Choice

By having a society sufficiently mature, with a sufficiently professional and trained police service, fair system of government and restricted access to weapons. I appreciate that you are not used to any of these things, but they are pretty much taken for granted in most western countries. Of course, we don't have quite as many ice cream flavours to choose from as you do, but then we don't need active shooter drills in schools either.
I see.

So you are one of these "guns kill people types."

Sir, why are you so afraid of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens? Do law abiding citizens with guns commit mass shootings?

The problem in America, in my opinion is not law-abiding citizens with guns, but the left--who wants to defund police, the left who coddles criminals and makes excuses for them, and such.

Before you convince me that guns in the hands of law-abiding people are a threat, maybe we should start with the simplest solution first? You know--funding police and stop demonizing them when they do their jobs.

We have always had the right to keep and bear arms, sir. Did you see people commit mass shootings in the 50's?
 
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, try talking to the hypocrites who claim to be pro life but are for the death penalty. Perhaps your reader could help you find one. It shouldn't be that difficult.
How is the death penalty on the same level as abortion sir?

This is what I never understood about abortion supporters: they believe a capital criminal has rights. Heaven forbid we put to death someone who actually deserves that--someone who actually committed a crime worthy of death. Yet you care nothing for unborn human life.

If anything--if you do not support the death penalty--then you should certainly not support abortion.

Put another way: if you are going to tell me that unborn life has no value, if you are going to tell me that I should care nothing for unborn life, why in heaven's name ought I care about the life of a capital criminal?
 
I see.

So you are one of these "guns kill people types."

Sir, why are you so afraid of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens? Do law abiding citizens with guns commit mass shootings?

The problem in America, in my opinion is not law-abiding citizens with guns, but the left--who wants to defund police, the left who coddles criminals and makes excuses for them, and such.

Before you convince me that guns in the hands of law-abiding people are a threat, maybe we should start with the simplest solution first? You know--funding police and stop demonizing them when they do their jobs.

We have always had the right to keep and bear arms, sir. Did you see people commit mass shootings in the 50's?
People with guns kill people. As I said, it's not my problem. Your society is set up in such a way that you are so scared of your neighbours that you feel it necessary to carry a gun to defend yourself against them. I'm sorry for you, and for the children that live in such an atmosphere, but it's not my place to try and fix it.
I would say that the first thing to do is train your police. Many countries manage with an unarmed police service. When I served as a police officer in the UK, the vast majority of officers were against routinely carrying arms. To be an armed officer in the UK there is a rigourous selection procedure, which many fail, followed by months of extra training. The training time for US officers varies widely, I understand. Sometimes it is derisory. A thorough review of police forces and their training might well help. Why on earth, for example, does a school need a police force? That's just bizarre.
 
How is the death penalty on the same level as abortion sir?

This is what I never understood about abortion supporters: they believe a capital criminal has rights. Heaven forbid we put to death someone who actually deserves that--someone who actually committed a crime worthy of death. Yet you care nothing for unborn human life.

If anything--if you do not support the death penalty--then you should certainly not support abortion.

Put another way: if you are going to tell me that unborn life has no value, if you are going to tell me that I should care nothing for unborn life, why in heaven's name ought I care about the life of a capital criminal?
How is abortion on the same level as gun control? Or school selection? You are the one suggesting an all for one approach, not me. You seem to have a very eclectic view of what should or should not be relevant, to the point of rank hypocrisy m
 
How is abortion on the same level as gun control? Or school selection?
Well, it isn't. But then again, I am not the one running around and congratulating myself on being "enlightened" becasue I am "pro-choice" like all the hip, cool kids, now am I?

You and most other abortion supporters are the ones running around speaking in euphemisms. "No, no no, you see, we aren't pro-abortion,
We are pro-choice. You pro-lifers are all about taking away choice!" As if we pro-lifers are literally about forcing pregnancy on women and wanting to run their reproductivity. You know darn well that isn't the point, sir. But you abortion supporters love to reframe the debate so you can caricaturize us pro-lifers as being backward and old fashioned; patriarchs who want women barefoot, in the kitchen, and pregnant. I do not want women barefoot, in the kitchen and pregnant, sir. If a woman does not desire to get pregnant, if a woman wants a career, or--for any reason at all---than no woman has to get pregnant. Once a woman gets pregnant, it is, unfortunately, too late to say "Gee, I don't want to be pregnant!" You have a human life that you helped create. You cannot just snuff out that life becasue it is inconvenient. And yes--I believe the man that helped create that life has to take equal responsibility for it. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.

All I am attempting to do is call you out on that and show how you aren't really pro-choice. I am trying to show that you are, in fact, pro-abortion. "Choice" is just a euphemism for abortion--or "dog whistle" if you prefer.
You are the one suggesting an all for one approach, not me. You seem to have a very eclectic view of what should or should not be relevant, to the point of rank hypocrisy m
Thanks for that non-answer.

