Texas - Proud to be Top Execution State?

[Guest]

While I was watching the debate of Republicans last night, Rick Perry got a huge round of applause when it was stated that Texas is the top state for having convicts executed. He defended it and was rather proud of his record of signing off on so many executions.

Where exactly does capital punishment fit in with the Republican view on pro-life?

If someone points to the Bible and the Ten Commandments, it says you shall not kill. The religion route does not work for either of these situations.
It would be not killing at all; not well, it is okay for certain situations and not others.

Please explain the viewpoint of the Republican of how capital punishment is a feat to be applauded but an abortion is not acceptable. Thanks.

[Guest]

Where in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not kill."

If you do some research, you will learn that the correct translation is:

"Thou shalt not murder."

A big difference. In the Old Testament, G-d gives each person the right to protect yourself and your family, to include the use of deadly force if necessay.

So there is no need in defending the Pro-Life arguement.

Then since we have a court system, instead of the individual taking action against the criminal, the state now does it.

My only complaint is that it takes to long for the execution to take place.

[Guest]

Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

[Guest]

Honest people would admit that Perry was not "proud"of carrying out the executions, but rather that he obeyed and upheld the laws Texas has put in place......as is his sworn duty.

[Guest]

Honest people would admit that Perry was not "proud"of carrying out the executions, but rather that he obeyed and upheld the laws Texas has put in place......as is his sworn duty.
:bigbow:

[Guest]

And what makes you want to believe that it was only Republicans that applauded?
We know it makes it easier for some to have everybody and everything in one box or the other or with an R or a D...except that ain't the reality.....THANK GOD!!!

Capital punishment...one is either for it or against it......not for political or religious stands...

btk

[Guest]

Liberals think it is alright to murder babies, but do not believe it is alright to murder killers. Liberals think it is normal to kill 45,000,000 babies, but it is not right to kill a murderer. Wow, what great thinking.:ohdear:

[Guest]

Liberals think it is alright to murder babies, but do not believe it is alright to murder killers. Liberals think it is normal to kill 45,000,000 babies, but it is not right to kill a murderer. Wow, what great thinking.:ohdear:

C'mon VG, you know they're "just a collection of cells".

[Guest]

One if the upcoming executions in the state of Texas is going to be Lawrence Russell Brewer. Buggy, I would not object to this man being aborted from his prison cell in the same manner a late-term abortion is performed. A pliers-like instrument is used because the Brewer’s bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for Brewer. The abortionist inserts the instrument up into the prison cell, seizes a leg or other part of the body, and, with a twisting motion, tears it from Brewer's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_18.asp#What%20are%20sec ond%20trimester%20ones?


Summary of incident that led to Brewer's death sentence:

Brewer was convicted in the murder of a black male occurring on 06/07/98. The offense involved Brewer and two co-defendants torturing and killing a 49-year old handicapped black male during the nighttime hours, in rural Jasper County, Texas. The victim was observed in the back of a pickup truck occupied by Brewer and his co-defendants. This was the last occasion the victim was seen alive by persons other than Brewer and his co-defendants. Brewer and his co-defendants drove to an isolated spot on a logging road where they beat and tormented the victim, then tied him to a logging chain, which was hooked to the pickup truck. Brewer and his co-defendants then dragged the victim to his death, leaving his decapitated and dismembered body to be found the following day by citizens and law enforcement officials. It was argued in court that Brewer and his co-defendants engaged in this criminal act, in part, due to their racially separatist affiliation with the Confederate Knights of America and the Ku Klux Klan. Brewer and one co-defendant were documented members of the Confederate Knights of Americaand a large number of Ku Klux Klan and other racial separatist organization paraphernalia was discovered in a residence occupied by the three.




http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

[Guest]

C'mon VG, you know they're "just a collection of cells".

I am totally in favor of the death penalty. THERE, now you guys can not say ALL liberals are against it. Many liberals support the death penalty.

[Guest]

Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

Does this mean that all killing is bad? Self defense? Protecting your family? WHOEVER sheds human blood..." I don't think so. How does this line up with an eye for an eye? Is there more to this passage?

