases of what you are so against!

"I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution."

How does a "constitutionalist" come out so strongly against the 5th Amendment?

 

[emilynghiem]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

That depends.....are they fighting wars to save lives, executing murderers to keep them from killing again...that is pro-life to me......

Dear 2aguy
1. Your logic is faulty. There are other ways to prevent them from killing again such as
a. imprisoning them for life (but cannot have contact with anyone where they could kill again)
b. curing them of their criminal illness
just like curing someone of cancer prevents the cancer from killing

2. The only justification for the death penalty is if you believe in a divine law of justice
that if they are meant to die for killing, then that is the just end. There is no need to "rationalize"
that belief, you either believe it or you do not,

Then the issue becomes if we all AGREE to authorize govt to carry out this divine law of justice.

So even if you believe it is the law, if the govt and political system is too skewed to carry it out,
that is a separate argument.

I believe if it is truly divine will, there should be a consensus on each outcome,
so that it IS justified for govt to act by consensus. If is not by consensus, that
is where the conflicting beliefs kick in, and where govt is not supposed to establish
one religious belief over another.

So I believe in separating the funding and those who believe in
Restorative Justice can fund correction, medical treatment, detention, restitution, rehab and cure
but pay for all the costs and the consequences if someone dies or get harmed.

And let those who believe in funding the death penalty keep that option.

If people want life in prison, they'd have to agree to pay all the costs and
cooperate fully with authorities and meet all the conditions and terms of restitution until the public is satisfied.

As long as you are willing to take responsibility for the costs of the consequences,
and everyone agrees to fair restitution, I believe you can ask for other options.

The restitution I would ask for in cases of serial rape, murder, trafficking etc.
are so high, that people would be working the rest of their lives, and this
would become a better deterrent than the death penalty.

I even recommend setting up prison exchanges to forfeit citizenship
and trade place with immigrants on the waiting list, in order to use citizenship as a reward
for law abiding behavior and full cooperation with authority, while revoking it if
people refuse to cooperate after abusing rights and freedom to violate the same of others.

I think that would make a stronger deterrent than the death penalty,
by setting up prisons along the border for convicts to work their life sentence
at labor to pay restitution to victims and society, and take the place of
sweatshop workers and save lives of children who would have a chance to
go to school instead of being sold into slavery. There are meaningful ways
of serving restitution that could be secured, by building military prisons along
the border to guard the dangerous convicts in detention while they undergo
medical treatment for their conditions. They don't have to be let loose in society,
they can work for the rest of their lives in prison as part of their rehab and recovery.

If you want examples of people who have been cured of their criminal
addictions that made them kill, look up Karla Faye Tucker, or David Berkowitz.

There are ways of detaining or curing criminal illness where you don't have to kill them.

Killing lepers never cured leprosy. Why not perfect the process of diagnosing,
measuring and curing dangerous criminal illness the same way we can tell if
cancer is terminal or if it is cured. The earlier we detect criminal illness, then
we can prevent dangerous people from going untreated and killing anybody.

Just like AIDS, cancer, Ebola, we need to detain these people and not wait until somebody dies to intervene.

 

[emilynghiem]

H

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

Whoa there buckaroo!

You can be procharity but not for govt welfare that rewards enabling behavior!

You are not distinguishing the POLITICAL/LEGAL label from the reality of what people support.

I can be for education but against what public schools are doing wrong to mess it up.

I can be FOR national defense but against abuse of military for unjustified war and war crimes.

I can even be AGAINST abortion and 100% for preventing it in 100% of all cases,
and yet Legally support prochoice where any laws are passed by free choice and consensus
since I find that more constitutional.

I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution.

Just because you are LEGALLY for the choice of abortion, war, executions, etc.
doesn't mean you can't be 100% against these things. making them legal or illegal is a separate
level from the real work it takes to prevent them in practice! Sometimes keeping them legal
takes political pressure off so groups can work together to PREVENT more cases of what you are so against!

"I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution."

How does a "constitutionalist" come out so strongly against the 5th Amendment?

Dear Impenitent
You brought this issue up before

I said that we agree IN ADVANCE what the laws of citizenship are.
So residents in a district can all AGREE to sign in advance for legal and financial responsibility
to pay for costs, damages and restitution if convicted of a premeditated crime.

