In response to:

Romney and the Rapist

gsw Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 2:09 AM
Again Dr Adams you missed the target. Many people, have a mental image of a young terrified women cringing in disgust and revulsion, just wanting to get the filth from her rapist off of her - out of her hair, her skin, her body - her insides - out of her mind and gone forever. You say "But wait - he gave you a beautiful bundle of life!" It sounds rather perverse - and mocking to one so violated who wants so desperately just to be clean! So understandably so! And one question - If scientist kidnapped a women and impregnated her with "enhanced" sperm, could she demand it be removed if rescued prior to delivery? Or just another case of moral confusion? Maybe yours.
Denise67 Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 8:59 AM
This is part of what makes this crime so hard to prosecute! Immediately after a rape, many girls and women feel a compulsion to CLEAN themselves. They shower or bathe or brush their teeth -- and destroy evidence!
I remember reading about a young woman who had been gang-raped. She imagined should could smell the semen in her hair for years afterward.
USMC LM Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 2:18 AM
The confusion, sir, is yours. Dr Adams maintains the position that the innocent are not punished for the crimes of the guilty regardless of circumstance. That is what is known as a principled position. It is a line in the sand from which neither he, nor I, nor millions of Americans will retreat from.
Our ethics are not situational they are founded in an absolute and unwavering truth that all innocent life should be spared and all those guilty should be punished.
z Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 5:54 AM
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
ericynot Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 8:53 AM
Apparently you re unfamiliar with the concept of war. The innocent not punished with the guilty? Get serious.

Shubi wants to nuke Iran today because "they are our enemy". Shubi, like you, is also steadfast in his opposition to abortion under and and all circumstances. The inherent contradiction in such a stand is mind boggling.
AliveInHim Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 9:05 AM
So an unborn baby has the ability to wage war, now? Who knew?

Fact: any nation declared an enemy combatant necessarily includes ALL civilians thereof since they are quite naturally presumed to be sympathetic to the enemy.

*eyeroll*
Anominus Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 11:17 AM
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

Do you realize how idiotic that statement is? Considering it was a Jedi who made that absolute statement, it is obviously untrue.
Anominus Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 11:24 AM
@ericynot: The difference between innocent deaths cause by collateral damage and innocent deaths caused by abortion is intent. We do not intend to kill innocent people in war, and when it is proven that individuals engaged in such behavior, they are generally brought to justice for their crimes.

The nation of Iran is a hostile state. That doesn't mean that all Iranian civilians wish harm on us and our allies, but their government most assuredly does. While I do believe that a nuclear strike would be the most effective way to permanently end any threat from that quarter, I don't think it can be justified at this point. Should we go to war, pinpoint missile and air strikes would serve us better, targeted against their military bases.
Anominus Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 11:25 AM
@ericynot: The difference between innocent deaths cause by collateral damage and innocent deaths caused by abortion is intent. We do not intend to kill innocent people in war, and when it is proven that individuals engaged in such behavior, they are generally brought to justice for their crimes.

The nation of Iran is a hostile state. That doesn't mean that all Iranian civilians wish harm on us and our allies, but their government most assuredly does. While I do believe that a nuclear strike would be the most effective way to permanently end any threat from that quarter, I don't think it can be justified at this point. Should we go to war, pinpoint missile and air strikes would serve us better, targeted against their military bases.
inkling_revival Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 1:19 PM
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes. "

Are you absolutely certain of that?
gsw Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 4:55 PM
Women in all cases can be compelled to carry a child to term ??- oh well so much for any concept of individual liberty slavery etc It is doubtful that too many women would agree with you that morality dictates that they are really nothing more than convenient incubators. For some, by the way (P. Henry for example) life is not the most cherished thing - it is liberty And no - no one whould be expected to embrace forced slavery even if to save innocent life - freedom is the highest of all virtues.
Anominus Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 5:09 PM
@gsw: Your right to live your life as you choose does not supercede someone else's right to life, especially when that someone had no choice in the manner of his/her creation.
gsw Wrote: Aug 30, 2012 1:58 PM
Anominus Wrote: Aug 31, 2012 5:03 PM
Scenario:

A man is taking his morning walk through the alley behind your house. A mugger attacks him, takes his money and throws him over your fence and into your yard.

According to your "reasoning," you have every right to shoot the man who was thrown into your yard because he violated your privacy.
I have a friend who suffered through a horrific gang rape nearly twenty years ago. There were three perpetrators but one in particular served as the ringleader and principal conspirator. He was in his early thirties when he planned the crime and convinced a twenty-one year old and a nineteen year old to join him. His victim was only sixteen years old.

After raping a girl only half his age, the principal rapist let the others have their turn. Then he raped her again. In between his two assaults upon her he slapped her around viciously and poured alcohol...