Saddam executed

Over the last couple of years, I’ve written a few posts on the death penalty, putting the view that it should opposed in all circumstances, rather than just when its popular. I’t’s no surprise then that I don’t support the execution of Saddam Hussein.

It’s only human for some of the victims of his tyranny to be pleased with his death, and the fact that justice ‘of a sort’ caught up with him in a way that many other tyrants and dictators escape. It is also understandable to not feel overly upset at the fate he has met, compared with some other state sanctioned executions that are carried out. But I still believe the death penalty is wrong, something which at least on this issue the Pope agrees with me about.

While Iraq is a big enough mess regardless of what happened to Saddam, Im also not convinced it is terribly helpful to execute someone after a less than adequate trial process, particularly when he was still to be tried for crimes far greater than the one he got convicted on. It is hard to see how the appearance of a show trial followed by a rushed execution will help anything much. The fact that the allegations of genocide against the Kurds were not examined before a properly operating court of law is unfortunate, but given that Saddam was the ally of the USA and Europe through much of this period, there’s probably a lot of relief that some of the facts of who knew what about what Saddam was doing and who was supplying him with weapons and other support wont come to light in this arena.

ELSEWHERE: There will no doubt be many comment pieces in the mainstream media on this topic over the next few days. I imagine most of them will revolve around whether the execution was a good or a bad thing and whether the death penalty is OK before going back onto the topic of how much a mess Iraq is now and what should be done next. Not surprisingly, there are already many pieces on the blogosphere about it, many of which will have as much worth as much of what is in the mainstream media – albeit with a wider variety of styles and lengths. A few pieces on Australian blogs are at Suburban Scrawl, Urban Creature, The Road to Surfdom, Leftwrites, Larvatus Prodeo (times two), Kalimna, Bastards Inc, and Anonymous Lefty (whose hacked blogsite has now been un-hacked – at least I hope it has, unless someone is really trying to mess with his/our head). If you’re really keen, you can search blogs at Technorati – according to their search engine, there’s been over 1500 posts mentioning Saddam in the last 24 hours (and that’s just the ones written in English).

The Guardian newspaper describes the events at Saddam’s hanging, and a variety of reactions, including criticisms from Kurdish Iraqis that it was turned into a sectarian event by the government.

The New York Times also described the final scenes and says “America questioned the political wisdom and justice of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts.”

Please like & share:


  1. Adele:

    Your level of understanding is clearly too low for you to take in a broadbased explanation of anything, so I’ll not waste my time answering you further.

    You might also try speaking for yourself. I’m sure there are many readers who will at least try to weigh up what I have said against their own beliefs and experiences. That’s what mature adults do.

  2. philip,

    Some of us Americans- the majority of normal ones, anyway- don’t walk around in perpetual self-loathing looking for jihadists under every rock. I know this is a popular media distortion these days, but some of us are actually at ease with this love/hate relationship we have with the rest of the world. Me, I work, raise my children and enjoy my beautiful home in San Diego. Many Australians I’ve met come here because it reminds them of home.

    We also know that many of the Bush-bashers have something valuable to gain beyond a feeling of moral superiority.

    I stumbled upon Mr. Barlett’s site via another Australian left-of-center site. Needless to say, they also had their panties in a bunch over the hanging of a mass-murdering dictator. Some things keep you scratching your head until you figure it out. I’m still scratching.

  3. Answer this Thordaddy,is left of centre capable like you have of, being, accepting legal hanging,and then rejecting, next blog, in stating there are no good lawyers..they do not have the characteristics of good humans.So obviously if you were falsely arrested your compunction would be,if charged with murder,to either represent yourself or say,perhaps the court is sitting against my will,and thus illegally.You are not Touche Turtle, you know,you are responsible for your opinions.

  4. philip,

    I’ll post this question again so you can see if you are representing what I have said correctly.

    I asked,

    Philip…, Who has the most to gain from the abolishing of the death penalty…? The good people, the lawyers or the murderers?

    Now, you may read into this that there are no good lawyers or no good people, but this is certainly not what I said.

    Do you have an answer for the above question because it is exactly where I start in evaluating my position on the death penalty?