You can't even file a TAX RETURN without violating your own Fifth Amendment rights, if you want to be technical! People sign documents all the time, such as when you make a sworn affidavit
or swear under oath in court, that anything you say false can constitute perjury!

So it's like that, based on people AGREEING in advance.

Also Impenitent I see nothing wrong with people taking the Fifth Amendment,
and not admitting who did what wrong, but the whole group AGREEING to
fix the problem. So if 3 people won't admit who actually damaged the property during a riot,
but all 3 people agree to be part of the group effort to raise funds and/or do the volunteer
work to repair the damage done at the scene, then it doesn't matter who did it, if all
the participants agree to clean up the mess to restore the property to its original condition.

That's another way you can take the Fifth Amendment
but still take responsibility for your actions so you don't impose on someone else's rights.

If you plead no contest, then you leave it to the authority of someone else to decide your fate for you.

Impenitent I am talking about if you want a SAY in whether to get the death penalty or life in prison.
so once you are convicted and are issued punishment for a capital crime,
then I am saying if you want a SAY, like 100% CONSENT to what the terms of your sentencing
and restitution will be, THAT is where I would require 100% respect for the CONSENT of others
in deciding the penalty as well.

If you don't want a say in your sentencing, you can give up your right to petition
and your right to defend your beliefs.

If you want to defend your right to your beliefs, and defend your position, then that would
involve 100% cooperation in order to respect the consent of others to the same degree you want
that enforced for you.

So, sure, you are welcome to give up your rights by taking the Fifth,
like OJ Simpson did. I'd rather have my free speech, than have to remain silent
to prevent from incriminating myself. I'd rather have full freedom to speak by
having 100% equal consent to whatever is going to be the outcome affecting me
by respecting the consent of others to speak and defend their beliefs fully and freely
so that the decision is made by consensus. That requires full transparency and an
agreement to respect the consent of all the people in deciding the terms of restitution.
To have that degree of healing and closure, so people can agree on terms of sentencing
and restitution, nobody can hide or distort information the conflicts will prevent reaching a resolution.

So it ultimately obstructs justice if people abuse the Fifth Amendment to
obscure information instead of working out the terms to satisfy all parties.

 

[Impenitent]

H

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

Whoa there buckaroo!

You can be procharity but not for govt welfare that rewards enabling behavior!

You are not distinguishing the POLITICAL/LEGAL label from the reality of what people support.

I can be for education but against what public schools are doing wrong to mess it up.

I can be FOR national defense but against abuse of military for unjustified war and war crimes.

I can even be AGAINST abortion and 100% for preventing it in 100% of all cases,
and yet Legally support prochoice where any laws are passed by free choice and consensus
since I find that more constitutional.

I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution.

Just because you are LEGALLY for the choice of abortion, war, executions, etc.
doesn't mean you can't be 100% against these things. making them legal or illegal is a separate
level from the real work it takes to prevent them in practice! Sometimes keeping them legal
takes political pressure off so groups can work together to PREVENT more cases of what you are so against!

"I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution."

How does a "constitutionalist" come out so strongly against the 5th Amendment?

Dear Impenitent
You brought this issue up before

I said that we agree IN ADVANCE what the laws of citizenship are.
So residents in a district can all AGREE to sign in advance for legal and financial responsibility
to pay for costs, damages and restitution if convicted of a premeditated crime.

You can't even file a TAX RETURN without violating your own Fifth Amendment rights, if you want to be technical! People sign documents all the time, such as when you make a sworn affidavit
or swear under oath in court, that anything you say false can constitute perjury!

So it's like that, based on people AGREEING in advance.

Also Impenitent I see nothing wrong with people taking the Fifth Amendment,
and not admitting who did what wrong, but the whole group AGREEING to
fix the problem. So if 3 people won't admit who actually damaged the property during a riot,
but all 3 people agree to be part of the group effort to raise funds and/or do the volunteer
work to repair the damage done at the scene, then it doesn't matter who did it, if all
the participants agree to clean up the mess to restore the property to its original condition.

That's another way you can take the Fifth Amendment
but still take responsibility for your actions so you don't impose on someone else's rights.

If you plead no contest, then you leave it to the authority of someone else to decide your fate for you.

