Abortion

If anyone needs a proof why abortion is preferable solution in certain instances than carrying the child, please take a look at mia.

 

No, never anything nice to say. Nothing of value to contribute. Just insults, attacks, and harassment. Sad.

 

For one, the people that are captured by US troops are not subject to US laws. And 2, they are not subject to the Geneva Convention, therfor, are not afforded the protections under the Geneva Convention.

And, in a criminal investigation, no, I'm not ok, thats to coercive in nature. For intelligence gathering...sure. Doesn't bother me. I don't consider it torture, so it doesn't bother me.

 

LOL.

This is coming from some one who supports terrorism, torture and killing of doctors and while he is all for war, is too chicken to do actually any fighting.

 

First of all they are subject to Geneva convention, this was just a bullshit invented by Bush administration that they are not.
Second, I quoted the universal declaration of human rights, so it has nothing to do with what you posted.
Third, let me understand correctly that you are OK with water boarding of American citizens and soldiers, is this correct?

 

You can read correct?

And, based on my study and training on the Geneva Convention, no, they are not. They are not classified as troops from a nation. They are not a member of a signatory of the Geneva Convention. You show me the words in the convention that state otherwise.

 

US Department of Defense

Source of above definition: US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003

Geneva Convention

A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.

The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.

Guerrilla (also called a partisan) is a term borrowed from Spanish (from "guerra" meaning war) used to describe small combat groups. Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. While "asymmetric warfare" is the military term for guerrilla tactics, it is often referred to in the pejorative as "terrorism."

Guerrillas are often characterised as terrorists by their opponents. Guerrillas are in danger of not being recognized as combatants because they may not wear a uniform, (to mingle with the local population), or their uniform and distinctive emblems my not be recognised as such by their opponents. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention.

You still haven't answered my question about how you feel about water boarding of American citizens and soldiers by other countries, do you agree with it?

 

Dudes, this is an abortion thread.

 

Exactly. Thank you for trying to bring us back on topic. Brum. That is what Gworld does though. He bounces from thread to thread attacking people and carrying the discussion off topic. Sadly moderation is not what is used to be here, else he would have been gone a long time ago.

 

I am just showing that some people like mia, are not concerned about human life or it's value and that is just an excuse for them to control and dominate women.

 

You've obviously confused me with someone else. I expect no less from someone that condones hurting children.

 

Every one here knows that you are full of it, so I don't even try to answer your accusation but as to first of your post, your trailer park mentality is quite obvious, so the answer is no; I haven't confused you with anyone else.

 

Were you not hugged as a child? Why are you so hateful? I know I've mentioned it before, but now more than ever I would gladly help pay for treatment if you are willing to get it.

 

This thread got trolled after some very good (if not blatantly one-sided) pages. Shame.

 

I know this thread is on abortion, but anyone who can't read and understand their own posts deserves to be ignored. If these cockroaches fell into an existing category of lawful combatants, there wouldn't be a debate on what to do with them.

 

lol gworld, they do not carry their weapons openly during military operations. Good try. If you'd have been there before you would know, but, you obviously have not.

Now, back on topid...

 

I see you have no answer when you have to face the stupidity of claims made by Bush/Cheney and their parrot supporters about "unlawful" combatant. Many of these people were arrested in Afghanistan while fighting U.S. Army, are you claiming they were shooting at the same time that they were hiding their weapon?

This is exactly on topic because when a person like you supports torture and killing of prisoners, it shows that you have no respect for human life and all your other claims about the value of a life of fetus is just an excuse to dominate and control women.

 

Actually gworld, it was once again your quote that talked about "Lawful" combatants vs. unlawful. Sheik Kahlid Mohammad was probably dragged from his house (no gun in possession)in Afghanistan, and with regard to respect to human life, I would have been fine if they shot him on the spot. Thankfully, keeping him alive long enough to waterboard him might have saved some of the lives of my fellow westerners. If they want to shoot him now, I'm ok with that too.

Not that am I against abortion, but I'm hard pressed to see how you equate killing babies to killing cockroaches, or even lawful combatants. They pick a fight, they loose, they die, no sweat and certainly no moral dilemma. Your ability to equate the two puts a pretty bright light on where your moral compass is at.

 

Gworld, what the fuck does an abortion topic have to do with this shit? On topic my ass.

 

No, the topic is abortion. Go to a relavent thread and I will prove you wrong. Stay on topic or get get the hellout of my thread.

There is no controlling of women you freaking moron. It seems to be pretty common for people here to take things out of context, reprocess them into something else, and post them.