  5. As a courtesy and as a sign of functioning reason in engagement Mr,Thordaddy…I Simply am caught between being polite and deciding it isnt worth the effort,to answer a question that you deem important above and beyond whatever,I may state imperfectly or by question.It is safe,however,for me,and not so much for you,that law is a process in operation.If you knew the answer yourself there would be others who before you had come to a conclusion in both an operational sense of the law,and its public and private influences through any country s operating parliaments.Theoretically I assume all law has been fashioned to comply to the common good of its citizenry.That is a ongoing dispute,both officially and communely.As you seem neither to be any practicising official,lawyer or administer to any court function,nor felt challenged enough to name a meritorious figure in those capacities mentioned,past or present,your opinions are the hallmarks of the political rather than the operational.Your sense of confidence ,to me,is that of those who will not sit as jury on a case where the death penalty will outcome.Is that the truth Mr.Thordaddy?You are a virgin when it comes to the real hard stuff,of deciding their eventual death.

  6. philip,

    You and I both know that the chances of either of us sitting on a death penalty case is almost nil. In fact, your chance is nil and my is only a little “better.” Actually though, I have never been called for jury duty. But if it were the case that I sat on a jury where the death penalty could be a possibility then I would take such an occasion with the utmost seriousness. And since I live in a state where the death penalty is legal then my chance is somewhat even greater than those states without the death penalty.

    I must point out your reluctance to explain your position though. All that fabulous locution and I’m no closer to understanding your position now as I was when you first jumped in this discussion.

  7. I am impervious to compliments Thordaddy.My problem with you is enlarged. You have a definite opinion about death penalties,you havent done any jury duty,and without even stating once,wether you have read,known,or garnered innocence or guilt in any court case,as a moment of belief or reason, yet untested by the necessity of law.. you think it is O.K. I looked up .. judge advocates death penalty.. google search and found many websites,arranging those words and adding others gives a picture that remains somewhat difficult for those attempting both evidential and scientific support for whatever proposition supports the death penalty.  I even looked at your governors decision briefly re Beardslee,a man that wasnt tested completely for brain damage,and, thus mental disorder, the big mans decision on that was go ahead..but not with a noose. I would of still been hard for the ex-movie star,if he applied his thinking to it.Not one of his better decisions I would say. And Saddams defiance before his death to his insulters and detractors,was that of a man who knows his reputation will still live..So Mr.Thordaddy it occurs to me you put up one reason for the death penalty,the murderers dont want it,null and void and easily seen as such re..Saddam.

  8. MarkL in Canberra mentioned Judeo-Christian opposition to the death penalty. But the Old Testament clearly states that the appropriate penalty for murder is death. (Ezekiel, can’t remember the chapter, sorry) And the concept of trial by ordeal was very popular in Christian Europe for several centuries. And Christian candidates in the US are generally pro-death penalty (and pro-life, which is a little confusing). Sorry, but that idea is even more incorrect than it is simplistic.

  9. The Old Testament advocates “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.

    It was written by Jewish men, primarily for their own benefit.

    The New Testament was written by Christians, for the benefit of Christians and “downsizing” of the Jews’ belief that they were the “only true church”.

    When the Jewish faith split into the Jews, Christians and Muslims, the Muslims wrote their own bible – and the splits have continued from there – creating all kinds of conflict throughout the world – and thousands of different faiths and tiny tinpot cults.

    The same has happened with the Eastern religions.

    George Bush would do better to send a team of exit counsellors into Baghdad, than the multitude of extra troops he announced yesterday.

    The best way to stop fighting between religious fanatics (in this case two groups of warring Muslims) is to education them about Mind Control and to quell the idea that they belong to the “only true church”.

    Once exit counsellors have dealt with religious superiority in this way, the government might have some chance of restoring peace among the people.

    I don’t find it at all strange that Christian candidates in the US support the death penalty, but are otherwise pro-life.

    Perhaps they base their stance on the notion that the innocent should be protected from murderers, and murderers should be terminated to preserve the lives of innocent people. This sounds reasonable to me.

    But I don’t believe in an extreme position that would execute all murderers or protect all life.

    Yesterday the Catholic Church in Australia said they would try to prevent rape victims from taking “the morning after” pill.

    There was an outcry from the Rape Crisis Centre. I agree with them. Above all, the society needs protection from rigid thinkers, who cannot see any shades of grey.

    phil travers:

    Your assumption that all laws are made for the common good of the citizenry is a little naive. The taxation laws are a good example.