[Guest]

Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

If you read that very carefully, what is said is that if a human (man, women, etc.,) sheds your blood, then you can shed theirs, for you are made in the image of G-d and have the right to protect yourself and your family. In the old days, that also included your possessions.

[Guest]

If you read that very carefully, what is said is that if a human (man, women, etc.,) sheds your blood, then you can shed theirs, for you are made in the image of G-d and have the right to protect yourself and your family. In the old days, that also included your possessions.

Thanks for clarifying the passage

[Guest]

Liberals think it is alright to murder babies, but do not believe it is alright to murder killers. Liberals think it is normal to kill 45,000,000 babies, but it is not right to kill a murderer. Wow, what great thinking.:ohdear:

Blanket statement and generalization. Just like all white folk Tea Party members are racists. All Jews are cheap. Blacks will rob and rape you....

All life is sacred. We are made in His image and likeness.

[Guest]

Blanket statement and generalization. Just like all white folk Tea Party members are racists. All Jews are cheap. Blacks will rob and rape you....

All life is sacred. We are made in His image and likeness.

Too bad that blanket statements come from both sides of the spectrum too.
Of course, I couldn't agree more with your statement that ALL LIFE IS SACRED! We ARE made in His image and likeness! How wonderful is that!:laugh:

[Guest]

the great George Carlin has a 10 minute monologue titled Religion is Bull...t. Greta stuff,you all should watch it. Just google carlin religion is............

[Guest]

the great George Carlin has a 10 minute monologue titled Religion is Bull...t. Greta stuff,you all should watch it. Just google carlin religion is............

I never met a person who was right in the head that said Carlin was great. Mediocre at best.

[Guest]

we disagree again.

[Guest]

Carlin's dissertation is offered to validate what???????????????
He spews vile commentary to get the dolts to laugh...he would turn in his grave if he heard anybody was offering one of his rants as a validation of anything.

btk

[Guest]

The person being executed has been found guilty beyonf doubt of a heinous crime, usually murder. They are not innocent.

Abortion kills an innocent child. one whose only "crime" was inconvenience. He/she was not given a fair trial, right to appeal, etc.

You can be sure that Brian Williams would not ask a Democrat candidate if he/she could rest easy after allowing abortion.

[Guest]

I never met a person who was right in the head that said Carlin was great. Mediocre at best.

Carlin was a genius.

[Guest]

1) If you're quoting Genesis - I thought Jesus instituted a new covenant? (hence the reasons Christians can eat lobster and have cotton-polyester shirts)

2) I sincerely believe that there are crimes that one can commit that are so heinous they forfeit their right to life.

[Guest]

1) If you're quoting Genesis - I thought Jesus instituted a new covenant? (hence the reasons Christians can eat lobster and have cotton-polyester shirts)

2) I sincerely believe that there are crimes that one can commit that are so heinous they forfeit their right to life.

Well, now two of us "liberals" have stated support for the death penalty. Do ya think they will stop saying liberals don't support it?

[Guest]

Well, now two of us "liberals" have stated support for the death penalty. Do ya think they will stop saying liberals don't support it?

The majority of so-called liberals, do not support the death penalty but do support the killing of unborn innocent children.

[Guest]

The person being executed has been found guilty beyonf doubt of a heinous crime, usually murder. They are not innocent.

Abortion kills an innocent child. one whose only "crime" was inconvenience. He/she was not given a fair trial, right to appeal, etc.

You can be sure that Brian Williams would not ask a Democrat candidate if he/she could rest easy after allowing abortion.

:bigbow:...ya'll had to see that coming:laugh:

[Guest]

The person being executed has been found guilty beyonf doubt of a heinous crime, usually murder. They are not innocent.

Abortion kills an innocent child. one whose only "crime" was inconvenience. He/she was not given a fair trial, right to appeal, etc.

You can be sure that Brian Williams would not ask a Democrat candidate if he/she could rest easy after allowing abortion.

You got THAT one right!!!!

[Guest]

Here's a novel idea. Take sex out of the dark, actually teach useful information on how to have sex without getting PG and, Oh my, we solve the abortion problem.

