Obama administration authorizes killing US citizen

[morethanpretty]

That is not even close to the same subject.

If the man is causing her bodily harm then she has every right to get him out of her life as soon as possible. That includes emotional or physical harm.

[classicman]

What if "he" just continually threatens or writes blogs about how to do it? Does that change the dynamic MTP?

[squirell nutkin]

Originally Posted by Flint

In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Or the Nut for that matter.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by classicman

What if "he" just continually threatens or writes blogs about how to do it? Does that change the dynamic MTP?

Counts as emotional harm, she has a right to separate herself from him as soon as possible. There is no "just threatens or writes blogs" though, most likely it is going to escalate to real violence. I never told spud she has the right to outright kill him just because she scared. She can have him arrested if he has really done her harm, get a court order against him, move, ect.
Like I've said, this is not the same issue as abortion. Having a child has consequences physically and emotionally no matter what, every time. The soonest way for a woman to separate herself from an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.
Its the woman's choice to make individually because every case is going to be different with different outcomes for both the fetus and mother. I cannot judge how one woman's pregnancy is going to affect her, either negatively or positively. I cannot force my ideals on her knowing how emotionally and physically traumatic a pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) can be. The unborn fetus is not traumatized if it is aborted, it was not conscience of having life. The mother is the one who is fully aware through the process and can be severely traumatized depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

[classicman]

I was not talking about a pregnancy I as trying to relate your example to the discussion at hand of killing an American citizen because he is apparently a terrorist.

Sorry if I read too much into your post.

[TheMercenary]

Back to killing terrorists...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

At the end of the day, high treason is still punishable by death, even in the United States. Doesn't count for much to me if such death comes in the process of prosecuting a war. Would there have been any handwringing if a B-29 raid had killed Tokyo Rose -- any of the several?

Now if the good cleric were to find himself forcibly ductaped to Jeremiah Wright... he may beg for a quick coup de grâce. Especially if either takes to chewing on the other.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Having a child has consequences physically and emotionally no matter what, every time. The soonest way for a woman to separate herself from an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.

And that too has consequences, including upon the father. I know.

It's not a lightly-done thing.

[spudcon]

The point wasn't about choice, it is about not being able to kill a known terrorist who has committed treason without judicial review, but being able to kill a baby any time it's inconvenient. Don't bring the back alley abortionist spin into this, or I'll bring in the argument about back alley car dealers causing thousands of deaths, or barbers or musicians.
The constitution provides protection against meaningless killing. Protect the terrorist, but not the innocent baby. Protect eagle eggs, but not human embryos. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole prohibits murder. It doesn't prohibit execution of traitors!

[Cicero]

I find myself appalled. I'm with Flint on this one. There's no reason to put names on a death list without due process. They say he's a dick traitor. But how in the hell would we KNOW...

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by spudcon

The point wasn't about choice, it is about not being able to kill a known terrorist who has committed treason without judicial review, but being able to kill a baby any time it's inconvenient.

I very much doubt it is legal in the US to kill any baby any time.
Aborting a foetus is not killing a baby, it is removing a collection of cells incapable of life.

[spudcon]

Sorry Sundae, but a good friend of mine is one of those " collection of cells incapable of life." I'll wager she's glad you weren't in charge of things back then. She's 60 years old now. I wonder how many people who would have been born after liberalization of abortion laws are not here now, solving the problems they were destined to solve?
But we digress. Liberals have been trying to marginalize our constitution here for years, taking away rights they don't like and adding rights that aren't there. The topic is Obama killing an American citizen. My point is, liberals have been commiting mass murder of Americans for decades, while wringing their hands about the rights of their fellow mass murderers.

[Undertoad]

not here now, solving the problems they were destined to solve?

Maybe they were put here to solve overpopulation and unwanted children.

I don't think you should believe in both anti-abortion and predestination though. That person lived the life they were destined to live, right? Brevity is not part of the question, especially if you believe in an eternal soul. The soul in that mass of cells is certainly in heaven now. Good job well done, don'tcha think?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Sorry Sundae, but a good friend of mine is one of those " collection of cells incapable of life."

No she isn't.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by spudcon

... My point is, liberals have been commiting mass murder of Americans for decades, while wringing their hands about the rights of their fellow mass murderers.

Not exactly. Liberals have been allowing individuals the choice to keep or abort an embryo. I think you are mistaken if you think conservatives don't get abortions.