New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
I have to get personal with you SirJosephPorter, no where did I mention anything about your favorite anti subject religion. But when a Zygote is formed we have life.
You still didn’t answer my question, ironsides. If zygote is alive, why not sperm? Sperm is also alive. What make zygote a living entity, but sperm a dead entity, except religion? And you don’t have to mention religion, I am mentioning religion. The pro life position (that life begins at conception) does not make sense except as a religious belief.
You still didn’t answer my question, ironsides. If zygote is alive, why not sperm? Sperm is also alive. What make zygote a living entity, but sperm a dead entity, except religion? And you don’t have to mention religion, I am mentioning religion. The pro life position (that life begins at conception) does not make sense except as a religious belief.
Seams rather like a step backwards to me. Over crowded prisons are a drag on the taxpayer. And some people just simply do not have a right to live especially after taking that right away from someone else. Clifford Olson comes to mind and there are many others.
That doesn’t make sense, ironsides. What you are saying is that sperm and egg ‘by themselves cannot exist that long’. But the same can be said of the fetus at conception. By itself it cannot exist for long either.
You still haven’t explained what makes fetus so important but makes sperm so unimportant, except your religious beliefs. It certainly isn’t science. Science does not attribute to the fetus any special characteristics that it doesn’t attribute to the sperm, religion does.
Like it or not, what you are saying is the religious viewpoint, not scientific viewpoint. Indeed, I have said it before; there is an easy way to settle the argument. Show me a paper in a scientific journal which says that human life begins at conception.
Getting personal the surest sign that you are running out of arguments. Until now you thought you had something to say, so you didn’t get personal. But now evidently you don’t think you have anything to say, so you seek the ‘last refuge of the incompetent’ (as Asimov would put it) and resort to personalities.
So....you want to take away that right from Olson. By your own statement, you now do not have the right to live.
...at our current level of science. Potentially, the different possibilities between a sperm, a fetus and a 60 year old heart attack patient is enormous.
Getting personal the surest sign that you are running out of arguments. (In the words of SirJosephPorter)
Taxslave, when you wrote that some people don’t have a right to live, deserve to die that reminded me of something Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings (I am a big fan of J.R.R.Tolkien). So I looked up the exact quote.
When Frodo said that it was a pity that Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum, that Gollum deserved to die, Gandalf replied:
“Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Well said, I think.
SirJosephPorter said:
"Taxslave, when you wrote that some people don’t have a right to live, deserve to die that reminded me of something Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings (I am a big fan of J.R.R.Tolkien). So I looked up the exact quote.
When Frodo said that it was a pity that Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum, that Gollum deserved to die, Gandalf replied:
“Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Well said, I think."
Congratulations, SirJoe, your values in life are based on fairy tales.
"Taxslave, when you wrote that some people don’t have a right to live, deserve to die that reminded me of something Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings (I am a big fan of J.R.R.Tolkien). So I looked up the exact quote.
When Frodo said that it was a pity that Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum, that Gollum deserved to die, Gandalf replied:
“Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Well said, I think."
Congratulations, SirJoe, your values in life are based on fairy tales.
First of all no one said anything about a fetus surviving on its own, of course it must be incubated to grow, important word grow. Try that with a sperm or a egg. (by the way the word sperm was introduced by you) I have no idea why you keep bringing even the hint of religion or creationism into most of your debates, As I said before, read your basic bio. again, what I said was based upon science. In case you lost it.
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113
Last edited:
Excuse me for interjecting here.
But i wonder what all you anti and pro abortionists,
think of the recent herring fishery here on the left coast.
You know,the one where fishers(politically correct)harvest the fertallized
eggs of spawning herring?
Now explain the diference from harvesting recently fertallized human eggs?
But i wonder what all you anti and pro abortionists,
think of the recent herring fishery here on the left coast.
You know,the one where fishers(politically correct)harvest the fertallized
eggs of spawning herring?
Now explain the diference from harvesting recently fertallized human eggs?