[Guest]

Here's a novel idea. Take sex out of the dark, actually teach useful information on how to have sex without getting PG and, Oh my, we solve the abortion problem.

As long as you're mindful of parental rights, nobody would have a problem with your idea.

[Guest]

Care to define that? ...the parental rights, I mean.

And I'll give you a situation that actually happened to me and ask how your definition of parental rights would handle it.

Friend of mine was in her teen years - out of school, I forget the EXACT year. She was taking a walk with a male friend through the woods. The sat down for a while chatting, etc. When she came home, her mother was angry at her when she saw a piece of a leaf in her hair (she had butt-length blonde hair). She immediately accused my friend of sleeping with the guy she'd taken a walk with. This wasn't true in the least. After a bit of arguing, she told her daughter to take the trash out. So, my friend did that and was surprised to discover she'd been locked out of the house.

She was wearing nothing but a light shirt and skirt - barefoot. It was fall and the evening was going to get rather chilly. Her mother refused to open the door and was rcontinuing to rail on how she was SURE her daughter was sleeping around.

I know about this because my wife and I took her in that night.

Stories like these get around and I honestly believe that's how some kids get TOO scared of parental reactions to things. They hear about what is, to them, unthinkable, and it plants doubts in their minds.

[Guest]

Care to define that? ...the parental rights, I mean.

And I'll give you a situation that actually happened to me and ask how your definition of parental rights would handle it.

Friend of mine was in her teen years - out of school, I forget the EXACT year. She was taking a walk with a male friend through the woods. The sat down for a while chatting, etc. When she came home, her mother was angry at her when she saw a piece of a leaf in her hair (she had butt-length blonde hair). She immediately accused my friend of sleeping with the guy she'd taken a walk with. This wasn't true in the least. After a bit of arguing, she told her daughter to take the trash out. So, my friend did that and was surprised to discover she'd been locked out of the house.

She was wearing nothing but a light shirt and skirt - barefoot. It was fall and the evening was going to get rather chilly. Her mother refused to open the door and was rcontinuing to rail on how she was SURE her daughter was sleeping around.

I know about this because my wife and I took her in that night.

Stories like these get around and I honestly believe that's how some kids get TOO scared of parental reactions to things. They hear about what is, to them, unthinkable, and it plants doubts in their minds.

We can't erase the parental rights of parents because your neighbor is an idiot. Because of her idiot mother, do you think the authorities that be, should just ignore you and take over the custody of your children?

[Guest]

We can't erase the parental rights of parents because your neighbor is an idiot. Because of her idiot mother, do you think the authorities that be, should just ignore you and take over the custody of your children?

Taking custody of one's children is not the issue. The issue is, in this context, educating kids about birth control. I would venture to say that right leaning parents would be more likely to NOT give consent to educating their kids in school. Abstinence is best for kids, but come on, that does not work too well. So, its either teach them how not to get pregnant in the first place or deal with the consequences. I would rather teach them, in an age appropriate way. Kids these days are WAY more sexualized then they were when I was a kid. Kids are having sex younger and younger and girls are beginning to mensturate earlier and earlier. Its like a perfect storm brewing.

[Guest]

Taking custody of one's children is not the issue. The issue is, in this context, educating kids about birth control. I would venture to say that right leaning parents would be more likely to NOT give consent to educating their kids in school. Abstinence is best for kids, but come on, that does not work too well. So, its either teach them how not to get pregnant in the first place or deal with the consequences. I would rather teach them, in an age appropriate way. Kids these days are WAY more sexualized then they were when I was a kid. Kids are having sex younger and younger and girls are beginning to mensturate earlier and earlier. Its like a perfect storm brewing.

OK, so you think you know better that other parents who might want to raise their children in a different atmosphere. So, do you think you have the right to supersede their parental rights because you're so much more sophisticated and more enlightened?

[Guest]

Richie: You didn't answer my question - but I understand you got sidetracked by my example.

What I asked was if you would define, in YOUR opinion, 'parental rights'.

[Guest]

In the medical arena, the parent of a patient under the age of 18 yrs must give consent to treat before the medical personnel can even touch the patient. Parental rights also includes parental responsibilities.

