Electric chair to return

[layoutshooter]

Exactly my point.

We can't be sure.

Every person who was killed by a re-offender, was likely innocent. And yet, we keep turning them loose.

 

[Turtle]

No, the killing of a medically viable human being, is murder. So is leaving a baby who survives the attempt to kill it, and is born alive, and left to die, has been murdered. I did not say outlaw abortion.

I don't disagree with you at all that at a certain point the fetus is viable outside the womb, and once outside it it becomes a human being. Not very many people disagree with you on that. A few do, sure, but not many.

I believe that if a person wants an abortion, that should see a video of the proceedure that they are going to have. Not one of an earlier or later one. Same stage, same method.

Oh, OK. You had me confused when you said ALL types of abortion procedures should be videotaped and then shown to a prospective pregnant woman seeking an abortion, so that she would know the entire truth. In any event, why? Should someone seeking a vasectomy be forced to undergo a video session of the type they are going to get, so they know what they are asking for? Or is there some reason that abortion should have such special attention given to it?

You can couch it all you want, one has to kill to abort, there is no other correct term. I mean, what other way, besides killing, is there to abort the products of conception? The products of conception are alive, and after the abortion, they are no longer alive. Therefore, a killing took place. Therefore is one is for abortion, on supports that particular type of killing. Pro death.

I'm not couching anything. I never said said an abortion doesn't kill the fetus, what I said was killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a human being, a baby, an infant or a child or a person.

ALL choices, involving life, are moral choices, from the eating of a living plant to the killing of a medically viable person.

Yep

Also, in case you don't know this, I don't kill "innocent" ducks or fish. ALL are guilty if urinating and deficating in our lakes, rivers, straights, creeks, sloughs, cricks, burns, etc etc., without making any attempt to purify the water that they foul. Most drake mallards should be killed for the way they treat females. And then there is kudzu, talk about a plant that is guilty of murder.

That's just the rationalization for the wanton killing of life.

Besides, just as I am not allowed to force MY morals on others, the same goes for those who would impose theirs on ME. After all, fair is fair.

They aren't. If you don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't disagree with you at all that at a certain point the fetus is viable outside the womb, and once outside it it becomes a human being. Not very many people disagree with you on that. A few do, sure, but not many.

Oh, OK. You had me confused when you said ALL types of abortion procedures should be videotaped and then shown to a prospective pregnant woman seeking an abortion, so that she would know the entire truth. In any event, why? Should someone seeking a vasectomy be forced to undergo a video session of the type they are going to get, so they know what they are asking for? Or is there some reason that abortion should have such special attention given to it?

[quoe]You can couch it all you want, one has to kill to abort, there is no other correct term. I mean, what other way, besides killing, is there to abort the products of conception? The products of conception are alive, and after the abortion, they are no longer alive. Therefore, a killing took place. Therefore is one is for abortion, on supports that particular type of killing. Pro death.

I'm not couching anything. I never said said an abortion doesn't kill the fetus, what I said was killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a human being, a baby, an infant or a child or a person.

Yep

That's just the rationalization for the wanton killing of life.

They aren't. If you don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one.[/QUOTE]

EVERYTHING that EVERY human being eats, is, was, or has the potential to live or be alive. That also goes for just about every being on this earth.

I will tell you what, I will quit killing my own food when you quit eating ANYTHING that was, is or ever could be, alive, in any way, shape or form, whether you kill it yourself or pay someone to kill it for you.

Food has nothing to do with killing viable human beings.

Now, that SHOULD settle the absurd.

 

[muttly]

Wow.......

Wow yourself Scott. Why don't you contribute more to the conversation than just a ....

 

[muttly]

Sorta boggles the mind don't it ?

If one had a sound mind to boggle.

 

[scottm4211]

Wow yourself Scott. Why don't you contribute more to the conversation than just a ....

Ok how about this: That was an absurd statement that if I didn't think you were serious it would be worth a good chuckle.

 

[RLENT]

Those who worship at the altar of abortion are engaging in nothing more than modern day human sacrifice. Infanticide writ large.

Those who worship at the altar of militarism and violence are engaging in nothing more than modern day human sacrifice. Homicide - if not murder - writ large.

 

[muttly]

Ok how about this: That was an absurd statement that if I didn't think you were serious it would be worth a good chuckle.

Most of this thread has been about the death penalty and why it is opposed. Another poster mentioned that we couldn't be CERTAIN (ex:100% guilty) of a persons guilt. I merely mentioned there are instances where that can be determined.

 

[Turtle]

Food has nothing to do with killing viable human beings.

Now, that SHOULD settle the absurd.

