Palin's daughter pregnant!

chaylizi

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 3:54 pm

chavamom wrote:

chaylizi wrote:

Quote:

This study shows the rates of birth/abortion are declinging among teens.

This doesn't seem to be the case in my l & d department. There is no shortage of underage parents. I suppose my city could be unique, but I highly doubt it. Chavamom?

Uh, no. Where I work, a 23 year-old having a baby is "old". They think I'm ancient and should be a grandmother already!

Listen, if a kid comes in and they are 18 already, then it's a good day. At least they can sign their own paperwork after delivery.

ora_43

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 3:56 pm

chaylizi wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

princessleah wrote:

Finally, that quote from the Torah just says that you are allowed to kill in self-defense if someone is coming to kill you. It does not say ANYTHING about guns-- that would be quite amusing, since they had not been invented yet.

So you think it's OK to kill an attacker, but not OK to use a gun? What do you have against guns if not the fact that they are used to kill people?

I don't think that death penalty & self defense are considered the same thing. Furthermore, the US justice system is not exactly sanhedrin.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about the death penalty; I'm talking about self defense and gun ownership. I don't understand how someone could agree that it's right to kill an attacker but wrong to own a gun. What is inherently morally wrong about owning a gun once you've agreed that it's OK to kill people in certain circumstances? I could understand arguing that guns are dangerous if improperly stored or used, but that's hardly reason to say there's a contradiction between being pro-life and supporting gun rights.

princessleah

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 4:22 pm

[quote] wrong! the death penalty was definitely carried out, but a beit din that executed someone fasted on that day and was labeled "beis din katlani" (hope I got that right). [/quote]

"Conditions for convicting and executing a person were so restrictive that a Beth Din that put to death more than one person in 7 years, and some say in 70 years, was referred to as a “destructive court”. (Talmud Makkot 7a)"

[quote] the thread of the death penalty hovering over a potential murderer can definitely stop him. too bad it hasn't been tried in NY. [/quote]

"The existence of the death penalty in New York dates to the Colonial period. During
that time, many crimes were punishable by death. In the late 1700's and early 1800's, the number
of crimes for which a defendant was eligible for the death penalty was reduced to murder,
treason and arson of an occupied dwelling. In the mid-1800's, murder was divided into two
categories or degrees, with only the first-degree crime punishable by the death penalty.
A 1937 amendment made the death penalty mandatory for first degree murder, unless the
jury recommended life imprisonment. Legislation enacted in 1963 reversed the sentencing
language so that murder in the first degree was punishable by life imprisonment, unless the jury
recommended a death sentence. On June 24, 2004, the Court of Appeals declared New York’s death penalty statute unconstitutional in People v. LaValle." -- from a report of the New York State Assembly.

Just because you don't remember something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

"From 1976 to 1996, the number of executions per year in the United States has increased from 0 to just under 60. The homicide rate per 100,000 population has remained constant at just under 10. A 1998 research study conducted for the United Nations concluded: "This research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis." (R. Hood, "The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective," Clarendon Press, (1996), Page 238.)

Raisin

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 4:43 pm

ora_43 wrote:

princessleah wrote:

So you think it's OK to kill an attacker, but not OK to use a gun? What do you have against guns if not the fact that they are used to kill people?

they kill people with far greater ease than swords, or bows and arrows. The columbine shooters would not have killed nearly so many people without guns.

plus its easier to kill someone by accident with one.

princessleah

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 4:50 pm

Quote:

If someone is pro-life, that means that they believe in preserving human life, correct? Then why own a gun, which is nothing but an instrument of death, or at the very least great harm. That is what they are made for. Of course, it is a straw-man argument to say, I need a gun to protect myself from another attacker with a gun. If ALL guns were outlawed in the U.S., except for the police and military, there would be no attacker with a gun. 80% of criminals who use guns to commit crimes have obtained these guns through the black market or other illegal channels. These guns are produced, sold at gun shows, stolen from people who had bought them legally, sold to people with insufficient background checks, etc. If nobody was allowed to have them people would not need them for protection.

HindaRochel

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 5:15 pm

princessleah wrote:

Quote:

The answer is; it depends.
There are those who are pro-life and against the death penalty, abortion regardless of reason, against all wars, no matter what reason etc. etc.

There are those who are just against abortion.
There are those who are against abortion in most cases but not all.
There are those who are against abortion and the death penalty.

All sorts of configurations.

And making guns illegal doesn't necessarily keep them from the hands of criminals.

ora_43

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 7:05 pm

princessleah wrote:

Quote:

If someone is pro-life, that means that they believe in preserving human life, correct?

This has already been addressed, but there's a difference between preserving innocent life and the life of a murderer.