[Guest]

Richie: You didn't answer my question - but I understand you got sidetracked by my example.

What I asked was if you would define, in YOUR opinion, 'parental rights'.

We both know the definition of parental rights. To supersede them you must go to court and prove your case of negligence, which is what you're implying by your post and your example. That is the only fair way to proceed.

A bunch of intellectuals sitting in a room and deciding that the poor unwashed have no business raising children is abhorrent.

[Guest]

We both know the definition of parental rights. To supersede them you must go to court and prove your case of negligence, which is what you're implying by your post and your example. That is the only fair way to proceed.

A bunch of intellectuals sitting in a room and deciding that the poor unwashed have no business raising children is abhorrent.

That was the premise which Margaret Sanger presented when she wrote her book "The Pivot of Civilization". She went on to found Planned Parenthood. She also advocated sterilization of poor unwashed people, and lots of legal abortions for those that got that far. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/

[Guest]

Taking custody of one's children is not the issue. The issue is, in this context, educating kids about birth control. I would venture to say that right leaning parents would be more likely to NOT give consent to educating their kids in school. Abstinence is best for kids, but come on, that does not work too well. So, its either teach them how not to get pregnant in the first place or deal with the consequences. I would rather teach them, in an age appropriate way. Kids these days are WAY more sexualized then they were when I was a kid. Kids are having sex younger and younger and girls are beginning to mensturate earlier and earlier. Its like a perfect storm brewing.

What a bunch of boloney. When I was a teenager,my friends and I were as "sexualized" as the generation before me and the generation after me.

Is " sexualized" even a real word?:ohdear:

[Guest]

We both know the definition of parental rights. To supersede them you must go to court and prove your case of negligence, which is what you're implying by your post and your example. That is the only fair way to proceed.

A bunch of intellectuals sitting in a room and deciding that the poor unwashed have no business raising children is abhorrent.

Well I was asking for an idea of how big your tent was when it came to that.

The reason I supplied the example was to ask you how your opinion of parental rights would deal with the sample situation.

There was an old saying about sex education in schools. The gist was that the kids who NEEDED to be taught that in schools were the ones who weren't getting the education form the parents - who were most likely to be the parents objecting to the school teaching it.

I certainly see the problem in trying to figure out "who decides" when it's time for someone else (not necessarily the state - could be a relative) takes over.

[Guest]

Well I was asking for an idea of how big your tent was when it came to that.

The reason I supplied the example was to ask you how your opinion of parental rights would deal with the sample situation.

There was an old saying about sex education in schools. The gist was that the kids who NEEDED to be taught that in schools were the ones who weren't getting the education form the parents - who were most likely to be the parents objecting to the school teaching it.

I certainly see the problem in trying to figure out "who decides" when it's time for someone else (not necessarily the state - could be a relative) takes over.

What would you do as a parent if the "right wing religious Bible thumping zealots" controlled the schools and made those choices for the parents?

[Guest]

OK, so you think you know better that other parents who might want to raise their children in a different atmosphere. So, do you think you have the right to supersede their parental rights because you're so much more sophisticated and more enlightened?

You mean like home school them? That's fine. You think kids are not going to talk about what they were told in those public school classes? Of course they will. I am a realist. That is what will happen. You want them to hear it from an educator or on the street? You could certainly prepare them for the class and inject whatever religious or personal sentiments you have about the issue. BUT biology is biology and sexual plumbing is what it is. FACTS are what I want kids to learn. Morality is up to the parents.

[Guest]

Go back and read Aristotle. One of his writings alludes to the ruination of the future generations because of the lack of respect for parents and discipline by the younger generation.

It is magnified today by the increasingly permissive, pacifist, politically correct, linguine spined population of today, supported by a media and judicial sytem that lacks any and all credibility to ever do what is right.

btk

[Guest]

Well I was asking for an idea of how big your tent was when it came to that.

The reason I supplied the example was to ask you how your opinion of parental rights would deal with the sample situation.

There was an old saying about sex education in schools. The gist was that the kids who NEEDED to be taught that in schools were the ones who weren't getting the education form the parents - who were most likely to be the parents objecting to the school teaching it.