  10. I AM not a perfectly arranged contender of the censor,at either Andrew Bartletts or somwhere in between. A comment went missing re The Governor,how that happened is unknowable to me.

    I found it odd that the Californian G. COULD review a case ..impose a death penalty and,not stand for President because of an legal impediment. part of killing a U.S.A. born citizen!? THE SORT OF SITUATION THAT THORDADDY IS SOOOOO HAPPY WITH. I have been complimented by Thordaddy ,re my locution,and I have complimented him about?

  11. I don’t believe in the nonsense of religion and bible stories, therefore have the freedom of thinking for myself and opening my mind to reason, truth and fact.

    You cannot argue for the death penalty and the killing fields of war, yet oppose abortion. The thinking is not logical or rational. If you are pro capital punishment and war, then you have no problem with the taking of human life, at any time.

    I can argue pro choice, yet maintain a stance of anti war and capital punishment because I believe in humanity and in inherent dignity of each and every human life (even those who have to be punished by their removal from society). I don’t believe that the age of a person is measured from the time that they are conceived, it is measured from the time that they are born.

    coral and thordaddy,
    do the birthdays that you celebrate, reflect your conceived age + after birth age or just your birth age onwards?

    coral, the “me syndrome” should be the only factor in a woman’s mind when she considers abortion, as she, and no-one else, will ultimately carry the responsibility and the burden of the choice that she makes.

    I don’t believe that women enter into abortion as lightly as you suggest here, for “lifestyle choices”, how insulting. Do you have some statistics to support that theory, or are they the same as your crime statistics – no basis in fact but plenty of heresay, prejudice and bias.

    The catholic church and morning after pill idiocy mentioned above, just shows that they cannot and should not, be entrusted with pregnancy counselling services in Australia.

  12. “Yesterday the Catholic Church in Australia said they would try to prevent rape victims from taking “the morning after” pill.

    There was an outcry from the Rape Crisis Centre. I agree with them.”

    I can’t figure you ‘pro-lifers’ out. One minute abortion is murdering babies and using embryos for stem cell research is wrong, whlie pre-meditated killing of grown human beings is OK. And yet you complain when the Catholic Church try to stop the morning after pill? Once again ‘pro-life’ for some but not for others it seems. At least the Church is logically consistent, even if they’re wrong.

    Why isn’t it ‘murder’ to use the morning after pill? It still kills embryos, which are just as developed as some of those used in stem cell research. How does commiting ‘murder’ (a term you’re willing to use with abortion) become OK just because you’re killing a being that came into life through rape? Does that mean it’s still OK to kill the foetus produced from a rape at 6 months? Why not even after they’re born? You’re saying it’s to to kill them as a newly created embryo – at what stage does it become not OK to kill them, and why doesn’t this apply to other embryos.

  13. Let me get this straight. I don’t belong to the fanatical pro-life movement, nor any branch of the Christian faith, fundamental or otherwise. I am not a proponent of war.
    I am a person, not a group.

    I’ve never said that using human embryos for stem cell research ought not to be possible under some circumstances.

    I have no interest in arguments that don’t have any shades of grey in them, nor in mindless questions about birthdays.

    I would never compare the value of an innocent child’s life with that of a mass murderer. I find it completely immoral.

    I agree with abortion in exceptional circumstances. I would never want to put a rape victim through 9 months of carrying her attacker’s child – let alone expect her to raise the child, with the constant memory of the horrible details of his/her conception.

    Also, the child might have inherited a gene that might turn him into a rapist as well. A mother should not have to live with these things. It is inhuman for anyone to expect it.

  14. So Coral we can take it.. is flying solo looking for shades of grey and isnt a group? And would you enter Iraq with a working process in mind of how to stop what you think is mind control by religion? Who are your experts on that? Do you believe the Catholic Church will look after everyone that has been raped?

  15. Kaye Bernard – Coral is most likely alluding to a scientific paper published several years ago that claimed to have identified a genetic basis for ‘rape’ behaviour in an insect species. The authors regrettably extrapolated this tenuous finding to humans.

