New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.

[SirJosephPorter]

Another point. Capital punishment in no way violates international law:

I don’t care, Machjo, I oppose death penalty because I think it is wrong for government to kill its own citizens, that sets a very bad example for its citizens. It does nothing to reduce crime (at least there is no evidence that it does), it cheapens human life, and it gives people the impression that it is OK to kill (government does, why shouldn’t we?).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Machjo, I am opposed to death penalty even under those conditions. Government killing its own citizens is wrong in my opinion, no exceptions.

 

[ironsides]

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?

As far as I am concerned, that is not an issue. In answer to your question, none.

 

[ironsides]

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?

It has been know for over a hundred years maybe longer that the fusion of sperm and oocyte begins the life of a new individual human being. In Human Embryology the terms understood to be integral in the common sense language are: human, being, person, individual, human being, life and human life. Unfortunately, every one of those terms has been parsed and corrupted to mean something it is not. For example, we have already examined the corruption of the term individual into individuation (The individuation process is a term created by the famous psychologist Carl Gustav Jung to describe the process of becoming aware of oneself, of one’s make-up, and the way to discover one’s true, inner self. Although the structure is basic and simple, the contents require a much deeper understanding.) but explained how this corruption is seriously flawed.

As to the question is the sperm and oocyte alive, yes, but only as a cell is alive. Must we have a burial ceremony for a used condom or every time a women finishes ovulation? Of course not. Do I believe the fetus should require full protection, At some point in its growth cycle it probably should. Unlike you I have no religion, and no I am not a atheist.

 

[Cannuck]

Sure Yukon Jack, fairy tales can teach us a lot. In fact most fairy tales are in a way morality tales.

It is interesting to see you admit that the bible (which you believe is fairy tales) can teach you a lot.

 

[Cannuck]

Because what you are saying (that life begins at conception) is a religious view, not a scientific view.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no definitive view on when life begins. Since there are scientists that accept the notion that life begins at conception your claim is simply wrong. Your need to bring religion into this discussion is just that...your need. I think the rest of us are willing to discuss this scientifically. Are you?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry, ironsides, I missed this post of yours.

It has been know for over a hundred years maybe longer that the fusion of sperm and oocyte begins the life of a new individual human being.

We may be arguing over semantics here, ironsides, but I don’t think it begins the life of a new human being. What it begins is the process of development of a new human being, which if everything goes right, will lead to the formation of a human being in 9 or 10 months.

What is started at conception is a potential for life, but I would call that a human life.

Unfortunately, every one of those terms has been parsed and corrupted to mean something it is not.

That is often the case. Thus conservatives don’t like the fact that homosexuals have appropriated the word ‘gay’ for themselves.

Although the structure is basic and simple, the contents require a much deeper understanding.) but explained how this corruption is seriously flawed.

That is what I have said before, these are deep and complex issues, with no simple answers.

Do I believe the fetus should require full protection, At some point in its growth cycle it probably should.

Here I agree with you. I have said it before, I wouldn’t oppose some restrictions on abortion after fetal viability.

Maybe we have more common ground that we realized.

Unlike you I have no religion, and no I am not a atheist.

Here you are staring a whole new discussion, ironsides. If you are not an Atheist, then you have a religion.

 

[JLM]

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.

Finally some sense being uttered in this thread. Here we are in an economic plunge where it's tough finding enough food for the homeless and we are feeding the likes of Olson and Bernardo and a few thousand others.

 

[JLM]

Sir Joseph- You speak of a religious view vs. a scientific view- well there are probably thousands of scientific views depending on which scientist you talk to. BTW, I bet it wouldn't be too difficult to find a doctor that will tell you a fetus is life.

 

[Cannuck]

You speak of a religious view vs. a scientific view- well there are probably thousands of scientific views depending on which scientist you talk to.

Sometimes it helps to simplify the problem to try and understand it...unfortunately, this isn't one of those times

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sir Joseph- You speak of a religious view vs. a scientific view- well there are probably thousands of scientific views depending on which scientist you talk to. BTW, I bet it wouldn't be too difficult to find a doctor that will tell you a fetus is life.

Certainly not, JLM. You probably could also find a scientist who will tell you that earth is flat (or that universe was created 5000 years ago, in six days).

You find all kinds of views in the scientific community. Scientific community is not a monolith, it is a spectrum. However, it is important to know what is the consensus.

The consensus is that we don’t know when life (much less human life) begins. Another way of saying the same thing is that life is a continuum without a beginning or an end.

Unless and until there is a scientific consensus that it is a human life from the moment of conception, there are no scientific grounds to ban abortion, only religious grounds.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Finally some sense being uttered in this thread. Here we are in an economic plunge where it's tough finding enough food for the homeless and we are feeding the likes of Olson and Bernardo and a few thousand others.

And what is the alternative? You want to spend millions of $ to hang them, put them to death? Sir Francis mentioned in this very thread, it costs 250 million $ per prisoner to put them to death.

Not only is death penalty wrong from human rights point of view, it also doesn’t make sense economically.