gadgetlady

I guess that's an apology?

Nope, once again you're wrong. Perhaps you're writing too quickly. How about here: I DID say early on I wasn't for capital punishment, but I never said it was because it was or wasn't a deterrent. What a joke. "What I want you to THINK I believe." Like I said, if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Now you're accusing me of being disingenuous. I have said all along that I am against capital punishment, in this and other threads. That doesn't mean that studies about the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment should be suppressed. I thought the new study was an interesting read, regardless of my position on the matter. I don't believe in only reading or posting studies that only support my position. Next time you decide to go accusing me of something just because I'm me, or because you ASSUME you know what I believe, why don't you read what I've said about it first. http://www.lapbandtalk.com/479781-post50.html

I have never, ever said I was against capital punishment because it wasn't a deterrent. In fact, that's not why I'm against it -- so I wouldn't have said it. You're putting words in my mouth and then assuming from there that I must have an agenda. I do NOT have an agenda and I do NOT base my feelings about capital punishment on the presence or lack of a deterrent effect. Show me where I said I'm against capital punishment because of the lack of a deterrent effect, please. If you don't want to waste your time, don't go back and look because you will not find it. What's happening here is you're being just plain contrary: if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Period.

LOL! It's your logic I don't follow. I posted an article I thought was an interesting read because it applied to this subject. You said there was nothing in the article that said the death penalty was a deterrent. I posted some things that did. You said there were rebuttal arguments. I said there always are rebuttal arguments, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to the original article or the studies represented therein. Throughout the whole thing, you accused me of having an agenda, which I don't. But I guess when it comes to you, everything I do is agenda-based. So be it. I'm sure I must have had some sort of agenda which is even news to me.

Given that there are studies to support just about every position on earth, I guess we just shouldn't believe in anything and there's no reason to read.

I found this one particularly interesting because of the quote: “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?” Do you really think ALL the results will ever be in? There will always be competing statistics and studies.

I'm not on any fence. I posted the article because I thought it was interesting and because I've never read any studies that said the death penalty was a deterrent. Of course there are parts of the article that disagree -- that's a given in the media -- they always try to present the other side of anything. Your statement "Nothing in that article would lead one to believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime" is why I posted the excerpts. Of course you can choose to believe whichever study or expert you want, but the article does in fact point out that there ARE studies which point to a deterrent effect.

You're way off base. I don't support the death penalty and I don't have an agenda here. I just said this was an interesting article -- certainly knowledge is never a bad thing, even if it leads you to conclusions you don't like. There were points on both sides, but the whole gist of the article was that studies have been done that say it is a deterrent, which is contrary to what most people have said over the years.

Huh? From the article: What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer. and “Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.” and “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?” There are more quotes and statistics, but that's pretty much the vibe of the whole article.

I just read an article with new studies indicating the death penalty is a deterrent: Studies spur new death penalty debate - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

Unfortunately, everyone I've offered it to has either aborted or chosen to give their baby life and keep custody of him or her. But that doesn't mean my offers were hollow. I would have, and still will, gladly do it.

I agree with your doc. There are some people that feel restriction after their first fill. The last thing you want is problems on your vacation. I know you want to get going on the weight loss, but a little extra time won't make that big of a difference in the grand scheme. I had the same dilemma several times -- whether or not to get a fill before a vacation. I always opted not to because I didn't want to have to deal with potential complications while out of town.

Losing 50 pounds on a diet and then gaining it all back again.

That's a good question for my kids, too -- "Would you like to live her life?" (pre-jail, of course). And the follow up would be, "How might a life like that end you up in jail?"

There is one thing I forgot: my youngest said, quite insightfully: "She looks like she thinks it's all about her." Those are great suggestions. I will ask them when I revisit the issue next.

Sign me up. I'd do it in an instant. I have, many times, volunteered to adopt the baby of a woman considering abortion (despite her ethnic background).

