I am baffled with your excellent counter.

Low quality posting... infraction issued. Please don't make any further attempt to derail the discussion.

__________________

One sacrifices their human rights when they infringe upon anothers rights to life and liberty.

We call places of incarceration Prisons. A rehabilitation center would be a halfway house. Prisons are not rehabilitation centers. While we do give some a second chance after a long punishment and try to make sure they don't commit a crime again, someone who murders another is not deserving of a second chance.

If someone murders another in cold blood, they have shown that they no longer deserve to live among society. Lock them up in solitary confinement for life, or execute them, either way works. It's very simple, in the act of willingly and purposefully depriving another of life, one has sacrificed their claim to humanity.

__________________

I'm against the death penalty, but on the grounds that the government shouldn't have the power to end a citizen's life. Whether they deserved it or not is irrelevant.

__________________
"It is dangerous to be right on matters where the established authority is wrong."
-Voltaire

Fetuses are neither innocent nor guilty. They are as amoral and unsophisticated as most animals. The idea of children as innocent little cherubs is stupid too. Children are merely ignorant, inexperienced, mostly selfish young humans. It's hard to condemn or praise them for much. But I don't really view fetuses as children, anyway, and abortion is okay on the grounds that fetuses/embryos aren't really people yet.

I oppose the death penalty, but not because some people don't deserve it, but rather because it is not pragmatic. I'd rather enslave the murderer and make the rest of his life miserable than spend a lot more money proving beyond any shred of doubt in appeal after appeal that he killed so and so. These appeals cannot be taken away because execution is irreversible and the criminal justice system makes mistakes. Besides, I'd like to see the criminal justice system take the "moral high ground" instead of killing somebody to show that killing is wrong.

I haven't heard any pro life activists call for an end to all unnecessary death.



A human right is a human contract. You're suggesting that there is a fundamental right to life, but that we should not violate a murderer's right to life.

Now remember, there are many fundamental human rights, "such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sound familiar? Now tell me, how do you punish someone for murder without violating those rights, if we take your standing that those human rights are yours no matter what? We get to the point where, by YOUR reasoning, the government has no right to punish at all.

You see, the common logic is that we have a human contract. If you violate another (innocent) person's rights, you forfeit your own.

Human life begins at conception. Fetuses are very undeveloped (duh), but so are babies. A fetus is an un(der)developed human. Tell me, when is a human fully developed?

I don't see it is hypocrisy since a fetus has done nothing to warrant death assuming you consider a fetus to be alive and the people whom you are referring to do. Like you I am opposed to the death penalty and for abortion but for practical reasons rather then moral ones.

A lot of people who are for the death penalty seem to see the government as incompetent and I can't think of any better example then the way they issue the death penalty.

*The death penalty does not save the government any money

*Only 3500 criminals are actually on the death penalty at any given time nation wide

*About 50 criminals are executed every year.

*When you do the math that means people stay on the death penalty for some time (probably over a decade)

*There are over 10,000 murders a year three times the number 3 times the number of criminals on the death penalty at any given time.

*The death penalty is enforced unevenly on multiple planes

*Death penalties have been issued on flimsy evidence and there have been over a 100 known wrongful executions.

*The ballistics test used by the FBI and other organizations to determine where bullets used in a crime came from has been proven to be completely useless and yet it has been used for over 50 years.

I did hear that one study concluded that the death penalty did save lives, about 6-18 out of every execution, but I have no idea how the hell they came up with that number. If the death penalty was limited to serial killers who very rarely get falsely accused it wouldn't be a problem for me, but I'd rather have it be thrown out entirely then used in it's current form.

As for abortion, such a touchy topic should just be left up to individuals. After all if men got pregnant it wouldn't even be an issue.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

I'm "pro-choice" but I disagree. Choice isn't really the issue when you need to determine whether something is murder or not.


It's not so much a matter of full development, but there should be a threshold of development needed to establish personhood.

The choices are conception, viability, birth, and quickening.

The conception option might be partly based upon some silly notion that the soul forms concurrently. We cannot know if souls exist, let alone when it forms. The only scientific distinction in development between gametes and a newly fertilized ovum is that the fertilized ovum has DNA that is distinct from the parents. However, it is not a unique set of DNA that should define personhood. If that were the case, identical twins would be effectively the same person. DNA is not a person any more than a blueprint is a house.

What about viability? Viability would allow for very late abortions. Until sometime through the 3rd trimester, some fetal organs are incapable of operating on their own. The fetus could not survive outside the mother's body without extraordinary medical intervention. But I don't think organs determine personhood. I don't care if the fetal heart is beating yet or not, a beating heart is not a person.

Birth as the standard for personhood is the most extreme pro-choice position that would allow abortion at any time. But to me, the distinction between killing a newborn baby and killing a premature but viable baby is minimal, so I don't agree with this standard. The Constitution extends rights to those "born or naturalized" in the USA, so perhaps Constitutionally rights can only be extended to those who have been born and are not foreign.

To me, though, personhood originates in the mind, or the brain, and thus I advocate some form of quickening. The brain develops to take care of autonomic functions first. These do not really resemble thoughts, they merely tell the body what it needs to do to function. This level of sophistication is below even that of your cat or dog.

Around quickening, roughly halfway through pregnancy, the fetus can make conscious movements and the frontal cortex is sophisticated enough for some form of consciousness. By this same standard, I would not extend rights to somebody who is in a permanent vegetative state (permanent and complete lack of thoughts, awareness, consciousness).

You have unwittingly exposed the difference between killing and murder.

Is a soldier defending his nation against an invader a murderer? No. He's a killer, but not a murderer. Therefore, he is not subject to punishment for killing another human being.

Likewise, a judge, jury, or executioner are not subject to punishment for defending society against murderers.

I don't know how I feel about the death penalty. I am divided on the matter.

As it currently stands, I think there are too many imbalances in the system, and too many mistakes being made, for the death penalty to be viable. I am more comfortable with life without parole at this point.