In the case of an attack, there is no such thing as preserving both lives. One person will die. The question is, will it be the attacker, or the victim? Neither choice is more "pro-life" than the other.

Quote:

Then why own a gun, which is nothing but an instrument of death, or at the very least great harm.

Because you might need to make someone else dead, or do them great harm. Do you not agree that 1) sometimes people attack, rape, and/or murder other people and 2) in such a case, it's better that the attacker die than the victim? If so, why not give civilians the right to protect themselves?

Quote:

That is what they are made for. Of course, it is a straw-man argument to say, I need a gun to protect myself from another attacker with a gun.

Who said anything about an attacker with a gun? I, like the average woman, am smaller and physically weaker than the average man. If your average criminal wanted to kill me, there's no way he'd need a gun. He wouldn't even need a knife.

Quote:

If guns were outlawed in the U.S., except for the police and military, there would be no attacker with a gun.

I live in Israel, where guns are outlawed except for security personell and former security personel living in dangerous areas. Guess what? There are still tons of attackers with guns. Does your country border other countries? Are there people in your country smart enough to produce makeshift guns? Are any of your policemen or soldiers unethical, or could they be attacked and their guns stolen? If so, you WILL have criminals with guns, no matter how hard you try to ban them.

Until now I've been talking about the moral aspect--why it is not OK to abort a fetus in most circumstances, but is acceptable, IMO, to own effective weapons. However, for most pro-life gun rights activists, that's not the main issue. The main issue is the Constitution. No matter what you think of the right to bear arms, you should be very worried at the idea of getting rid of whatever parts of the constitution are currently inconvenient. That can turn against you and get very ugly.

princessleah

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 11:08 pm

That was funny, Clarissa!

Quote:

But liberals don't have to worry about that. They just invent new rights and superimpose them on the Constitution when necessary.

I won't even get started on this one, considering the dismantling of the constitution that has been implemented by the current administration. It's not the liberals inventing and superimposing on the constitution right now! As for the second amendment, it guarantees Americans the right to organize and arm a MILITIA to defend itself against aggressors. The right to bare arms as an individual is an interpretation of the constitution, as is most of modern law. That's why the "liberals" interpret it a different way. If it were so clear-cut, the laws would not be in such a gray area.

As for gun violence in Israel, sure there are plenty of attackers with guns, but are you talking about Jewish Israelis attacking other Jewish Israelis? I have a feeling not. In most European countries, for example, with strict gun laws, the rate of gun violence is simply lower than in the United States. period.

Quote:

This has already been addressed, but there's a difference between preserving innocent life and the life of a murderer.

So there is opposition to removing a 3-week old fertilized zygote from someone's uterus when it is a cluster of cells, but then we can decide that a murderer DESERVES to die? Personally, I'm not ready to take that responsibility. I'd rather leave it in G-d's hands. And btw, if you one studies the Halachot of abortion, it is pretty clear that it is not considered murder-- otherwise it would never be allowed. You are not allowed to trade one life for another, which is why once a baby has emerged viably, you are not allowed to harm it even when there is danger to the mother. But when it is dependent on the mother's womb, you may terminate the pregnancy to save the mother's life. Why would the Halacha allow this if they are considered equally alive?

cassandra

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 11:22 pm

princessleah wrote:

I won't even get started on this one, considering the dismantling of the constitution that has been implemented by the current administration
It's not the liberals inventing and superimposing on the constitution right now! As for the second amendment, it guarantees Americans the right to organize and arm a MILITIA to defend itself against aggressors. The right to bare arms as an individual is an interpretation of the constitution, as is most of modern law. That's why the "liberals" interpret it a different way. If it were so clear-cut, the laws would not be in such a gray area.

I'm not defending the current administration. It abuses do not negate the fact that generally the more liberal arms of the court decide based on penumbra and the conservative members are strict constructionists. Fortunately I have my pocket copy of the Constitution handy (sent to me by the CATO Institute) and I don't know in what world "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an interpretation. It's a stretch to read it otherwise, which I guess is where "interpretations" come in. It's only controversial because there are those who believe the amendment is wrong, not because the amendment is so wishy-washy that a reasonably intelligent person couldn't understand its plain meaning.

And we "bear" arms not "bare" them. Concealed weapons are illegal.

Edited for formatting.

Last edited by cassandra on Tue, Sep 02 2008, 11:24 pm; edited 2 times in total

cassandra

Tue, Sep 02 2008, 11:24 pm

princessleah wrote:

Because the baby is considered a rodef at that point and you are allowed to kill someone who will kill you. It doesn't mean that the life of a baby is of a lesser quality because it hasn't been born. Once the baby has mostly emerged he can no longer be considered a rodef halachically for various reasons.

ora_43

Wed, Sep 03 2008, 3:53 am

chavamom wrote:

The problem is, in the case of an attack, the person is actually more likely to be killed with their own gun than to kill the attacker.

