Why do men like to kill men?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...women's business.

It's not "women's business", because a) a man is involved in every case, b) a child is the primary person harmed in the action.

It's no more "woman's business" than it would be if a woman strangled somebody with a rope or hired an assassin to kills someone.

In fact, the latter is exactly what it is.

It's none of your business. Having a fuck is hardly being 'involved'. Do you feel responsible for every prostitute you've used the services of?

[Immanuel Can]

It's none of your business.

Human rights are everyone's "business." And the right to life is the first of all rights.

[Greatest I am]

It's none of your business.

Human rights are everyone's "business." And the right to life is the first of all rights.

Rights are meaningless, just like laws are, if there is no enforcement.

At present, the law of the land is better than your genocidal god's law.

If you had to live under Yahweh's laws, you would crave secular law.

Regards
DL

[RCSaunders]

The right to mate is at the root of our love of killing and war. It is our first instinct after survival.

Human beings do not have instinct. Only non-human animals have instinct. Instinct and minds are mutually exclusive--what has instinct does not have a mind, what has a mind does not have instinct. Only you can determine which you have.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The right to mate is at the root of our love of killing and war. It is our first instinct after survival.

Human beings do not have instinct. Only non-human animals have instinct. Instinct and minds are mutually exclusive--what has instinct does not have a mind, what has a mind does not have instinct. Only you can determine which you have.

What a stupid comment.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's none of your business.

Human rights are everyone's "business." And the right to life is the first of all rights.

What a stupid comment.

[Immanuel Can]

Rights are meaningless, just like laws are, if there is no enforcement.

They remain rights, even if society does not enforce them -- just as the Jews remained human, even when Hitler said they weren't, and even if his society agreed.

What it means, if there's no enforcement of human rights, is that you're living in a corrupt society...not that the rights don't exist, but that the government is too venial to care that they do, and are violating those rights.

Just as the Nazis did.

[Immanuel Can]

It's none of your business.

Human rights are everyone's "business." And the right to life is the first of all rights.

What a stupid comment.

You're keener on the rights of the dead?

If being alive isn't a right, then it's quite obvious that there are no rights.

Dead people certainly don't have any.

[RCSaunders]

I honestly can't see what point you think you're making.

Because you intentionally left it out (or are being intentionally obtuse).

What I originally wrote was, "There are things worse then death!" To which you responded

For a healthy baby? I really don't think there are.

So I provided examples of things that happen to Babies all the time that were horribly worse than just never having been born.

Baby Died With 96 Bones Broken, Parents Face Criminal Charges

Mother taken to jail after infant dies with broken bones, extensive burns

Baby Brianna's Story: 5 Month Old Baby Raped, Beaten, Murdered.... By her Parent's & Uncle[/quote]

And to that you had the gall to say, "I'm not seeing your argument here, RC?" Only a very cruel saddest could really think it was better to be born to nothing but suffering months of sheer terror and torment and horrible death than to never have been born.

Then, because I know how you intentionlly evade the obvious, I emphasized, "But I wasn't talking about babies, ..." and was only illustrating that there are some things worse than death, and much worse than never being born.

It can't be, "children are sometimes abused," so they should be killed. That would be absurd. So it's not that.

What is it, then? It can't be "children who are put up for adoption are worse off than dead," because you only cite cases of mothers abusing their own children. You don't even suggest that the 35 sets of parents waiting to adopt every healthy infant available are guilty of any of these crimes.

It can't be "there are things worse than dying," because there's an infinite list of such things...having your hand in a meat grinder, getting lung cancer, eating a live toad without any ketchup, having to vote for Bernie Sanders...Yet we do not choose to die out of fear that maybe, just maybe one of them will happen to us.

You know what it is IC, because you quoted me. "You have this fixation on abortion..." but you left off the question, "but you never make the point of what you propose should be done about it? You just keep repeating how awful abortion is."

Why is it abortion that so excites you? If they aren't your children and the woman isn't your wife, it's just none of your business. Of course you ought to have your opinion of whether abortion is right or wrong, and if you know it's wrong, you should never be a party to it. And there is nothing wrong with pointing out to those who are interested what a horrible experience abortion is, primarily for the woman who, for whatever reason, feels compelled to makes such a choice. To imply that a woman has an abortion because she, "does not want any of her children to be happy without her," and that "... she'd rather have them dead," is nothing but a hateful judgment that is not your place to make. Let him that is without sin cast the first aspersion. What happen to christian charity and forgiveness?

So I ask again, why is it abortion that so excites you? In 1017 there were 862,320 abortions in the United States. Annually there are 7.5 million child abuse reports, 4.1 child maltreatment reports, and 3.2 million children who received abuse treatment. It can't be that you believe abortion is the worst thing that is happening to children. If you think an unborn fetus is a child, abortion is just a small portion of child abuse.

So your not be able to pretend you don't understand the important question. What exactly do you think should be done about abortion?

Do you think there should be laws against abortion?

If there are, do you think women who have abortions should be punished?

If you do, what kind of punishment would you advocate?