I certainly see the problem in trying to figure out "who decides" when it's time for someone else (not necessarily the state - could be a relative) takes over.

OK, and if you thought that child at risk, or neglected, you know who in social services to talk to. I'm sure of that. That's the only right way to handle that situation, unless you had the fortitude to confront her parents yourself.

It's the wholesale confiscation of time honored parental rights by intellectuals who "know better" than everyone else how children should be raised that raises the hackles for me.

[Guest]

How about Michelle Bachmann saying that the government has no right to demand that school age children are vaccinated for communicable diseases before attending school? She says it should be up to the parents to decide.

Thoughts like that can bring back the polio epidemics that we had in the 1950's or even some disease like smallpox.

[Guest]

It's the wholesale confiscation of time honored parental rights by intellectuals who "know better" than everyone else how children should be raised that raises the hackles for me.[/QUOTE]

Well, to kind of level the field, my hackles are raised by people who want to impose their religious views on everyone else on every possible subject, including child raising/education. Do you think the relgious folk know better then a trained professional? Two sides to every issue.

Like I said, morality is up to the family...the facts of procreation are FACTS. Knowledge is power. You have no idea how many young girls I worked with who believed you could not get pregnant the first time you had sex or that STDs were something only skanks got.

I always told the kids that people are different, religious beliefs are different, but you have to respect others points of view. Different does not mean better or worse. It means different. You have to be accepting of differences, until they try to ram their ideas down your throat and treat you with no respect.

Given the state of many youth these days, their parents did not do such a great job. I can not believe what I hear out of parents mouths these days..the language I would not ever use in public to another adult, let alone a child. I used to intervene when I saw parents abusing their children in public, but that never ended well. Any adult who would assault a child has little behavioral control with adults. I stopped intervening directly, but I would call 911 and ask for police intervention. A child should not be struck repeatedly in the head for dropping an ice cream cone. So, you know what, sometimes parents should have NO rights.

Sorry this kind of rambled all over the place....

[Guest]

What would you do as a parent if the "right wing religious Bible thumping zealots" controlled the schools and made those choices for the parents?

Join a groundswell group to have the laws challenged and thrown out as unconstitutional - though it's highly likely that things would never get that far.

In point of fact, this is EXACTLY what happened in Merrimack NH (two towns over from where I live) where some stealth creationists got onto the local school board. The uproar startd talk of recall petitions and many other things. While I don't remember exactly how it was all resolved, I *do* know that those radical board members didn't stay on the board.

That being said, again, I'm asking about "what parental rights" should go "how far".

It's a real grey area when you get to sex education and reproductive health - I'm not denying that one bit. In *most* cases, the laws aren't necessary as parents USUALLY do the right thing. But the law isn't there to protect "most cases". Laws exist when people start coloring outside the lines.

It's dangerous territory. My own birth mother made a *horribly* erroneous leap of illogic when she took something that my then-4+-year-old-daughter did and assumed it meant that she was being sexually abused at the kindergarten we sent her to.

Imagine what would have happened if she reported her suspicions to the authorities.

In a perfect world, only the unfit parents would have their kids go behind their backs. Of course, in a perfect world we wouldn't have unfit parents.

[Guest]

You mean like home school them? That's fine. You think kids are not going to talk about what they were told in those public school classes? Of course they will. I am a realist. That is what will happen. You want them to hear it from an educator or on the street? You could certainly prepare them for the class and inject whatever religious or personal sentiments you have about the issue. BUT biology is biology and sexual plumbing is what it is. FACTS are what I want kids to learn. Morality is up to the parents.

We were taught he basics of human physiology when I was in school, but that's not was Dplong and the others are discussing. I have no problem with the school sticking with the science. After that, they're out of bounds.

[Guest]

Richie: (and I'm really glad this is staying civil) With your opinion parental rights, how should that be affected by kids who think things like:

1) You can't get pregnant the first time
2) You can't get pregnant "doing it standing up"
3) You can get pregnant by kissing.

...or.. one of my favorites, and an otherwise intelligent peer of mine actually thought this back in 1979:

4) Urinating and taking a bath afterwards is an effective form of birth control.

