Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Do you start this nonsense of repeating previous responses again and again now as well?

Or are you ...

Hmm. Not sure what happened there. Maybe an out-of-control hamster?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Well it certainly helps with the recidivism rate.

Not at all Tico! If the sentencing of those inmates who are now on death row would be changed to life in prison, there is no recidivism rate, as they remain incarcerated.

0 Replies

CJ, You'll have to forgive ticomaya, he's only a lowyer.

0 Replies

I know, cicerone, I actually like him, just not his political view.

0 Replies

god bless you, or something to that effect.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

real life wrote:

hi Linkat,

Well, let's be clear here.

Are you doubting that the unborn is living? (If you think the unborn is NOT living, can you tell me if you think the unborn is dead?)

Or

Are you doubting that the unborn is human? (If you think the unborn is NOT human, can you tell me what sort of organism you think the unborn is?)

I can provide proof for either. Let me know.

The unborn is definately living - I have two kids and an unborn child is definately living. The controversy surrounds what determines human life. I don't have the answer - if I did there would be no controversy. I was simply pointing out various viewpoints.

Alright then, you agree that the unborn is living.

If you don't think the unborn is human, (or aren't sure) , then just what sort of living organism may it be?

It has 46 chromosomes and every biological indicator says it's human.

I don't think there is any other type of living organism that it could be other than human, is there?

If there is 'another viewpoint' , what type of organism does this viewpoint postulate the unborn to be?

0 Replies

You are thinking of a response but you don't write it down, is it an answer?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Linkat wrote:
real life wrote:

hi Linkat,

Well, let's be clear here.

Are you doubting that the unborn is living? (If you think the unborn is NOT living, can you tell me if you think the unborn is dead?)

Or

Are you doubting that the unborn is human? (If you think the unborn is NOT human, can you tell me what sort of organism you think the unborn is?)

I can provide proof for either. Let me know.

The unborn is definately living - I have two kids and an unborn child is definately living. The controversy surrounds what determines human life. I don't have the answer - if I did there would be no controversy. I was simply pointing out various viewpoints.

Alright then, you agree that the unborn is living.

If you don't think the unborn is human, (or aren't sure) , then just what sort of living organism may it be?

It has 46 chromosomes and every biological indicator says it's human.

I don't think there is any other type of living organism that it could be other than human, is there?

If there is 'another viewpoint' , what type of organism does this viewpoint postulate the unborn to be?

RL don't muddy the waters with evidence. To believe that the unborn are anything but human would take great faith. Maybe it's a way for people to deal with the death/killing. Sound familiar?

0 Replies

Real continues to talk about the fetus based on his christian beliefs, but ignores all the lives now living that seems to require as much or more attention. Real only wants to impose his religious' beliefs on women he doesn't even know, and his argument about "humans" leaves much to be desired. If he's so concerned about a fetus, he should work on reducing the infanticides in India and China which numbers in the millions every year. Or, maybe, there's a difference in the life of an Indian/Chinese vs a US citizen.

Those babies were once a fetus, but they went full term and was born. Real and his coherts aren't trying to "control" their bodies. I wonder why?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Real continues to talk about the fetus based on his christian beliefs, but ignores all the lives now living that seems to require as much or more attention. Real only wants to impose his religious' beliefs on women he doesn't even know, and his argument about "humans" leaves much to be desired. If he's so concerned about a fetus, he should work on reducing the infanticides in India and China which numbers in the millions every year. Or, maybe, there's a difference in the life of an Indian/Chinese vs a US citizen.

Those babies were once a fetus, but they went full term and was born. Real and his coherts aren't trying to "control" their bodies. I wonder why?

Show where I have based my pro-life position on Christian belief.

I have repeatedly cited MEDICAL evidence -- something pro-aborts seem unable to do.

Since you claim to be an atheist , CI, I would say that your belief is that the body of a human is all there is to it ( i.e. no soul, no spirit).

Therefore, to an atheist, it's as human as it's ever gonna get when it has a living body, correct?

So, destroying the body is destroying the entire human, correct?

Then when the unborn's living body is destroyed in an abortion you have destroyed a living human being, correct?

0 Replies

real, I base my opinion based on the law, and each woman's right to choose.

Your MEDICAL evidence is being twisted to meet your own twisted idea of a baby. It's a EMBRYO or a FETUS. You still want to impose your nose into another person's choice; complete strangers at that! It's none of your business unless you're the woman or the prospective father.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, I base my opinion based on the law, and each woman's right to choose.

If you are basing your opinion on the law, does that mean that if abortion were illegal (as in pre-Roe) then you would think abortion was wrong? Do your opinions shift with the wind of law?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your MEDICAL evidence is being twisted to meet your own twisted idea of a baby. It's a EMBRYO or a FETUS. You still want to impose your nose into another person's choice; complete strangers at that! It's none of your business unless you're the woman or the prospective father.

Yes, the unborn goes through stages of growth called 'embryo' and 'fetus'.

A child also goes through stages of growth called 'newborn' , 'toddler', 'teenager' , etc

What do the use of ANY of these descriptive terms have to do with whether he/she is a living human being at these stages?

The answer is NONE.

Just because one is a 'fetus' doesn't mean one isn't living or that one isn't a human being.

Just because one is a 'toddler' doesn't mean one isn't living or that one isn't a human being.

Get it? Probably not.

Your semantic games seem to be too deeply ingrained, and shored up by your political feelings to allow you to think objectively about this.

Can you show using MEDICAL evidence that a fetus is NOT living, OR is NOT human?

0 Replies

Will one of you twits explain what abortion has to do with capital punishment.

0 Replies

It's those "twits" that continually fight the battle for the embryo over "life."

0 Replies

Actually, if you look back to page 5 you will find that I was actively engaged in the CP discussion, and it was not a pro-life member that derailed the CP thread onto the abortion topic.

It was a pro-abortion member.

I won't denigrate this member in the same way that you have tried to do however.

If you can't make your point without petty insults, perhaps you should wait to comment until you can.

0 Replies

The abortion debate does not belong here, but there is a connection when you are talking about "sanctity of life".

I personally see it as highly hypocritical to argue that every "life" is sacred in defence of the foetus while supporting capital punishment. Suddenly, it's all about "innocence" rather than life itself.

0 Replies

Yes, in America it is our habit to punish those guilty of crimes.

To knowingly punish the innocent is considered to be wrong.

Is it different where you live?

0 Replies

Nope, same. Nice dodge though.

0 Replies

real life, can you show me any MEDICAL evidence that a criminal is not a living human being?

real life wrote, on an abortion thread.....

real life wrote:

You have admitted that abortion should be allowed even if the unborn is a living human being. How can you make a rationale for killing a living human being for the sake of convenience?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote, on an abortion thread.....

real life wrote:

You have admitted that abortion should be allowed even if the unborn is a living human being. How can you make a rationale for killing a living human being for the sake of convenience?

Capital punishment is not done on the basis of one person's opinion or what is or isn't their desire.

It's not done for the convenience of one person, or by one person.

It is a collective act of society to punish one who has committed a crime, usually murder.

A convicted criminal has been tried by a jury of his peers, and been found guilty of a heinous crime, has had the right to self defense, and the opportunity to introduce evidence in his favor, as well as the right to numerous appeals.

Do you see the difference between this and the killing of an innocent person who has NOT had due process, had NO opportunity to defend himself or have another present evidence in his favor, had NO right of appeal, and wasn't convicted or even accused of a crime in the first place? No, probably you can not.

0 Replies

Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know