There are other questions, but we'll wait to see if you answer these. And just because I want to save you from violating the ninth commandment, I am not advocating abortion.

[Greatest I am]

The right to mate is at the root of our love of killing and war. It is our first instinct after survival.

Human beings do not have instinct. Only non-human animals have instinct. Instinct and minds are mutually exclusive--what has instinct does not have a mind, what has a mind does not have instinct. Only you can determine which you have.

All sentient life has instincts. In humans, the suckling and grasping ones come to mind.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The right to mate is at the root of our love of killing and war. It is our first instinct after survival.

Human beings do not have instinct. Only non-human animals have instinct. Instinct and minds are mutually exclusive--what has instinct does not have a mind, what has a mind does not have instinct. Only you can determine which you have.

What a stupid comment.

I agree but tried to be more diplomatic.

I am trying to train my net bully side.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

And to that you had the gall to say, "I'm not seeing your argument here, RC?"

Yep.

You're missing the point, RC. There are plenty of things in life that are bad. Some are truly horrible. But all that's totally irrelevant, because being dead is the worst of them all. People recover from all sorts of suffering...but they never recover from death.

Moreover, the real choice, in the case of the violence women do to their unborn children, being dismembered by an abortionist or instead suffering any of the things you list. It's between being killed by an abortionist, torn apart and flushed down a sink, on the one hand, or having a life with one of the many adoptive families waiting to receive a child.

You know what it is IC, because you quoted me. "You have this fixation on abortion..." but you left off the question, "but you never make the point of what you propose should be done about it? You just keep repeating how awful abortion is."

Oh. I'll answer that now.

Adoption.

Why is it abortion that so excites you?

What is it about killing babies that fails to upset you, RC?

If they aren't your children and the woman isn't your wife, it's just none of your business.

Human rights are everybody's business.

To imply that a woman has an abortion because she, "does not want any of her children to be happy without her," and that "... she'd rather have them dead," is nothing but a hateful judgment that is not your place to make.

You're only upset because I call out the actual motive they have. There's no other reason why someone would rather kill their baby than see it happy with an adoptive family.

However, all these discussions are missing the main point. The OP says "men like to kill men." The "why" suggests that's unreasonable, and that women do not have the same problem. But they do.

As for the stuff at the end about the relationship between abortion and the criminal justice system, I have no jurisdiction. I am neither in a position to make policy nor to enforce laws. However, what I am advocating is a very positive alternative: that women STOP killing their babies, and give them up to the multitude of waiting adoptive families.

And I would think that was a position you could get behind; because it's respectful of the right to life, and because the alternative is truly ethically unconscionable.

[Greatest I am]

Rights are meaningless, just like laws are, if there is no enforcement.

They remain rights, even if society does not enforce them -- just as the Jews remained human, even when Hitler said they weren't, and even if his society agreed.

What it means, if there's no enforcement of human rights, is that you're living in a corrupt society...not that the rights don't exist, but that the government is too venial to care that they do, and are violating those rights.

Just as the Nazis did.

By that definition, the U.S. and all so called civilized countries are corrupt as we all have street dwellers who die of exposure because their right to life has been screwed by governments that impose poverty via the tax system that does not insure them a minimum living wage.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

By that definition, the U.S. and all so called civilized countries are corrupt...

In regards to their abortion laws?

Darn right, they're corrupt.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And to that you had the gall to say, "I'm not seeing your argument here, RC?"

Yep.

You're missing the point, RC. There are plenty of things in life that are bad. Some are truly horrible. But all that's totally irrelevant, because being dead is the worst of them all. People recover from all sorts of suffering...but they never recover from death.

Moreover, the real choice, in the case of the violence women do to their unborn children, being dismembered by an abortionist or instead suffering any of the things you list. It's between being killed by an abortionist, torn apart and flushed down a sink, on the one hand, or having a life with one of the many adoptive families waiting to receive a child.

You know what it is IC, because you quoted me. "You have this fixation on abortion..." but you left off the question, "but you never make the point of what you propose should be done about it? You just keep repeating how awful abortion is."

Oh. I'll answer that now.

Adoption.

Why is it abortion that so excites you?

What is it about killing babies that fails to upset you, RC?

If they aren't your children and the woman isn't your wife, it's just none of your business.

Human rights are everybody's business.

To imply that a woman has an abortion because she, "does not want any of her children to be happy without her," and that "... she'd rather have them dead," is nothing but a hateful judgment that is not your place to make.

You're only upset because I call out the actual motive they have. There's no other reason why someone would rather kill their baby than see it happy with an adoptive family.

However, all these discussions are missing the main point. The OP says "men like to kill men." The "why" suggests that's unreasonable, and that women do not have the same problem. But they do.

As for the stuff at the end about the relationship between abortion and the criminal justice system, I have no jurisdiction. I am neither in a position to make policy nor to enforce laws. However, what I am advocating is a very positive alternative: that women STOP killing their babies, and give them up to the multitude of waiting adoptive families.

And I would think that was a position you could get behind; because it's respectful of the right to life, and because the alternative is truly ethically unconscionable.

Cancer has a 'right to life' too.