    Evolutionary biologists have much to answer for…

  16. Long road these post Saddam days….as we enter the other tails of Saddams comet.I am mystified by Catholicisms consistency,when others are being questioned not so assidously..but I guess being anti war means a sort of compelling contradiction..that emanates the loss of government and law that can see a future..whereas the Pope maybe saying something that is also personal, out of the experiences of the church, then,and associated disgusting behaviour,and be in a sort of evolutionary state by his presence,of not exactly accepting being a nazi whilst..being in their uniform…I prefer the Jehovahs Witnesses story of courage there,alas punishment. They would not see eye to I on abortion with me ,and are being constantly attacked for some rogues amonst its members.Catholicism is making a pertinent statement about hanging,wether it is jinxed or not.Pope Paul suggested mothers should forgive the rapist and a little bub is a new entity…after another war in Europe had the same thing happen. Forgive ones enemy, isnt full of the relativistic reality that us humans live in,whilst the Believed in Christ did that.Me I opt out..I see no sin in the propositon of the Church..but,Ido not expect mothers,or pregnant women to forgive…after all there are biological and other events in a womans life,and child rearing is obviously hard wether the child is completely wanted or not.We can only faultily speculate on what the real Christ today would find as moral persuasion,if he had difficulty with the rule of man as is.

  17. Deborah,

    What is the similarity between state executions and abortion…? They are both death penalties. The question is WHY you support one in one instance and not the other? I see a certain inconsistency in your stance.

    So what is the difference between state executions and abortions? In the first instance, a jury (society) through a strict judicial process (with mandatory appeals in America) judges a person’s guilt or innocence. And then upon conviction and a UNANIMOUS jury recommendation (with some states giving judges final say) is sentenced to death (usually by lethal injection).

    In the second instance, a mother’s will to power is the only deciding factor. If the mother feels a death penalty for her child in utero is in order, then it is. No judicial review… No consultation with the father that gave her the child… No input from fathers, sisters, grandma and all those that would welcome such a child in this world… And one could hardly argue that if hanging, electric chair or lethal injection are cruel and unusual punishment then such is the description required for an abortion.

    So how do you remedy this cognitive dissonance? How do you oppose the death penalty for the guilty predators amongst us, but support the death penalty for the innocent and defenseless? You simply dehumanize that which resides inside a mother’s womb while pleading for the humanity of those that create murder and mayhem in our society.

    Your stance is a hyper-individualistic stance.

  18. phil travers:

    I have been educated in Mind Control and Manipulation; and Social Psychology and Group Dynamics. For a time, I was a very successful Exit Counsellor of people from destructive religious cults.

    The job in the middle east would need to be undertaken by counsellors who are very clued up on the belief systems of both warring factions – and, in particular, their differences. The team might need to start with the parliamentarians and go from there.

    I think the Roman Catholic Church will try to force rape victims to give birth to their babies, under the auspices of it being “what God wants”. I am filled with disgust.

    I don’t mind flying solo. The grey areas on many issues are not too hard to find.

    Andrew looks for them to fill out the big picture himself.

    Kaye and Feral:

    I haven’t read the research pertaining to insect studies and rape.

    Yet again, I rely on what I see in the people around me. After 51 years on the planet, I’ve concluded that nature has far greater input than nurture.

    For example, my youngest son behaves a very great deal like my brother, even though he has almost never seen him.

    It has been proven in identical twin studies, that even when they have been raised in completely separate households, they are still very much alike in their behaviour and preferences.

    Admittedly, they share most (but not all) of the same genetic material provided by both mother and father.

    When it comes to the male child of a rapist, the father is providing 50% of the genetic material, and for me it is reasonable to expect that the father’s behaviour could be a genetically inherited trait – which could appear in his own child, or possibly even relatives further removed.


    Very well said.

    BTW, cognitive dissonance is very often seen in members of destructive cults. It is generally the result of very heavy indoctrination over a period of time.

  19. Deborah writes:

    “You cannot argue for the death penalty and the killing fields of war, yet oppose abortion. The thinking is not logical or rational. If you are pro capital punishment and war, then you have no problem with the taking of human life, at any time.”

    This is untrue.

    Reason dictates that there is a difference between taking innocent and taking guilty life and that there is a difference between just and unjust wars.

    Those who oppose abortion often do so based upon it being undeserved and wrong that an innocent life is taken. Those who support the death penalty often do so based upon a just sanction for a guilty murderer.

    Very different things.

    You can support a just war – the effort against the Nazis in WWII – and you can oppose an unjust war – Iraq’s unprovoked attack against Kuwait but support the just war of repelling Iraq from Kuwait.

