Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: October 28, 2005
Posts: 5354
|
quote: Basically you are saying that is wrong to kill a violent criminal, but fine to kill an innocent baby.
Because we don't believe that it is a baby yet. It's more like a parasite.
draft beer not soldiers...
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: Now Nephilem, why is abortion murder and the death penalty isn't?
Because with the death penalty, you have a very clear set of laws if a person breaks the law, they deserve the penalty. If they committed a crime that is punishable by death then they deserve to die, see my child rapist example. Now this entire death penalty issue raises an interest question. Why are you against the death penalty, but don’t have a problem for abortion? Basically you are saying that is wrong to kill a violent criminal, but fine to kill an innocent baby. Something seems wrong with this position.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: January 22, 2005
Posts: 716
|
quote: The execution of a serial, child rapist is not Murder, the killing of an innocent Baby is.
The death penalty is absolutly wrong; it is the remains of a government that cling on from the days of Empires, civlised and barbarians. There are some circumstances in which abortion should be allowed; not be the mothers choice, but where it is a medical necessity. If, for example, the mother and child would die it would be necessary to have an abortion in the interest of saving lives. I think thats what I mean.
Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves. For a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, nor does a sudden shower last the entire day.
|
Registered: November 27, 2004
Posts: 1322
|
ok since you apparently completely ignored my post I'll re-post it for you: quote: Nephilem, there have been death penalty cases where innocent people have been convicted and LUCKILY released before they actually got it (because it was discovered that they were innocent), but what happens when it's not discovered? You kill an innocent person(which I guess you would equate to killing a fetus). So already because of that you're a hypocrite.
(2)Also with the death penalty you don't actually accomplish anything, you don't bring the victim back to life, you just perpetuate more violence and killing, and just in itself it's hypocritical because you're punishing with the same thing that you're punishing for. Abortion on the other hand does accomplish something, for the mother.
Also, did you know that the death penalty costs more than a life in prison?(this is because of the whole appeal system apparently, it's kinda' surprising), so it does not even save people money.
As for a deterrent, it has not been proven that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than a life sentence.
The only argument that could actually hold up for the death penalty is pure vengeance. But still that doesn't really hold up because the justice system is not supposed to be representative of that...whatever. Now don't you dare say abortion is the same thing because abortion is not done out of vengeance but out of need.
Now Nephilem, why is abortion murder and the death penalty isn't?
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: I thought you didn't like murder at all, Nephilim
The execution of a serial, child rapist is not Murder, the killing of an innocent Baby is. The death Penalty is a way to deal with criminals who commit very serious crimes, and who would be spending their life in prison anyway. Also the death penalty is not a very common type of punishment in America. So do you believe that the death penalty is wrong?
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 27, 2004
Posts: 1322
|
That's what I was going to add but it didn't let me edit. I was going to say that I think it would be VERY different if the family of the victim went out and murdered the murderer than if the State can actually legally do it.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
|
Registered: December 27, 2006
Posts: 3981
|
I support vengence. I support justice. I do not support law. I believe there is a fine yet distinctive difference between justice and law, and the system we have now, is not justice. 
...a Wandering Star for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever...
|
Registered: November 27, 2004
Posts: 1322
|
Nephilem, there have been death penalty cases where innocent people have been convicted and LUCKILY released before they actually got it (because it was discovered that they were innocent), but what happens when it's not discovered? You kill an innocent person(which I guess you would equate to killing a fetus). So already because of that you're a hypocrite. (2)Also with the death penalty you don't actually accomplish anything, you don't bring the victim back to life, you just perpetuate more violence and killing, and just in itself it's hypocritical because you're punishing with the same thing that you're punishing for. Abortion on the other hand does accomplish something, for the mother. Also, did you know that the death penalty costs more than a life in prison?(this is because of the whole appeal system apparently, it's kinda' surprising), so it does not even save people money. As for a deterrent, it has not been proven that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than a life sentence. The only argument that could actually hold up for the death penalty is pure vengeance. But still that doesn't really hold up because the justice system is not supposed to be representative of that...whatever. Now don't you dare say abortion is the same thing because abortion is not done out of vengeance but out of need. EDIT: Good point Shade. That completely passed me by.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
|
Registered: December 27, 2006
Posts: 3981
|
I thought you didn't like murder at all, Nephilim? You keep asking if it should be legal or not, as a hinge in your debate. I don't think you believe any of this stuff; you're just posting it to argue.
...a Wandering Star for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever...
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: And also, I think you are a major hypocrite for being for the death penalty and calling yourself pro-LIFE. Wow.
There is a big difference between killing a baby, and a criminal who has taken lives. For example a child predator, who kidnaps kids, rapes and tortures them, kills them, and then does the entire process, again with another kid should receive the Death Penalty. Abortion is killing an innocent life that has not committed any crime. And are you against the death penalty? If you are against the death penalty, then how can you support abortion? Lastly if you admit that the child is not a part of the Mother, why do you say that the mother should have the ability to do what she wants with her Body?