OK, I'll bite. I do support the death penalty as a default for murder and arson, but judges should have the power to overrule the default and opt for life imprisonment, or even life of exile beyond the limits of the city where the crime was committed, with a clear explanation of why he's chosen to overrule the default, where certain special factors need to be taken into account. I also think there should be a minimum age below which we shoud re-educate instead of giving the death sentence or imprisonment, let's say anyone under the age of 15.
I am aware that one of the main arguments against capital punishment is that no legal system could ever be perfect, and as such, innocents will always slip through the cracks. A flaw I see with such an argument, though, is that in that case, we could put no one in prison unless we were 100% sure they were guilty, which is rarely the case. By such a standard, few criminals would ever be prosecuted, so for public safety, we do need a middle ground, and that's what we refer to as 'reasonable doubt'. By that standard, we can be sure that few crimnals will go free and few innocents will be prosecuted.
So yes, there is always a risk of innocents receiving a death sentence, but that risk can be minimized considerably by having to prove the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And I do believe that the death sentence will deter at least some people from committing a crime.
I am aware that one of the main arguments against capital punishment is that no legal system could ever be perfect, and as such, innocents will always slip through the cracks. A flaw I see with such an argument, though, is that in that case, we could put no one in prison unless we were 100% sure they were guilty, which is rarely the case. By such a standard, few criminals would ever be prosecuted, so for public safety, we do need a middle ground, and that's what we refer to as 'reasonable doubt'. By that standard, we can be sure that few crimnals will go free and few innocents will be prosecuted.
So yes, there is always a risk of innocents receiving a death sentence, but that risk can be minimized considerably by having to prove the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And I do believe that the death sentence will deter at least some people from committing a crime.
Another point. Capital punishment in no way violates international law:
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NOT PROHIBITED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD
I fully agree that Canada should respect all international laws whether we agree with them or not. After all, how can we expect other countries to abide by them if we don't. Capital punishment, hoever, in no way violates it, just to clarify.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NOT PROHIBITED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD
I fully agree that Canada should respect all international laws whether we agree with them or not. After all, how can we expect other countries to abide by them if we don't. Capital punishment, hoever, in no way violates it, just to clarify.
I would like to clarify one thing though. I also believe that it is not fair to punish a person without first teaching him right from wrong. This being the case, moral and spiritual education, along with education in a trade or profession, ought to be freely provided by society and even be compulsory so as to ensure that:
1. people do in fact know right from wrong, and:
2. they have the education necessary to engage in a trade or profession so that they need not steal.
And certainly, society ought to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty.
But then, in such a society, there'd be no reason for one to kill, so if he does kill, knowing that what he did is wrong, illigal, and knowing the punishment, and after all that society would have done to educate him so that he could engage in some trade or profession, then he is guilty not only of murder, but also of violating a covenant with the society with which he lives.
1. people do in fact know right from wrong, and:
2. they have the education necessary to engage in a trade or profession so that they need not steal.
And certainly, society ought to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty.
But then, in such a society, there'd be no reason for one to kill, so if he does kill, knowing that what he did is wrong, illigal, and knowing the punishment, and after all that society would have done to educate him so that he could engage in some trade or profession, then he is guilty not only of murder, but also of violating a covenant with the society with which he lives.
Congratulations, SirJoe, your values in life are based on fairy tales.
Sure Yukon Jack, fairy tales can teach us a lot. In fact most fairy tales are in a way morality tales. Even many Christians claim that we can learn a lot from Lord of the Rings; they claim that it promotes the Christian worldview (though for the life of me I can’t see how).
Now for me, I see secular principles promoted in Lord of the Rings. Respect for life is one such value, as illustrated by what Gandalf said.
So yes, I am not ashamed to learn from fairy tales.
Sure Yukon Jack, fairy tales can teach us a lot. In fact most fairy tales are in a way morality tales. Even many Christians claim that we can learn a lot from Lord of the Rings; they claim that it promotes the Christian worldview (though for the life of me I can’t see how).
Now for me, I see secular principles promoted in Lord of the Rings. Respect for life is one such value, as illustrated by what Gandalf said.
So yes, I am not ashamed to learn from fairy tales.