    Yes, reason does matter.

  20. Well I didnt know that,and if you have been successful,Coral, well all grace to you. I had a posting suggesting the strangeness of the rape consistency in the Popes view of relativistic morality, the biggest sin, being cock a hoop about the importance of the government of Man. Where the death penalty leaves little room for a great sinner to face God as a living human being, seeing the Catholics are aware of the need to befriend our Islamic communities in ways that are not reprehensible. And this allows God through the conversion of accepting Christ into ones life  completely, seems to be the attitude re rape victims … the previous Pope suggested it re victims of those raped by Muslims. The non spiritual intellectual point is the baby is a new entity, capable of being shaped by the mothers devoutness to Christian values, and to forgive the rapist isnt to sanctify the act, as he goes his way towards the final judgement. I doubt the average Australian Catholic takes it entirely serious,and still do their Catholic stuff. Where that leaves Thordaddy I dont know. Probably just cock a hoop about the death penalty.

  21. thordaddy, you are mistaken if you think that women just decide to have an abortion out of the blue one day.

    Most of them do talk to their families, friends and their partners if they have one, (sometimes it is the father who forces the abortion). The father does not always hang around once the pregnancy is known.

    The woman who has to make the gut wrenching decision by herself, truly is alone and unsupported by all around her, I feel especially sorry for her, and her circumstances.

    The worst thing for her, would be to go to a pregnancy counselling service which refuses to provide all available options and proper, professional, unbiased counselling.

    Anyway, what is your problem? you obviously support killing, so why do you have a problem with an abortion. You want to judge and condemn others based on your own prejudices and beliefs rather than human compassion.

    I support the woman’s right, as the person already in existence, to decide over her own body, uterus and circumstances.

  22. dudley sharp, “Reason dictates that there is a difference between taking innocent and taking guilty life and that there is a difference between just and unjust wars.”

    The lives taken in war are innocent, on both sides. When did innocent soldiers fighting for their country become guilty, and when did innocent civilians become guilty?

    There is nothing just about the illegal invasion of Iraq, it began with a lie, and it will end with a lie.

  23. So Dud is on the job,but off subject,and my last post might seem a little flippant,but at last read under moderation.And Dud is a sharp as a tack in an old football boot.I was ,last here,appreciating there might be more to Coral than my cynicism would allow,and now we have another contender,Strange how Under pressure I think up new scenarios..take this one.If all the mothers of all the enemies of whoever had abortions re Iraq Kuwait,then obviously hardly anything would be happening today.So no war,plenty of angry anti abortionists ,i suppose,would be growling loudly.Then again we could ask all the Christian and Muslim leaders etc. to stop fighting to insure that healthy babies are born to help family and sustain family of nations under religious guidance that is meritorious.We would have to insist to the clean up its arsenal problem,and special consideration for all mothers,including the very sick.Enemy combatants could bring forward their sick women in exchange for some form of stepped clemency,that if they have a high regard for mothers,then that is considered worthy.Mothers who already lost children even as soldiers are considered worthy,in the sense they can look on and insure proper direction of assistance.even among those who are enemies.If people kill mothers across the relious divdes these people,if wanting peace..must suggest what a worthy punishment for them should be.Because revenge is stalking Iraq the answer to that reality also means mothers can speak in a persons defence.I know I am an outsider.

  24. Deborah:

    But you still support the lives of mass murderers over the lives of the innocent unborn. This is an irrefutable fact, based on your own arguments.

    You still haven’t addressed the matter of claiming that we are “just primates” went it comes to anything connected with human reproduction – but when certain men start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”.

    Your arguments are dissonant right across the board. They don’t hang together at all.

  25. Deborah,

    You say,

    thordaddy, you are mistaken if you think that women just decide to have an abortion out of the blue one day.

    But I said,

    In the second instance, a mother’s will to power is the only deciding factor. If the mother feels a death penalty for her child in utero is in order, then it is.

    You can’t talk about a woman’s “right” to choose and then pretend that her “will to power” IS NOT the “deciding factor” in the act of aborting her child. I said nothing about every individual decision-making process that a pregnant woman must go through before an abortion. I made a general statement about WHAT the “right” to choose an abortion means to society as a whole.