Impenitent I am talking about if you want a SAY in whether to get the death penalty or life in prison.
so once you are convicted and are issued punishment for a capital crime,
then I am saying if you want a SAY, like 100% CONSENT to what the terms of your sentencing
and restitution will be, THAT is where I would require 100% respect for the CONSENT of others
in deciding the penalty as well.

If you don't want a say in your sentencing, you can give up your right to petition
and your right to defend your beliefs.

If you want to defend your right to your beliefs, and defend your position, then that would
involve 100% cooperation in order to respect the consent of others to the same degree you want
that enforced for you.

So, sure, you are welcome to give up your rights by taking the Fifth,
like OJ Simpson did. I'd rather have my free speech, than have to remain silent
to prevent from incriminating myself. I'd rather have full freedom to speak by
having 100% equal consent to whatever is going to be the outcome affecting me
by respecting the consent of others to speak and defend their beliefs fully and freely
so that the decision is made by consensus. That requires full transparency and an
agreement to respect the consent of all the people in deciding the terms of restitution.
To have that degree of healing and closure, so people can agree on terms of sentencing
and restitution, nobody can hide or distort information the conflicts will prevent reaching a resolution.

So it ultimately obstructs justice if people abuse the Fifth Amendment to
obscure information instead of working out the terms to satisfy all parties.

Sometimes you say it's an. optional agreement citizens will make before an actual incident; sometimes you say it's an additional punishment added to the pile-on at conviction... It seems to depend on your venue.

I wonder how you determine who cooperated in their conviction. Do you mean a guilty plea vs a plea of innocence ? Are you saying the truely innocent cannot be brought to trial or convicted ? It happens every day. Yet you want to heap further punishment on them.

My point, though, before it gets lost in a maze of words, is that your treatment of the yet convicted, along with those convicted, is highly unconsttutional.

You can be an activist for change, you can present your ideas on crime and punishment, and the constitution can be changed, but you can't call yourself a constitutionalist.

 

[sealybobo]

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

Do you have to be anti euthenasia? If someone is suffering? I'm pro quality of life. If that's gone why keep me around to suffer?

 

[Politico]

I am pro keep your hands out of womens pussy's and stop mandating what people should do with their bodies. What does that make me you loser Millenniial?

You realize that most Millenials are pro-death, right?

No they are just idiots.

 

[emilynghiem]

H

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

Whoa there buckaroo!

You can be procharity but not for govt welfare that rewards enabling behavior!

You are not distinguishing the POLITICAL/LEGAL label from the reality of what people support.

I can be for education but against what public schools are doing wrong to mess it up.

I can be FOR national defense but against abuse of military for unjustified war and war crimes.

I can even be AGAINST abortion and 100% for preventing it in 100% of all cases,
and yet Legally support prochoice where any laws are passed by free choice and consensus
since I find that more constitutional.

I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution.

Just because you are LEGALLY for the choice of abortion, war, executions, etc.
doesn't mean you can't be 100% against these things. making them legal or illegal is a separate
level from the real work it takes to prevent them in practice! Sometimes keeping them legal
takes political pressure off so groups can work together to PREVENT more cases of what you are so against!

"I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution."

How does a "constitutionalist" come out so strongly against the 5th Amendment?

Dear Impenitent
You brought this issue up before

I said that we agree IN ADVANCE what the laws of citizenship are.
So residents in a district can all AGREE to sign in advance for legal and financial responsibility
to pay for costs, damages and restitution if convicted of a premeditated crime.

You can't even file a TAX RETURN without violating your own Fifth Amendment rights, if you want to be technical! People sign documents all the time, such as when you make a sworn affidavit
or swear under oath in court, that anything you say false can constitute perjury!

So it's like that, based on people AGREEING in advance.

Also Impenitent I see nothing wrong with people taking the Fifth Amendment,
and not admitting who did what wrong, but the whole group AGREEING to
fix the problem. So if 3 people won't admit who actually damaged the property during a riot,
but all 3 people agree to be part of the group effort to raise funds and/or do the volunteer
work to repair the damage done at the scene, then it doesn't matter who did it, if all
the participants agree to clean up the mess to restore the property to its original condition.

