Electric chair to return
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
And yet we are more than willing to accept repeat offenses. We won't allow ultra-max solitary, to limit the chance of a guard or inmate being killed, we release known murderers without regard. Funny how the chance of ONE kind of mistake is OK, but the chance of ANOTHER kind of mistake is not. Even when the result, someone getting killed, is the same.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
First, I'd say that one doesn't have to get to the point of "approval" of abortion to believe that it simply isn't the place of the government, for the most part, to intrude into private medical decisions in order to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
Secondly, I'd say that it might have to something to do with the current status of legal personhood of natural persons under the law - something which obtains at birth - in terms of balancing the rights of an existing person which is fully capable of independent existence for the most part ... against something which has the potential to become a person, or human being, that can exist largely independently of another.
The extension of full legal personhood to something which cannot exist independently on its own, outside of the womb, is a slippery slope ... in terms of potential additional governmental intrusions on the rights of an already existing person. If you want a insight into the cluster flop that could potentially be, have a look at the link below:
Personhood laws - RationalWiki
That's only part of the idea, in terms of opposition to the death penalty.
Well, the idea that the unborn are "innocent" is representative of a particular world view, one that is often informed by religious belief - not objective evidence - and is not necessarily shared by the entirety of humanity.
As but two examples among a number, Hinduism and Buddhism (which comprise roughly 25% of the total of the world's adherents to religion), both hold the concept of reincarnation as a tenet of their respective faiths. Under that paradigm - if true - it would seemingly be possible for someone to be (re)born who was not in fact (completely) "innocent" ...
Like i've said before, ultra-max solitary is ok in my book. Throw away the key.
Just do not execute somebody that did not do the crime.
As to abortion. Science has proven that life begins at the moment of conception. The ONLY way to abort the product of conception is to kill it. SO, one can either be PRO-choice (for the killing of the products of conception) OR, Pro-life, (protecting the living products of conception.)
SO, since those in favor of abortion are NOT opposed to killing the living products of conception, they, must approve of that killing.
NOTE: Not one religious belief was quoted or referenced in the above. ONLY the actual science and reality and one person opinion.
SO, since those in favor of abortion are NOT opposed to killing the living products of conception, they, must approve of that killing.
NOTE: Not one religious belief was quoted or referenced in the above. ONLY the actual science and reality and one person opinion.
Now, since YOU know and I know that ultra-max solitary will NOT be allowed, which mistake are you willing to accept? Both will happen. I see no difference. I too wish we could have ultra-max solitary in place of the death sentence, far too many pretend "do-gooders" out there for that to ever happen.
Characterizing an unborn fetus as being the same exact thing as a baby is an equally flawed mentality. Thinking that you're still right after having such an obvious and blatant mental flaw pointed out to you is a major character flaw. Abortion and the death penalty are two entirely different issues, and setting aside the obvious logical fallacy of trying to compare the two, it is a senseless and useless to reconcile abortion and the death penalty as it is to try and reconcile religion and science. The death penalty is society's response to the unacceptable actions of a member of society, while abortion is the response of a reproductive female who decides she doesn't want to reproduce. While members of a society do not have the right to perpetrate transgressions of rights infringements on others in society, people do have the fundamental right to decide for themselves whether or not they will reproduce.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
So using your argument, your ok with putting someone who may be innocent, in ultra max solitary confinement, for the rest of their life?
By the way, whatever one feels about the death penalty, there are murders where there is NO DOUBT to ones guilt.
" people do have the fundamental right to decide for themselves whether or not they will reproduce."
Abortion has nothing to do with the "right" to reproduce. Abortion ENDS a reproduction that has already taken place. That ending is done, by killing that living entity. Science has proven that life begins at conception and abortion kills that life. Those are facts.
Abortion has nothing to do with the "right" to reproduce. Abortion ENDS a reproduction that has already taken place. That ending is done, by killing that living entity. Science has proven that life begins at conception and abortion kills that life. Those are facts.
Yes.
This kind of a mistake can be undone. I've posted many examples of lifers being set free, because they didn't do it.
Nobody said different.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
As I have commented on before: the above is actually an inaccurate statement.
It would be more accurate to say that life continues at conception ... and that as a consequence of conception, the continuation which then exists has the potential to eventually come into full being and can then exist as a fully independent life form.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
True - it has more with the right to not reproduce ...
Again, an inaccurate statement - because the reproduction has not been fully completed.
The mistakes made when an innocent person is killed/raped etc, by someone who, by what ever means, was NOT isolated from society, cannot not be undone.
As tragic as that is, lets not perpetuate the mistakes by executing somebody that did not do it. That can not be undone.
Of course it does. It is a fundamental right to all sentient life on this planet, that they have the right to reproduce, or not to reproduce.
Incorrect. In biological terms, reproduction is the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated. New individuals are not generated nor is the species perpetuated until a new individual actually exists as an individual.
And no one is arguing those facts. Science has also proven the distinction between the potential life after conception of a developing organism and the realization of the actual life of birth. Unborn humans are in their own stages of human development. The embryo is not a fetus yet... the fetus is not a baby yet... a baby is not a toddler yet... but all humans are in their own stages of human development. Because of these distinctions, it is legal to end the life of the developing human when they are in pre-viable developmental stages in utero.
Yes, the sentence can be undone,but hypotheticaly speaking, an innocent man would have spent 20 years in solitary confinement. What type of damage would that have done? I thought your major beef with the death penalty was that we couldnt be sure on 100 percent of the murder cases. You are still against it even if there is no doubt in the murderer's guilt, correct?
I am against the laws allowing capital punishment (the death penalty) due to the chance of executing somebody that didn't do the crime.
Ok fine. Even with cases with 100 percent proof of guilt, you are against. I see both sides on this.