FuelMan, there is nothing wrong with your sentiments, but there is also nothing wrong with each side's presenting the facts and the basis behind their beliefs. Facts sometimes DO change minds Look at all of the former abortionists and clinic workers who are now pro-life. Is there anyone more entrenched in their position than the person performing or working in an abortion clinic? If THEIR minds can be changed, isn't there hope that everyone's mind can? As to working together towards a solution, when both sides disagree on what the solution should be (one side: make abortion illegal; other side: keep abortion legal), it's unlikely that they will work together. I completely agree with you that women are so influenced by advertising and societal norms that they allow themselves to be treated with disrespect. I don't think anyone disagrees. Can the reversal of that prevent unplanned pregnancies? Possibly, although it certainly won't eradicate them. But for those of us who understand that abortion stops a beating heart, our focus is to stop the killing.

I'm so happy to hear that, Melissa. I was really bummed for you when I got your email. Hopefully everything will work out

It was a very interesting conversation. When I asked them to look at her and tell me what they thought, their first comment was that she was rather ugly. When I asked them why, they said she was wearing way too much makeup (like she needed to cover something up). After I told them who she was (we travel a lot so they know the brand Hilton), the 7 year old said she must live in something like a castle and she must have a room just for money :biggrin1:. Those fairy-tales sure do have an impact on little girls, don't they? It was interesting to see what they came up with as to what she might feel after she is released from jail -- the older one said "angry" (fits with her personality) and the younger one said "she would feel bad about what she did" (also fits with HER personality). When they saw her name they thought it was a very silly name. When the news said she turned around in court and called for her mom, I asked them why they thought she did that. I had to explain to them that it was probably very likely that her mother was always there to fix her problems for her in the past, but when you do things that are illegal and could harm (or DO harm) others, those are the things that your parents can't fix. I'll let you know when we have a family chat about it again. Let ME know if there's anything you want me to ask them. It certainly is interesting to see it from the eyes of a child who's had no knowledge of her prior to this.

I flipped on the television today and used this as a life lesson for my kids. They had no idea who she was, so luckily when I flipped it on they were going through a photo-montage of Paris posing for the camera, on the red carpet, etc. We talked about what she looked like, what kind of clothes and jewelry she wore, what her life of privilege is like, and then I told them what happened to her. They were wide-eyed. We talked about what her reaction to being in jail might be like and how she might act when she gets out: angry or repentant. They asked me which one it would be. I explained that I didn't know and that we'll have to come back in a month or so and watch what she does. It was very interesting to see them work through everything in their minds -- they're 7 and 9. Here's this girl who lives the life of a "princess" like they read in their storybooks, and then here's the reality.

I actually have a comment that I use quite often in my life: "I hate it when people reinforce their stereotypes." I really do, because it causes us to look at people not as individuals but as members of a group which we don't always fully understand. It is particularly unfortunate when members of our family fit into that stereotype, because of the visceral, emotional reaction we have to our family. Those stereotypes are even more difficult to overcome because of the strong emotions attached to them. In any case, I agree that we do like intellectual conversations even if we don't agree on particular issues :biggrin1:

That makes me sad -- not that you feel that way, but that people you know behave like that.

I think you'd be surprised. The media and the pro-abortion side tend to paint pro-lifers as hateful of women, disdainful, and haughty, and it's just not true. I think you'd be surprised at the compassion and love in the movement. You won't see it on the news and you won't hear it from your side but go, yourself, and talk to them IRL (not debating on a forum). I think it'd be a real eye-opener.

Sorry. I COMPLETELY misread that! I don't think it's going away. But I do think it's declining. Time will tell.

Murder is murder, regardless of the reason and regardless of who commits it, yes. When there is a murder, someone innocent dies at the whim of another human being. But I don't abhor someone who commits any murder -- no, I don't want to sit down and have tea with them, but I try to understand what life situation they've been in that would drive them to that point. All of that said, should the crime be punished, should we as a society attempt to ensure it doesn't happen again, and was it wrong? Absolutely, yes. But that doesn't mean I abhor the person who committed it. I guess it goes back to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. For whatever reason, I find that I have a tremendous amount of empathy for people in all types of different life situations. That's just who I am.