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: December 27, 2006
Posts: 3981
|
quote: I am for the Death penalty.
Why, if you're against abortion, which you so adamently state is murder? quote: My question with the age of the child was why is it alright to kill the kid, only in its early stages, if we say that we can kill it, at what age does killing the baby become wrong?
The current belief is when it causes physical trauma to the mother, am I correct? I agree with Maya. Saying the same thing three times isn't going to get the point across any more than running into a cement wall is going to get you through it.
...a Wandering Star for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever...
|
Registered: November 27, 2004
Posts: 1322
|
Nephilem I could continue arguing with you over and over again but you just refuse to READ. I said it's LIKE a part of her body, stop repeating yourself seriously. I also explained(in my previous post) why I was saying that, so I'm not going to repeat it again. And also, I think you are a major hypocrite for being for the death penalty and calling yourself pro-LIFE. Wow.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: Nephilem, could you please tell me if you're for or against the death penalty?
I am for the Death penalty. quote: It is a fetus, that's alive, but it is not a separate entity no. It is like a part of her body
Here are some reasons why a Fetus is not part of a woman body. quote: 1. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. (For example, the lungs and legs and livers of Person X all have the same genetic code.) An unborn baby is a genetically distinct being; therefore it is not a part of its mother's body.
2. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then if the woman died, the part would die as well. (For example, lungs and legs and livers don't live on when a woman dies). But an unborn baby can survive the death of a mother--see Bobbi Jo Stinnett--therefore is it not a part of its mother's body.
3. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then the woman would have four eyes, two hearts, four lungs, etc. And yes, if the "fetus" is a boy, then the mother would also have male sexual organs.
4. Why does Caulson think that a "fetus" is "part" of a pregnant woman's body? There's only two possible reasons I can think of: (a) because the "fetus" is inside the woman; (b) because the "fetus" is dependent on the woman for survival. But both are absurd criteria: (a') being in the hospital doesn't make me part of the hospital (in that sense that I'm am no longer an individual, distinct entity); and (b') being dependant upon a life-support machine does not make me a part of the life-support machine.
My question with the age of the child was why is it alright to kill the kid, only in its early stages, if we say that we can kill it, at what age does killing the baby become wrong?
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: January 16, 2003
Posts: 12687
|
Nephilem, could you please tell me if you're for or against the death penalty?
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
Death penalty? For it. quote: You also can’t say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, because the Baby is not part of her Baby.
I'll assume you meant body. She does indeed have that right because the fetus, up to a certain point, is completely dependent on her. It is a parasite, so to speak, because it takes nutrients from her body and gives nothing back. Sever it from her body before the first trimester is over (or around that time) and it will not live, no matter what the circumstances. So, if it is completely dependent on her (meaning the fetus cannot possibly survive without being physically connected to her), I think she does have the ultimate say over what happens to it. Which is why I made the tapeworm comparison. It's a parasite, just as a fetus is, if looked at from a certain perspective.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: December 27, 2006
Posts: 3981
|
quote: So is the baby is its own distinctive person, why does the Mother have the right to tell a doctor, that he can kill her baby?
She doesn't. Abortion is granting her the privilage. If it was a right, then this debate would have been over long ago.
...a Wandering Star for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever...
|
Registered: November 27, 2004
Posts: 1322
|
quote:
So is the baby is its own distinctive person, why does the Mother have the right to tell a doctor, that he can kill her baby?
It is a fetus, that's alive, but it is not a separate entity no. It is like a part of her body, it is inside her, feeding off her, it depends completely on the mother. Lets say it belongs to the mother. So yeah if she needs to (and up to a certain number of months) she has a right to kill it. That is not the same thing as a 5 year old child. And you OBVIOUSLY did not comprehend clpo's comparison to tapeworms. quote: Should people have the ability to kill their kids, regardless of their age?
As I already said, it is not the same thing. Also we start talking about age once it is born, or do we say(when the child turns a year) my child is 1 year and 9 months old?No.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: Again, I never said the fetus was part of the mother's body. I said (or rather implied) it was contained within her body.
So is the baby is its own distinctive person, why does the Mother have the right to tell a doctor, that he can kill her baby? You also can’t say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, because the Baby is not part of her Baby. How far does choice go? Should people have the ability to kill their kids, regardless of their age? Why is it Necessary that woman have this Choice to kill their Kid. quote: This may not be the best comparison, but think of tapeworms.
Yeah, defiantly not a good comparison.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 27, 2004
Posts: 1322
|
quote: Originally posted by YouthVoice:
So I'm curious, who here is against the death penalty or for it?
against it.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
|
Registered: January 22, 2005
Posts: 716
|
quote: So I'm curious, who here is against the death penalty or for it?
I'm against both abortion and the death penalty. I claim to be genuinely pro-life. Yay!
Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves. For a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, nor does a sudden shower last the entire day.
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