Here is the question again:

How is the death penalty--which involves a capital criminal--someone whose crime was so heinous that it merits death, in any way in the level of abortion--where it involves a person guilty of nothing?

If you do not like that question, try your hand at this one:

If I am not supposed to care about the rights of an unborn child, why should I care about the rights of some capital criminal?
 
Last edited:
How is abortion on the same level as gun control? Or school selection? You are the one suggesting an all for one approach, not me. You seem to have a very eclectic view of what should or should not be relevant, to the point of rank hypocrisy m
Abortion isnt on the same level as guns. Abortion kills many more human beings than guns.
I am against both, but just pointing out that the self righteous hypocrisy is yours
 
Well, it isn't. But then again, I am not the one running around and congratulating myself on being "enlightened" becasue I am "pro-choice" like all the hip, cool kids, now am I?
No. You are running around and congratulating yourself on being "enlightened" becasue (sic) you are "pro-life" like all the dependable, sane conservatives. Perhaps, if you can possibly refrain from passive aggressive attempts at sarcasm, we could have an honest conversation about something or other.

You and most other abortion supporters are the ones running around speaking in euphemisms. "No, no no, you see, we aren't pro-abortion,
We are pro-choice. You pro-lifers are all about taking away choice!" As if we pro-lifers are literally about forcing pregnancy on women and wanting to run their reproductivity. You know darn well that isn't the point, sir. But you abortion supporters love to reframe the debate so you can caricaturize us pro-lifers as being backward and old fashioned; patriarchs who want women barefoot, in the kitchen, and pregnant. I do not want women barefoot, in the kitchen and pregnant, sir. If a woman does not desire to get pregnant, if a woman wants a career, or--for any reason at all---than no woman has to get pregnant. Once a woman gets pregnant, it is, unfortunately, too late to say "Gee, I don't want to be pregnant!" You have a human life that you helped create. You cannot just snuff out that life becasue it is inconvenient. And yes--I believe the man that helped create that life has to take equal responsibility for it. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
Well, at least you have homed in on the nub of the issue. In my opinion, becoming pregnant is not too late to decide that you don't want to be pregnant. Particularly if you never wanted to be pregnant in the first place. Our opinions differ on this. I think that a legal, safe and accessible route for a pregnant person to cease being pregnant , is a marker of a civilised society that values and empowers women. I think that this is far more important than any putative rights the unborn foetus may have.

All I am attempting to do is call you out on that and show how you aren't really pro-choice. I am trying to show that you are, in fact, pro-abortion. "Choice" is just a euphemism for abortion--or "dog whistle" if you prefer.
. But your argument fails for the same reason as you claim that mine fails, only this time legitimately.. if I was pro- abortion, I would be extolling the virtues of abortion, advising pregnant young women in my care to get an abortion, teaching children that abortion is a simple and effective form of birth control. I do and have done none of these things. I say that abortion is a bad thing, that it should be avoided where possible and reduced in numbers to a minimum. It is however, sometimes the least worst option available. I have consistently steered young women who have approached me on the subject, towards experts who can give advice. I have discussed with them the implications of their choice, in both sides, including where relevant the implications for their faith. I have taught the subject dispassionately, and without expressing my own opinion, giving both sides of the debate and inviting students to decide for themselves. Your assertion that I am not pro-choice is so wide of the mark as to be laughable. You are arguing against a fictitious Aunt Sally. Don't assume that I resemble in any way the strawman you have constructed.
How is the death penalty--which involves a capital criminal--someone whose crime was so heinous that it merits death, in any way in the level of abortion--where it involves a person guilty of nothing?
For the same reason that I have given before here. The convicted criminal is a person, however heinous their crime. Society doesn't need to kill them to protect itself. Execution has zero deterrent effect on others, it removes the possibility of rehabilitation and repentance. It can be mistaken, in killing someone subsequently found to be innocent. It's also relevant that these "mistake" fall disproportionately on particular minorities, indicating that the whole process is institutionalised racism. The sole motivation is revenge . As such, capital punishment is a marker of a juvenile society, barely worthy of the label civilised. It indicates a preference for killing the disadvantaged to satisfy the mob rather than pursuing justice and civilised punishment. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, the arguments for and against being entirely unrelated.

If I am not supposed to care about the rights of an unborn child, why should I care about the rights of some capital criminal?
Because you claim to be a civilised being.
 
But your argument fails for the same reason as you claim that mine fails, only this time legitimately. if I was pro- abortion, I would be extolling the virtues of abortion, advising pregnant young women in my care to get an abortion, teaching children that abortion is a simple and effective form of birth control. I do and have done none of these things. I say that abortion is a bad thing, that it should be avoided where possible and reduced in numbers to a minimum.
So you may be more moderate than some of the other posters here in that you think abortion is bad.