    It means that YOU put in the hands of individual woman the right to kill that which resides inside her, i.e. her child, with NO expectation of responsibility or accountability to the larger society given such a prejudicial and discriminatory “right.” On the other hand, you claim that society does not have the “right” to execute that which has murdered innocent human lives even when society is held strictly responsible and accountable for its decision.

    The dilemma you are in is very simple. If an individual woman has the “right” to kill then how do you figure that a group of individuals (society) does not also have the same “right” to kill? The dilemma gets even deeper when one realizes that a woman’s “right” to kill is unimpeded by external restraint while society’s “right” to kill must conform to a very strict and rigorous decision-making process sometimes taking decades to finalize.

    Your way around this dilemma is also quite simple. You simply dehumanize that which resides inside the mother’s womb. Yet, you are seemingly impervious to the fact that such a stance tends to dehumanize all of us.

  26. coral,
    “You still haven’t addressed the matter of claiming that we are “just primates” went it comes to anything connected with human reproduction – but when certain men start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”.”

    I’m not addressing, nor do I have to, posts from two completely different topics, on two different threads – they are irrelevant to this one. If I remember correctly, one topic was on stem cells, which was again hijacked by the anti-choice brigade and the other thread was on farmimg or something similar, which meandered off topic onto aboriginal communities and feminism.

    Different posts, different subjects, different discussions.

    I wish you would show the same restraint.

  27. thordaddy, I have no dilemma at all.

    The woman always has a right to choose, and her right is paramount.

    A foetus, unaware of it’s own existence, does not have the same rights as an already existing person. You may not like it, but that is how it is, and should be – her choice, not yours.

    You cannot come up with any rational argument for being pro murder in war and capital punishment on one hand, yet hypocritically opposing abortion on the other, so you try to muddy the waters with endless ad hom attacks.

  28. Deborah,

    You can’t take YES for an answer. What you can’t explain is WHY a woman’s “right” to kill doesn’t translate into a society’s “right” to kill? How can an individual have a “right” that isn’t enjoyed by the rest of society? Why is the “right” to kill limited to certain privileged individual with no mandatory oversight while society can’t enjoy the same “right” even with mandatory oversight? Isn’t this discrimination?

    Your position is illogical and inconsistent unless you simply stand by an absolutist position in both cases and continue to insist on dehumanizing that which resides inside a mother’s womb. “Something” you continue to imply does NOT already “exist.” You want to carve out certain exceptions to the “thou shalt not kill” doctrine which, coincidently, will include your “right” to kill. You also want to limit this “right” to yourself and fellow women by implying that you’re not really killing anything that “exists.”

    You said earlier,

    If you are pro capital punishment and war, then you have no problem with the taking of human life, at any time.

    But this is exactly the point. If you are pro-abortion then you have no problem with taking human life at any time since it is a “right” to take it at its very beginning and when one is most innocent and defenseless.

    But of course, you would disagree. You would say it is “right” for a woman to kill her child, but not “right” for the Iraqis to hang Saddam.

    You can only say this because you have dehumanized that which resides inside a mother’s womb and hence have dehumanized all of us.

  29. CORAL at #169 “When it comes to the male child of a rapist, the father is providing 50% of the genetic material, and for me it is reasonable to expect that the father’s behaviour could be a genetically inherited trait”

    Reasonable to consider the possibility – yes. But reasonable to expect? I think that puts the case too strongly.

  30. Well I have got round to now thinking we are actually privileged to have Thordaddy go through his stunt,over and over again,but with increasing finesse..a definite sign of somebody who is outside the range of touche turtle.But I am not sure a right at law re the death penalty or as cut and dried as he presents..perhaps he is hoping we understand that too by the option of asking the question in its most limiting way.I cannot,see,he isnt being absolutist in his choice of using the word right in the manner he did ,without refering to a potential of the contemporary,rather than his denial by exclusion,of the importance of the development of rights under law.Which isnt outside his learning capacity just an unwillingness,in this format,to question his own questions,to something historical and definitely American.There is a precision,in his questions,that I at least noted..and the bulls eye approach to his questioning requires to jump behind the man as he fires.I sort of think the maternal paternal conflict and the paternal Thordaddy doing his stunt is clever.Whilst this maybe a prove erroneous thinking,or error, prone thinking,simply he indulges in a different design of no I cannot accept that.Some will notice the word right is a multi bullet in one- he fires.How odd I,bypassed the will to power of the mother,when they maybe taking advice,including medical.How odd to claim a fathers right,when,if he had a daughter and was raped,he may not be in such a hurry to question here.Maybe even his wife,would find it difficult to cope with a rapists child as much as he would.Touche Thordaddy.