You're the one who brought the absurd into this.

Busting up eagle eggs doesn't have anything to do with killing viable human beings, either.

 

[RLENT]

If one had a sound mind to boggle.

Which presumably indicates why (as in: lack thereof) one would post such a silly thing as 100% guilty in the first place ...

 

[RLENT]

Wow yourself Scott. Why don't you contribute more to the conversation than just a ....

Apparently you missed the thing about the finger prints ...

 

[muttly]

Which presumably indicates why (as in: lack thereof) one would post such a silly thing as 100% guilty in the first place ...

There are No instances where a murder is 100 percent sure? Yes or no ?

 

[muttly]

Apparently you missed the thing about the finger prints ...

Fingerprints would be small evidence compared to 20 witnesses and a clear video of the crime, confession, motive etc.

 

[layoutshooter]

You're the one who brought the absurd into this.

Busting up eagle eggs doesn't have anything to do with killing viable human beings, either.

An embryo is an embryo. If killing an eagle embryo is equated in law to the killing an eagle, unless it is killed by an Obama approved wind turbine, then killing a human embryo would be the same as killing a human.

You see, it is my personal believe that a human being, at any stage in it's life, is a human being. Just as I believe that a eagle embryo is an eagle. It is just at one of the stages in it's life.

Any who, we are never going to agree on all of this anyway, so there really is no point in continuing.

I will continue to kill as much as my own food as I can. It's better food.

I do remember one time, I was hunting near a wheat field that was being harvested. I am still haunted by the cries of those wheat plants, crying out as the combine rolled over them. All you could hear was, "MAMMA MAMMA, I've been REAPED"!!

 

[Turtle]

There are No instances where a murder is 100 percent sure? Yes or no ?

Of course there are. But then again, there have been a lot of instances where it was 100% that the accused did it, was executed, only to later be exonerated of the crime. Whoops.

That's why people are snickering, some really out loud, at the comment of, "If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty." That's a "Wow....... Moment" if I ever saw one.

 

[RLENT]

Fingerprints would be small evidence compared to 20 witnesses and a clear video of the crime, confession, motive etc.

Largely irrelevant - I was speaking to your total fixation on one thing Scott said ... and apparent lack of observation of Scott's other contribution.

 

[RLENT]

There are No instances where a murder is 100 percent sure? Yes or no ?

You're so focused and obsessed with slaking your own bloodlust and thirst for vengeance, that it appears that you can't conceive of the potential liability to the innocent ...

Nor can you apparently envision the possibility of human error or ill-motivations as evidenced your "100% guilty" comment ... a ill-considered omission if ever there was one ...

Such hubris !

The intent of the law is primarily to protect the rights of the innocent - which is why Blackstone's formulation is what it is ...

Your primary concern is not with the innocent ... but with the guilty.

 

[muttly]

Of course there are. But then again, there have been a lot of instances where it was 100% that the accused did it, was executed, only to later be exonerated of the crime. Whoops.

That's why people are snickering, some really out loud, at the comment of, "If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty." That's a "Wow....... Moment" if I ever saw one.

Those weren't 100 percent guilty cases. You've entirely missed the point. They were convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. They weren't convictions beyond a shadow of any doubt. I was merely speaking of those murders and hypothetically.

 

[LDB]

Oh yeah, that's right. It's ok to kill them because without the umbilical they can't survive so they aren't really alive or a person. That means it's also fine to kill scuba divers and astronauts I guess because they too aren't truly alive or a person in their environment without the umbilical. Blah, blah, blah. Still wrong.

 

[muttly]

You're so focused and obsessed with slaking your own bloodlust and thirst for vengeance, that it appears that you can't conceive of the potential liability to the innocent ...

Nor can you apparently envision the possibility of human error or ill-motivations as evidenced your "100% guilty" comment ... a ill-considered omission if ever there was one ...

Such hubris !

The intent of the law is primarily to protect the rights of the innocent - which is why Blackstone's formulation is what it is ...

Your primary concern is not with the innocent ... but with the guilty.

Bloodlust and thirst for vengeance? Now that's a definite Wow moment.
Again you let your emotions spew out in a venomous post. Please refer back to my post# 40. Check out the last sentence. Something like :' I see both sides of this.' Doesn't sound like a thirst for vengeance does it? Yes or no?. My comment about 100 percent guilty was in response to Ragman. It was more of a hypothetical answer to find out if he would change his view.All in the sake of a discussion . If you notice ,Ragman did agree there are instances of 100 percent guilt. Just curious, do you have the same venom towards him as well for thinking that. Or is it selective faux outrage?