It is *astounding* the kinds of misinformation that is out there.

[Guest]

Richie: (and I'm really glad this is staying civil) With your opinion parental rights, how should that be affected by kids who think things like:

1) You can't get pregnant the first time
2) You can't get pregnant "doing it standing up"
3) You can get pregnant by kissing.

...or.. one of my favorites, and an otherwise intelligent peer of mine actually thought this back in 1979:

4) Urinating and taking a bath afterwards is an effective form of birth control.

It is *astounding* the kinds of misinformation that is out there.

I heard most of those things when I was a kid and survived it pretty well. (of course, as a male, the info wasn't as critical)

The basic health courses we had when I was young covered most of that pretty well, in the sense that the causes and effects of reproduction were in the curriculum, but of course what your friends said carried a lot of weight also.

Teachers should ask for questions and answer them with the child's age in mind. If the question seems a little sophisticated for the age of the child, a teacher should delve into that a little more privately and maybe bring the parents into the conversation if warranted.

Teacher's need to stick to the age appropriate science. (I hope we don't have to get into a long analysis of what that means. It should be common sensical)

[Guest]

Good posting, Richie. I agree with you.

On the part where you say that the teacher would ask if students had questions that were not covered in the basic health class, I also agree that if the questions seemed too advanced for a child that age, that the teacher should go into it privately. It may mean that child is sexually active and needs counseling from someone they are comfortable speaking with if the parent is not available or approachable.

[Guest]

I heard most of those things when I was a kid and survived it pretty well. (of course, as a male, the info wasn't as critical)

The basic health courses we had when I was young covered most of that pretty well, in the sense that the causes and effects of reproduction were in the curriculum, but of course what your friends said carried a lot of weight also.

Teachers should ask for questions and answer them with the child's age in mind. If the question seems a little sophisticated for the age of the child, a teacher should delve into that a little more privately and maybe bring the parents into the conversation if warranted.

Teacher's need to stick to the age appropriate science. (I hope we don't have to get into a long analysis of what that means. It should be common sensical)

Your post says a lot. Some I agree with.. But "..as a male the info wasn't as critical"?!?!? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain that because that's one of the problems we have with teen pregnancy - the guys thinking it's not really as mcuh THEIR problem as it is a FEMALE's problem.

Now, I had "health" classes in NYC in the 5th grade and we knew all the TECHNICAL stuff about reproduction - but EVERY kid in the class (from when we talked about it later) had the same question.. "What are the man and woman doing during all this?"

Now, about asking question, I have no argument with you there.. This is part of what I was asking about earlier for you to clarify your stand on 'parental rights'. There are those in the 'parental rights' group who don't want such subjects even *mentioned*.

[Guest]

Your post says a lot. Some I agree with.. But "..as a male the info wasn't as critical"?!?!? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain that because that's one of the problems we have with teen pregnancy - the guys thinking it's not really as mcuh THEIR problem as it is a FEMALE's problem.

Now, I had "health" classes in NYC in the 5th grade and we knew all the TECHNICAL stuff about reproduction - but EVERY kid in the class (from when we talked about it later) had the same question.. "What are the man and woman doing during all this?"

Now, about asking question, I have no argument with you there.. This is part of what I was asking about earlier for you to clarify your stand on 'parental rights'. There are those in the 'parental rights' group who don't want such subjects even *mentioned*.

"as a male.......": I only meant in the end, acting on any misinformation has a more palpable meaning to a female, ultimately.

"asking questions": I don't think the school should take on human sexuality in anything more than in a scientific application. I was referring to questions initiated by the student. The teacher will have to deal with that in a responsible and age appropriate way as I indicated in an above posting. This applies to your hypothetical 5th graders.

[Guest]

I assure you, Richie, we were not "hypothetical" 5th graders. It was my 5th grade class at P.S. 55 on Staten Island in New York City.

But I do appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

For what it's worth, none of us had the guts to ask the teacher the questions we had. We knew enough to pass the tests and that was the end of it. Of course, I'm only speaking for the guys in the class - not a lot of gender co-mingling there.