  31. While interesting points hvae been raised on thsi debate )apart from the flippant) it proves once again that people with fixated views are not capabel of persuasion and / or concession.

    Principally in my mind because the more fixated the view the more likley it is that the holder has that view becasue of an emotional and / or pyscholigical life context.

    What it does show is that these sort of issues are never simple and can’t be treated in a black white / right wrong sort of way. Be it abortion / capital punicshemnt or whatever there is not a definitive position, alternatvei scenarios abound.

  32. philip,

    At this time I no longer claim to be pro-life. I think a universal pro-life stance is contradictory and therefore non-existent. This has nothing to do with my pro-death penalty stance. But rather, it has to do with my acceptance of good and evil in this world.

    In all honesty, I fundamentally only care for the death penalty and abortion policy of the US. But I must admit a certain affinity for Australia that has merely manifested in an unknown manner as I have never actually been to your country.

    I did not come here as a “stunt,” but merely found a very interesting debate via the world wide web. And it is because these debates are so hard to resolve that I am naturally drawn to them. I am still looking to learn from those that oppose the death penalty in all cases. I am also intrigued by those that oppose the death penalty in all cases and believe in a woman’s “right” to choose.

  33. thordaddy:

    Yes, it is intriguing indeed.


    I said it is reasonable to expect that the father’s behaviour COULD (not WOULD) be a genetically inherited trait.


    You just don’t want to answer the question on an issue that is connected, and which further demonstrates the overall dissonance of your stance.

    philip travers:

    Some of us are still waiting for you to answer thordaddy’s questions.

    Surely he has a right to some answers, when you are maintaining your right to keep firing bullets at him.

  34. I thank you for your honesty,Thordaddy,I think that what you said about yourself is true.Only your efforts and attempts via the keyboard,and resilience in manner,reminds me of stuntsmanship,after all I could of choosen trapeze artist,Houdini,ventriliquist dummy of the present Variability of law across states.And a honesty that has only the deficiency that I dont accept it.Sometimes up to now you propositioned refering to the American sense of things,including,AT ease with the love-hate relationship.Your demeanor now is entirely satisfactory.The Senator is not a myth no longer,you have now had to face the fact,and done it well,your description of peoples politics isnt an excuse for you or them.I say some are ready here to lunge at words and out of any context of the attempts behind the words.I pointed out to you early ,you were exposing yourself,and,that which has followed isnt so bad to me.But,I,repeat,I doubt that when the problem gets will be so willing to raise the flag,as it were,when the nation is still divided,as is in states and across the population.Your confidence is your own,and may or may not be mathematically derived,and methinks ,you will see if a family member,having a brush with the law,and the future laws..whereever they take the U.S isnt Pelosi andBush,or theBIg movie star on hold……

  35. I don’t believe in a god, nor do I believe in the concept of good and evil.

    “Evil” is a nice and trendy label brought to us most recently from the evangelical, conservative, religious in the US.

    It is easier to do perform evil deeds upon another person if you label them as evil and deserving of whatever punishment you may have prepared for them.

    By decreeing others as “ëvil”, you can dehumanise them and disassociate yourself from your own actions or participation in the “evil” violence.

    Concepts of good vs evil are too simple minded to explain the complexities of human behaviour.

  36. There are powers of good and evil at work in the world all of the time. No one needs to be religious to know this.

  37. coral,
    “But you still support the lives of mass murderers over the lives of the innocent unborn. This is an irrefutable fact, based on your own arguments

    Actually no, I support the woman’s right to choose. I’m not aware of any mass murderers vs innocent unborn cases in which I supported the mass murderers. Who and where was this?

    “You still haven’t addressed the matter of claiming that we are “just primates” went it comes to anything connected with human reproduction – but when certain men start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”

    We are just primates, that is a fact.

    The philosophy of reclaim the night in protest of male sexual assault against women and children has absolutely no relevance to the biology of reproduction and stem cell transplant. Where do you see a connection?

  38. deborah:

    I feel you are completely out of touch with the lack of integrity of your own values. That’s what cognitive dissonance is.