That's another way you can take the Fifth Amendment
but still take responsibility for your actions so you don't impose on someone else's rights.

If you plead no contest, then you leave it to the authority of someone else to decide your fate for you.

Impenitent I am talking about if you want a SAY in whether to get the death penalty or life in prison.
so once you are convicted and are issued punishment for a capital crime,
then I am saying if you want a SAY, like 100% CONSENT to what the terms of your sentencing
and restitution will be, THAT is where I would require 100% respect for the CONSENT of others
in deciding the penalty as well.

If you don't want a say in your sentencing, you can give up your right to petition
and your right to defend your beliefs.

If you want to defend your right to your beliefs, and defend your position, then that would
involve 100% cooperation in order to respect the consent of others to the same degree you want
that enforced for you.

So, sure, you are welcome to give up your rights by taking the Fifth,
like OJ Simpson did. I'd rather have my free speech, than have to remain silent
to prevent from incriminating myself. I'd rather have full freedom to speak by
having 100% equal consent to whatever is going to be the outcome affecting me
by respecting the consent of others to speak and defend their beliefs fully and freely
so that the decision is made by consensus. That requires full transparency and an
agreement to respect the consent of all the people in deciding the terms of restitution.
To have that degree of healing and closure, so people can agree on terms of sentencing
and restitution, nobody can hide or distort information the conflicts will prevent reaching a resolution.

So it ultimately obstructs justice if people abuse the Fifth Amendment to
obscure information instead of working out the terms to satisfy all parties.

Sometimes you say it's an. optional agreement citizens will make before an actual incident; sometimes you say it's an additional punishment added to the pile-on at conviction... It seems to depend on your venue.

I wonder how you determine who cooperated in their conviction. Do you mean a guilty plea vs a plea of innocence ? Are you saying the truely innocent cannot be brought to trial or convicted ? It happens every day. Yet you want to heap further punishment on them.

My point, though, before it gets lost in a maze of words, is that your treatment of the yet convicted, along with those convicted, is highly unconsttutional.

You can be an activist for change, you can present your ideas on crime and punishment, and the constitution can be changed, but you can't call yourself a constitutionalist.

Dear Impenitent
First of all, for Restorative Justice and mediating after a violation, abuse, crime/murder has occurred
NOBODY, not I, not the govt, decides for the people.

The PROCESS is worked out voluntarily among the people affected.
NOBODY can dictate that process.

The CONSENSUS is based on mutual consent of all parties so it is unique to each situation.

So the PROCESS works that if people are still in conflict with each other, both sides are
holding back and not resolving all the issues, then the process stalls out.

It only works if all parties work out all objections and conflicts to reach an agreement.
It takes massive spiritual therapy, counseling and conflict resolution,
often over 10-20 years to work out some of the issues that cause injury or division that otherwise blocks
the process of reaching a TRUE consensus that comes from the PEOPLE involved and affected.

I am NOT talking about "manufactured consensus"
or Obama's idea of forcing consensus by political rule.

Impenitent after all the yelling about ACA mandates not being
by free choice of the taxpayers affected,
why aren't you questioning those mandates that are REAL.

These requirements are passed into law and being enforced.

If you understand I am against policies being enacted and enforced
without consent of the parties affected, well, the same concept applies here.

The point is to allow for a Restorative Justice approach to criminal corrections,
restitution, rehab and recovery. But this only works by VOLUNTARY participation.

That's the same reason why imposing the health care
mandates and now the gay marriage through states is opposed.

People are supposed to have free choice in such issues
that involve personal decisions and beliefs and not DICTATE through govt
as the LAST thing that govt should be doing.

If you want govt to dictate something on a personal level, it has to be by AGREEMENT of the people
so nobody's personal beliefs and liberty are violated without due process before depriving them of choice.

That's what is wrong with the politics going on today.

It's all reduced to political bullying by coercion or exclusion,
and there is no mutual respect for consent of the governed behind laws and contracts.
So the relationship is falling apart. Instead of people and govt being one,
the parties hijack the fear issues for votes and abuse political power to
ram their own agenda over the others, so everyone loses this way.

I am trying to defend and exercise the consent based approach
not onto to correct this trend but to undo and heal the past injuries to relations it has caused.

the decisions have to come from the people in order to empower each person equally.

