AJ,

The retrospective abortion penny dropped?

I'm all for abortion when it is necessary but not for it when it is used merely as a matter of convenience, I along with the State believe that the unborn have rights.

As for the death penalty it stops re-offending and saves much public money that could be used for useful purposes.
The murderers of Anita Cobby have cost at least one country hospital, possibly more.
It may be a deterrent but that is hard to prove, if not impossible, however it is a punishment and in the instance above, would have been a well deserved one.

Josephus,

There is a difference between bombing a combatant enemy and executing one’s own civilian. But I’ve been through all that several times before.

Your pro-life/pro-death position is a contradiction.

Is Mise,

Has the no-one-has-the-right-to-use-someone-else's-body-for-their-survival and the consent-to-sex-is-not-consent-to-pregnancy penny dropped yet?

<<I'm all for abortion when it is necessary but not for it when it is used merely as a matter of convenience, I along with the State believe that the unborn have rights.>>

This does not negate any of my points. They all still stand regardless of whether or not abortion is used for convenience.

<<As for the death penalty it stops re-offending and saves much public money that could be used for useful purposes.>>

Yes, yes, we’ve already been through this on other threads (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6830&page=0, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17371&page=0). There are other sentencing aims and procedures other than incapacitation and there are also major drawback to the death penalty.

<<It may be a deterrent but that is hard to prove, if not impossible...>>

No, it’s actually fairly easy and the evidence heavily weighted towards the argument that it’s not a deterrence.

So, your pro-life/pro-death position is also a contradiction.

I think you and Josephus could benefit from this little bit of wisdom from George carlin: http://youtu.be/AvF1Q3UidWM?t=20

Here’s the first verse of a poem I think you’d like too...

Jesus loves the little zygotes,
All the little zygotes of the world,
Jesus loves then ‘til they’re born,
Then abandons them forlorn,
Jesus love the little zygotes of the world...

I just thought too, Is Mise, your point about the State apparently agreeing with you is fairly irrelevant given that politicians are required to put a religious bent on their stance, whenever possible, to retain a certain amount of votes since atheists are more willing to vote for religious politicians than religious voters are willing to vote for atheist politicians. The religious are more likely to boycott since non-believers are used to religion getting a free ride and won’t chuck such a tanty over the religious getting their way because, historically, they usually have anyway.

Then there’s the issue of census figures being skewed because there are many non-believers checking-off the religion that they were born into even though they are don’t believe in the nonsense anymore and nor do they attend church ever. They may never have even attended church with their parents and yet they check off, say, ‘Lutheran’ on the census form because that’s the class they were put in for RE at school.

If we had a plebiscite on free-for-all abortions, I’d be willing to bet everything I owned that an overwhelming majority would vote for it. Appealing to the State’s pandering to a more rigid, unforgiving and zealous minority doesn’t do much to strengthen your argument.

Anyway, I know what your position is, however, I’d be more interested in a justification for it. And I mean a justification beyond a fallacious, 'The State agrees with me.' The best you’ve done so far is contradict yourself by agreeing with me that no-one has the right to use someone else’s body to survive, and then claim that unborn children, human babies with feeling and consciousness and adorable little button noses, have rights too.

What we need to do is start having respect for international law.
That means NO-ONES ALLOWED in Syria or Iraq without an invitation from their elected governments.

And right now neither government wants the West anywhere near the place.

We cant have nations making laws and then breaking them when it suits them.

US is trying to start a war with Russia.
There's no way Turkey shot that plane down without US intel and NATO approval, and the US did send F16C's to Incirlik in October meaning US preemptively intended to counter the Russians.

(Not sure if Kiev is planning on invading Crimea also.)

I'd say the US was well aware there were oil and arms transactions occurring over the Turkish border, and they intended to try to start a conflict with Russia, by trying to get him to respond militarily in which case Turkey could invoke NATO Article 5.

I wonder what Obama's Oval Office address will be about today.
Will he take the guns or invade Syria?

Obviously the OP did what it was intended to do, to divert the attention away from Islam onto other religions to muddy the waters, minimise and share the blame.

The atrocities keep coming though.

Hitchens was right,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tN75e5gtw4

on the beach wrote:

"Obviously the OP did what it was intended to do, to divert the attention away from Islam onto other religions to muddy the waters, minimise and share the blame."

Dear onthebeach,

I started this string. My intention in starting this string was to point out my view that faith is not a virtue and is just another form of gullibility.