As long the chance exists that somebody that didn't didn't do it is executed, then it is better to not execute anybody.
Electric chair to return
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
Then if I wipe out a bunch of eagle eggs I am in no trouble. After all, they are no embryo is viable.
Until those who are pro killing of life, use the terms that accurately depict the killing that is taking place, they have no credibility. Using "nice" terms just hides the very ugly act that is taking place.
I don't know that the "viable" part even matters to some, since there are MANY who have survived the attacks made upon them, not to mention "partial birth" abortion. I don't believe there is a need to get into the graphic details of that "legal" procedure, is there?
Even the Constitution does not matter to the 'pro death" crowd, since living, breathing, babies, are left to die after they are delivered AFTER the attempt on their lives failed. SINCE Constitutional rights apply to ALL those BORN in the US , AND, if they are born alive, regardless of the attempts to kill them, they are US citizens and afforded all rights to protection. To allow them to die, kill them etc, after a live birth IS MURDER. Those who murder those people are then allowed to continue to murder.
In the great cosmological sense, that's true, as conception is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago, and human conception is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is certainly alive in that sense. They are not human beings, of course. They are simply organic and animate, which isn't the same as life itself. A sperm has twenty-three chromosomes, yet even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. An egg also has twenty-three chromosomes, and it can never make another egg. Thus, we have sperm that cannot reproduce and eggs that cannot reproduce, unless they get together. Sperm cells and egg cells are incomplete lifeforms that are only functionally alive, the same way that an ungerminated kernel of corn is alive. Otherwise female menstruation becomes mass murder, as does male masturbation (albeit on a much larger scale, and far more frequently).
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
And until those in the (supposedly) "pro-life" camp can divorce themselves from using argumentation which relies more on emotion - often bordering on the hysterical - than it does on reason and logic, they will have no credibility.
Thank you!
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup.
Exactly ... and that - or the precursors to it - is part of what is addressed in the Rational Wiki link that I provided to Dave with regard to the "slippery slope".
Religion - in addition to having the potential to make people stupid - also has the potential to make them crazy.
Last edited:
And society has a 100% right to be protected 100% of the time from those who would murder/rape etc. To allow ANY chance of a repeat offense is, in it self, criminal. Find a way. ONE mistake, is one to many.
I'm pretty sure is it illegal to wipe out a bunch of eagle eggs, so I think you are incorrect there. It's not illegal, however, to wipe out a bunch of chicken eggs.
Your concepts of who is and is not correctly and accurately using certain terms are themselves highly inaccurate. Those who want to use an emotional or philosophical argument are the ones who bandy about incorrect terms like baby, infant, child, person, they even incorrectly use strong words with acute vitriol to engender strong emotions like infanticide, because they don't know even what an infant is, or they want to redefine the term for their own philosophical agenda.
You're right, the "viable" part doesn't matter to some. But those "some" are not most, not even close. It's an exercise in logical futility to try and employ the exception to the rule as if it applies across the board.
I agree. But what you describe is also not the norm.
Most people outside East TN probably weren't aware of the Christian-Newsom murder case that happened in 2009. Two college-aged kids out on a date were carjacked by four black scumbags, tortured, raped and murdered in the most horrific manner imaginable. The young man - Chris Newsom - was sodomized, beaten, shot to death and his body set on fire in an isolated area near some railroad tracks. The young woman - Channon Christian - was raped by the perps and also with a foreign object, beaten, tied up so tightly her knees were against her cheeks, wrapped in plastic garbage bags and forced head first into a trash can. She died a slow, miserable death from suffocation. The four perps were found guilty with a level of proof that left no shred of doubt. With all this in mind after reading the article below, I'd like somebody to consider that one of those kids might have been their son or daughter and then explain why they would be opposed to the death penalty, and be concerned about it being carried out in a "humane" manner. It's amazing that so many people are concerned about the rights of the criminals until they or one of their own family members is a victim. Then it's different; Firing squad, electric chair, public hanging, crucifixion - it really wouldn't make much difference so long as they get what they deserve.
Medical examiner describes victims' torture in Cobbins trial
Medical examiner describes victims' torture in Cobbins trial
It is illegal to bust up eagle eggs, but using the logic of abortion, it should not be.
I did not use any term like baby, unborn child, I did not discuss any religious beliefs. I DO believe that ALL types of abortion proceedures SHOULD be video taped and shown to one who is seeking to kill the product of conception. They should KNOW the entire truth.
If so many were opposed to not killing viable babies, then there would be NO problem outlawing that practice. We all seen how far that has gone.
I agree that leaving babies to die after a botched abortion is not the norm, BUT, just as with capital punishment, one mistake is too many.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Newsflash: Utopia doesn't exist here on Earth.
To adopt the view that punishment ought to be a preventative measure - rather than a punitive one - is a very slippery slope indeed ...
The only destination on that train is the full-blown authoritarian police state.
Last edited:
Far less than killing him 20 years earlier would have done.
I'm not a big fan of most absolutes in society, like "no death penalty under any circumstances," because there are situations where society demands the death penalty. However, 100 percent has been shown to be faulty, as many a convict who was 100 percent, no doubt about it guilty, was later exonerated. If someone is to be executed, they have to really deserve it. And I mean really, really deserve it, with no mistakes, not even one.
One way to keep capital punishment and dramatically reduce or even eliminate mistakes would be to hold the prosecution equally liable for incorrect verdicts of the death penalty. If someone is executed and later exonerated of the crime, then the prosecution should share the same exact fate which they incorrectly fought to impose on the innocent. If the actual prosecutor involved is no longer living, that's OK, as whoever holds that position currently can take his place. I seriously doubt prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to seek the death penalty nearly as often as they do now.
I think everybody is missing the point of our position.
It's not that we are against the death penalty for the 100% proven guilty, We just can not be sure everybody that receives that sentence is in fact 100% proven guilty.
I have posted many stories of death row inmates being set free because they didn't do it.
He's also wrong in his assumption that all family members want the convicted killer/rapist/spammers put to death. That's just false.
All officials who release a convict, who was rightfully convicted, early, and then that excon offends again, should be accountable too.
Applying the logic of abortion to that of eagle eggs is flawed logic. If you do that, then using the same logic, all people who eat living things or things that used to be living are guilty of killing living things. Even vegetarians and vegans are guilty of this. Don't get me started on the rampant, barbaric killing of innocent ducks and fish.
No, you said those who are "pro killing of life" were the ones incorrectly using the terms "that accurately depict the killing that is taking place." Yet that's incorrect, as they do use the terms correctly. They just aren't the terms you prefer, nor are they the terms which are routinely used incorrectly by those who want to impose their own personal views onto others.
So if someone wants an abortion at 6 weeks, you think they should be shown a video of a partial-birth abortion, in order for them to know the entire truth about something they don't even want? Instead of wanting someone to know the entire truth, it would seem you have an ulterior motive in that.
The reason there is a problem is that outlawing the practice is nothing more than imposing a certain set of morals onto others It's just like gun control where laws are enacted and then the creep begins to enact more and more restrictive laws.