I recommend facilitating that by party.

I can represent myself and my ideas for the basic framework,
but other people and parties need to stand up and set up their own programs
and how they want to represent themselves and resolve their own issues.

Nobody can dictate for anyone else or there isn't equal commitment.

People will only enforce laws equally they commit to by free will so it is real, it shows
that it matches their convictions and we can enforce those laws. We need to find where
we share the same convictions and base laws on that, and we can renew respect for laws by example.

Trying to dictate laws from the bench does not work,
but has the opposite effect of dividing and destroying relations so we don't have agreement on the
laws to be enforced. that is bad for public security to have chaos and conflict in govt.

We need corrections and solutions that unify people, so we can enforce common
govt standards, and make national security and law enforcement safe again.

when this is done right, enforcing laws by agreement is a natural deterrent against abuses
and there is not this need to go on preemptive strike or seek retaliation politically out of distrust
or fear of other groups. We can solve those problems by teaching and practicing approaches
to conflict resolution that focus on effective solutions instead of political infighting and control.

I think you think I am talking about working within the system that already exists?
Yes and no. The restorative justice and conflict resolution has to be freed
from the political and legal pressures that block communication and the resolution process.

So I am not talking about the approach of retribution and fault finding for the purpose of punishment
as the main goal; I am talking about correcting all the factors to PREVENT and DETER recurring abuses,
and setting up proportional restitution to restore good faith relations between people and govt.

This may be more about investing in corrections than placing blame.
What I find is that once people commit to correcting a problem, the process defines itself.
people work out the conflicts until the answers come out that lead to an agreed solution.

It's up to the people to make that commitment, and organize
around common goals we have each committed to. and we don't need govt to dictate to us what to do.

We can set up our own solutions and use those as models for reforming govt
to follow the standards we set. So we lead by example and govt is based on what
we agree has proven to work. Not dictating from the top down which ends up with
more problems that don't work but just sounded like a strong political statement.

Let's first invest in corrections, prove they work, and people will naturally
invest without any need to dictate or force people unnaturally.
People will naturally want to comply and contribute if the solutions make sense to them
and match what they want to invest in.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

Do you have to be anti euthenasia? If someone is suffering? I'm pro quality of life. If that's gone why keep me around to suffer?

Can't people be prochoice, ie support the "free choice" of euthanasia
while supporting all means of resolving the issues that makes someone want to die instead of live.

For example, what if, before deciding on euthanasia,
counseling were required for people to go through "spiritual healing" to identify and/or remove
any negative/unnatural factor, or any possible block preventing them from restoring their health or mindset.

So they would have greater chances of truly making a "free decision"
if they weren't under DURESS from fear of cancer, dying, suffering etc.

Remove all the negative pressures and factors first, make sure the
person has full peace and clarity, and that is protecting their free choice.
So they still have the legal choice to choose suicide/euthanasia, whatever you want,
as long as they agree to screen out any negative factor that could be
blocking them from making a fully informed choice with complete peace of mind.

So if the cancer or other disease they have is cureable, they deserve to know that before deciding to
die based on the opinion it is terminal and will lead to painful needless suffering.

What about protecting fully informed choice?
Researching and proving spiritual healing HAS cured the CAUSE
of some diseases that medicine alone could not cure and considered hopeless.

Can't you be FOR the choice of euthanasia not to be banned
but set up counseling or a medical screening process that cannot be
abused by people to cover up murder, or to deprive someone of
medical help to make them WANT to die.

Even to support the free choice, wouldn't this still
require certain steps to make sure it isn't abused.

And what if the steps of screening out real terminal cases are so effective,
that most people can find cures to the cause of their situation, where
they don't need to carry out the choice of actively ending their lives.

Isn't that still prochoice to manage this process where it isn't abused
to COERCE someone?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How many "pro-lifers" are anti-executions, vegetarians and anti-war?

I'm going to say not many.

Uhm.. what does being a vegetarian have to do with pro-life? Ever heard of the food chain?

 

[initforme]

Being pro life means that one is against abortion and one believes also that the child, once born into this screwed up world, also gets gov't help so they get off to a good start. What gets me about pro lifers sometimes is that once the kid is born then well....its not longer an issue or the duty of taxpayers to support the kid.