As I said before, read your basic bio. again, what I said was based upon science. In case you lost it.
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:w hite-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113
Ironsides, I have already told you, what Westchester Institute says is of no value to me. It is a Catholic think tank, which parrots the official line propagated by Pope. Show me a paper in a refereed scientific journal, that will carry weight with me, not the Catholic propaganda as put forward by Westchester institute.
I have no idea why you keep bringing even the hint of religion or creationism into most of your debates,
Because what you are saying (that life begins at conception) is a religious view, not a scientific view.
First of all no one said anything about a fetus surviving on its own, of course it must be incubated to grow, important word grow.
But you still haven’t answered my question. What makes fetus alive, but sperm not alive in your opinion?
Because if sperm is alive, shouldn’t we show the same reverence to the sperm as you want to show to the fetus? I have asked you this question several times, but you keep skirting the issue. So let me ask it again.
If you believe that fetus is alive and must receive full protection, do you also believe that sperm is alive and should receive full protection? If not, why not?
Now, if you say fetus is not alive and sperm is not alive (for practical purposes) I can understand that. If you say that fetus deserves full protection of law because it is alive, and also sperm should receive full protection of law because it is alive, I can understand that. While that will be a ridiculous position, at least it will be consistent.
However when you say that we must protect fetus from conception as if it was a human being, but you don’t’ care if sperm lives or dies, then you are saying that simply because of your religious views, nothing else.
So let me ask you again. Do you believe that sperm is alive and should receive the same protection as the fetus? If not, why not?
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:w hite-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113
Ironsides, I have already told you, what Westchester Institute says is of no value to me. It is a Catholic think tank, which parrots the official line propagated by Pope. Show me a paper in a refereed scientific journal, that will carry weight with me, not the Catholic propaganda as put forward by Westchester institute.
I have no idea why you keep bringing even the hint of religion or creationism into most of your debates,
Because what you are saying (that life begins at conception) is a religious view, not a scientific view.
First of all no one said anything about a fetus surviving on its own, of course it must be incubated to grow, important word grow.
But you still haven’t answered my question. What makes fetus alive, but sperm not alive in your opinion?
Because if sperm is alive, shouldn’t we show the same reverence to the sperm as you want to show to the fetus? I have asked you this question several times, but you keep skirting the issue. So let me ask it again.
If you believe that fetus is alive and must receive full protection, do you also believe that sperm is alive and should receive full protection? If not, why not?
Now, if you say fetus is not alive and sperm is not alive (for practical purposes) I can understand that. If you say that fetus deserves full protection of law because it is alive, and also sperm should receive full protection of law because it is alive, I can understand that. While that will be a ridiculous position, at least it will be consistent.
However when you say that we must protect fetus from conception as if it was a human being, but you don’t’ care if sperm lives or dies, then you are saying that simply because of your religious views, nothing else.
So let me ask you again. Do you believe that sperm is alive and should receive the same protection as the fetus? If not, why not?
I am aware that one of the main arguments against capital punishment is that no legal system could ever be perfect, and as such, innocents will always slip through the cracks.
Machjo, that is not the main reason to oppose death penalty, at least not in my opinion. I oppose death penalty mainly because I think all the citizens enjoy an absolute right to life and I find it particularly odious when government kills its own citizens, for whatever reason.
And I do believe that the death sentence will deter at least some people from committing a crime.
That is only your opinion; you have no evidence for it. In fact, the empirical, circumstantial evidence is against it. Look at the countries in the world which have death penalty. Most of them have a higher crime rate and murder rate, much higher than the countries which don’t have death penalty.
Machjo, that is not the main reason to oppose death penalty, at least not in my opinion. I oppose death penalty mainly because I think all the citizens enjoy an absolute right to life and I find it particularly odious when government kills its own citizens, for whatever reason.
And I do believe that the death sentence will deter at least some people from committing a crime.
That is only your opinion; you have no evidence for it. In fact, the empirical, circumstantial evidence is against it. Look at the countries in the world which have death penalty. Most of them have a higher crime rate and murder rate, much higher than the countries which don’t have death penalty.