    Male sexual assault has quite a lot to do with the act of reproduction, but a female primate would not be in much of a position to do anything about it.

    Primates have no access to abortion clinics. They would not even think of aborting their offspring.

  39. Now there is nothing worse than women fighting,when plainly,both Deborah an coral,wii continue this tiresomeless ,but boring each other silly.Since when Coral do you have to decide that Cognitive dissonance is the be all and end all that has ever been spoken on the matter,you are engaged in?What worthy religious tome to you, has those words,or somewhere else that is highminded enough that it covers all human history until today,and can be seen in these tomes described as cognitive dissonance!?If there can easily be seen the workings of good and evil,to describe the behaviour of good or evil ,is it as simple as stating …….there has always been good and evil in the world?That is where Deborah may agree with you if the problem of good and evil no longer becomes a dismissed term on the basis of,maybe,some behaviour is so unacceptable,that a simple and efficient means to describe is evil!Where it isnt a predetermined assessment that will not be configured in another way,and is used discriminately,as opposed to as a form of.You may of heard of a incident in Armidale,N.S.W. where an old man and ex-serviceman has had his head dismembered completely.There is no good in this,I say,and simply,and there is evil.On the possible finding of the killer,that which has happened remains that.Any Good is people acting to the dictates of insuring at leat justice,in terms of prosecution and whatever the verdict carries. The killer,probably doesnt know if he wants to stay alive or not,justice cannot sanction those thoughts,normally,unless predetermined,by law, or by technology.There is no moral dilemma in saying good and evil,as propositions are to simply as behaviours unpredetermined there is the possibility to agree.

  40. For anyone interested in Iraq, I’d really recommend watching ‘In The Shadow Of The Palms’, which will be screened on ABC TV this Thursday evening.

  41. ABC TV answers all,I suppose,it isnt therefore part of the process?A camera for peace and non hanging I suppose.And whose voice will be more human than those commenting here?

  42. thordaddy is only interested in two issues – the death penalty and abortion in the US.

    A battle is won but the war against the death penalty rages on in Illinois:

    “In a touching and dramatic encounter, death penalty opponents, relatives of people sentenced to death on the basis of bogus evidence, and several former and present death row inmates met together in person and by telephone in Chicago on Aug. 31…”

    “According to Patterson and his supporters, the confession (to murdering two elderly people), on the basis of which he was convicted, was wholly concocted by Police Commander Jon Burge. Burge was subsequently fired for running a torture chamber in his Chicago police station in which scores of African Americans were subjected to beatings, electroshock, suffocation and other pressures to sign false confessions.”

  43. Deborah and Adele

    I just wanted to respond to a comment Coral made that the Catholic Church would ‘prevent’ women from using the morning after pill, and relate an experience a friend of mine had.

    The Catholic Church did not say they would prevent women from taking the MAP. They just don’t stock or administer it because it’s against the church’s doctrine.

    Someone I new went to the Mater at about 2am a couple of years ago, looking for the MAP. The triage nurse was being abused by a young man who apparently had taken some steroids that morning. My friend had to wait an hour or so to speak to the nurse.

    When the nurse did speak to her, on hearing the matter, she invited my friend into the protective enclosure so they could have a discreet chat away from the other patients.

    The nurse explained that because it was a Catholic hospital they didn’t have the MAP to give to her. But the nurse assured her she had 48 hours to get to her GP. So my friend went home and the next morning went to the GP and had the matter dealt with.

    It was really good, professional, objective service, and not what some would lead you to believe.

  44. donna:

    A Roman Catholic hospital which does not stock the MAP is making it more difficult for women to procure it. They’re certainly not making it easier.

    One person making one trip to one public hospital to speak with one nurse is not the only indicator of the church’s stance.

  45. I have to agree with Coral somewhat here, it may not have affected Donna’s friend too much, but for a less knowledgeable or educated woman to front at the Mater – to then be turned away and told to go elsewhere, might make quite an obstacle for her.

    That woman may end up doing nothing about her situation because of the previous rejection, and then become pregnant, creating another more difficult choice.

    Deliberately not stocking or providing the MAP on request, is the same as preventing women from using it.

  46. The 200 comment mark seems a good enough spot to close off comments on this thread, given that it’s been mostly a fair way off-topic for some time in any case (interesting though the topic of the off-topic commenting is)

Comments are closed.