That's an interesting claim. Where did you hear that? Whatever the case, it may be true in the states, but it's not at all true over here.

Quote:

And that doesn't even bring into the equation all the gun accidents from having guns around. Or that people making a suicide attempt are vastly more likely to be "successful" if they live in a home with a gun - even a "secured" one. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

If your point is that people ignorant of gun use and gun safety shouldn't own guns, then yes. If you're trying to argue that all people should have their access to guns restricted because some ignore basic safety protocol, I disagree.

I don't think people should be allowed to buy guns after nothing more than a 3-day waiting period and rudimentary background check. They should have to go through a gun safety course and a certain number of hours on a shooting range, just like those who want to drive have to watch hours of drunk driving horror story videos and spend however much time on the road with an instructor. But just as the occasional drunk driver who gets himself killed doesn't make me think nobody should have a car, the occasional idiot who blows his foot off while cleaning his gun doesn't make me think nobody should have a gun.

ora_43

Wed, Sep 03 2008, 4:11 am

princessleah wrote:

I don't think anyone is defending the Bush administration's tendency to see constitutional rights as merely a suggestion. But shouldn't watching the current administration ignore American rights, and seeing the results of that, make us all the more cautious about safeguarding said rights?

Quote:

As for gun violence in Israel, sure there are plenty of attackers with guns, but are you talking about Jewish Israelis attacking other Jewish Israelis? I have a feeling not. In most European countries, for example, with strict gun laws, the rate of gun violence is simply lower than in the United States. period.

Why on earth would the nationality of the attackers or victims be an issue here?

Again, when I talk about self defense I'm not necessarily talking about defense against gun crime. I am talking about defense against all crimes, including those committed by criminals with knives, crowbars, brass knuckles, or their bare hands.

Quote:

This has already been addressed, but there's a difference between preserving innocent life and the life of a murderer.

So there is opposition to removing a 3-week old fertilized zygote from someone's uterus when it is a cluster of cells, but then we can decide that a murderer DESERVES to die?

That's halacha. Abortion on demand is assur, and those who murder deserve to die. The fact that the beit din looked for ways to avoid carrying out the death penalty doesn't change the latter fact. A murderer who escapes punishment in a beit din is still chayav mita--worthy of death.

Quote:

Personally, I'm not ready to take that responsibility. I'd rather leave it in G-d's hands.

You'd rather let God decide whether or not a pregnancy goes to term?

Quote:

And btw, if you one studies the Halachot of abortion, it is pretty clear that it is not considered murder-- otherwise it would never be allowed.

Just because someone is against abortion doesn't mean they believe that abortion is murder. There is a vast gray area between "Abortion is murder and must never be allowed," and "It's just a fertilized zygote, there's nothing wrong with deciding to get rid of it."

Quote:

You are not allowed to trade one life for another, which is why once a baby has emerged viably, you are not allowed to harm it even when there is danger to the mother. But when it is dependent on the mother's womb, you may terminate the pregnancy to save the mother's life. Why would the Halacha allow this if they are considered equally alive?

You're proving a point that nobody has argued against. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here about what social conservatives are thinking--assumptions that, from what I can tell, have little to no basis in fact.

ora_43

Wed, Sep 03 2008, 4:15 am

chavamom wrote:

The problem is, in the case of an attack, the person is actually more likely to be killed with their own gun than to kill the attacker.

BTW, the goal of gun use in an attack is NOT to kill the attacker. Even if one is allowed to kill the attacker according to halacha and civil law, the goal is still to scare him away. So if last year there were 20 cases in which a gun owner killed an attacker, 25 in which the gun owner was killed with their own gun, and 2,000 in which a gun owner frightened an attacker away by pointing a gun at them or firing into the air, guns were still successfully used for self defense far more often than they were used against their owners.

Chani

Wed, Sep 03 2008, 6:34 am

When I was a toddler, my father was away for work very frequently - 48 hours on, 24 home, etc.. One night while he was gone, my mother heard a noise in my room. She went there, and discovered a man in the process of passing me out the window to another man. BH, BH, BH, my mother had my father's sidearm with her, and she told them to put me down or she'd blow their heads off. They dropped me and ran (never were captured).

I agree not everybody should have a gun. If somebody is nervous, they shouldn't have it. If somebody isn't going to take the time to learn how to shoot comfortably, then they shouldn't have one. If someone is an idiot enough not to keep them properly locked away, ditto. But there are times when one can come in handy.