Why do you think abortion is a bad thing that should be avoided?
It is however, sometimes the least worst option available. I have consistently steered young women who have approached me on the subject, towards experts who can give advice. I have discussed with them the implications of their choice, in both sides, including where relevant the implications for their faith. I have taught the subject dispassionately, and without expressing my own opinion, giving both sides of the debate and inviting students to decide for themselves. Your assertion that I am not pro-choice is so wide of the mark as to be laughable. You are arguing against a fictitious Aunt Sally. Don't assume that I resemble in any way the strawman you have constructed.
Again, then you may be more moderate than some of the other posters here.

But why not support abortion? What is wrong with it?

If abortion really is just a medical procedure--analogous to--removing a gallbladder, an aorta, or whatever, who cares? If I thought abortion was just another medical procedure--I wouldn't care about it! It would be a non-issue. Do you see anyone attempting to argue that women cannot have their gallbladders or aortas removed becasue gall-bladders and aortas have rights?
For the same reason that I have given before here. The convicted criminal is a person, however heinous their crime.
Yeah--and this is precisely what I don't get. You are telling me a convicted criminal thug is a person--however heinous their crime, then, with a straight face you tell me that an unborn child is not worth protecting.

On what basis should I care about a thug, if I am not supposed to care about an unborn child? If an unborn child has no rights, why does a thug? This is what you are not explaining.
Society doesn't need to kill them to protect itself.
Then women do not need to kill their unborn children either. You see, sir, these issues are connected. If you want me to believe that a thug has rights, then you need to recognize the rights of an unborn child.
Execution has zero deterrent effect on others, it removes the possibility of rehabilitation and repentance.
This entirely misses the point! The POINT is that when someone is put death--putting them to death is NOT just about protecting society or deterring crime--it is about giving that person what they justly deserve. It is as much about a fair and just punishment as it is anything else. Their crime is so horrific--that it merits death.
It can be mistaken, in killing someone subsequently found to be innocent.
This is the ONLY convincing argument I have ever heard that gives me pause about the use of the death penalty. If there is the possibility that we could put an innocent person to death, that should give us pause.
It's also relevant that these "mistake" fall disproportionately on particular minorities, indicating that the whole process is institutionalised racism.
Even if this is true, it is a Red Herring.

Suppose there was indisputable evidence that the death penalty was always justly and evenly applied across all ethnicities and races. Suppose there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the process is in any way racist. Would you support the death penalty in such a case? No. So what does racism have to do with this issue? Answer: Nothing.
The sole motivation is revenge.
No, sir, the motivation is justice.

When one seeks revenge, one is seeking to give the person a far greater punishment than the crime deserves. For example: I steal $100 from your wallet and you burn my house down and kill my pets to teach me and other would be robbers a lesson: don't mess with you. That is revenge, sir.

When one seeks justice, one seeks to pay what is owed, nothing more. When someone commits a capital crime, such a crime merits death. Giving someone what they are owed for the crime they commited is justice.

Mercy---is giving someone less punishment than what they are owed.

So the death penalty has nothing to do with "revenge" sir. If people who supported the death penalty wanted "revenge" they would want to torture the person to death, rather than simply kill them.
As such, capital punishment is a marker of a juvenile society, barely worthy of the label civilised. It indicates a preference for killing the disadvantaged to satisfy the mob rather than pursuing justice and civilised punishment.
I would agree that mob justice is not justice. I would agree that mob justice is a marker of a juvenile society, barely worthy of the label civilized.

But that applies in ANY case involving a crime. Mob justice in and of itself is a Red Herring. The issue is the death penalty.

Again, if you take mob justice out of the picture and ensure a fair judicial process, etc, would you support the death penalty? No. What does mob justice have to do with this, then?
It also has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, the arguments for and against being entirely unrelated.
It has everything to do with abortion. If you are going to claim that an unborn child is not worth anything, not worth protecting and defending, you have absolutely NO basis to tell me a capital criminal has rights that are worth defending!
 
So you may be more moderate than some of the other posters here in that you think abortion is bad.

Why do you think abortion is a bad thing that should be avoided?

Again, then you may be more moderate than some of the other posters here.

But why not support abortion? What is wrong with it?

If abortion really is just a medical procedure--analogous to--removing a gallbladder, an aorta, or whatever, who cares? If I thought abortion was just another medical procedure--I wouldn't care about it! It would be a non-issue. Do you see anyone attempting to argue that women cannot have their gallbladders or aortas removed becasue gall-bladders and aortas have rights?
Firstly, abortion is a medical procedure, and all medical procedures have risks, thou admittedly the risk from early abortion is less than the risk of pregnancy. Secondly the social and psychological baggage that comes with abortion can be damaging. There's still a stigma attached to it, unjustly in my view. Before having an abortion, the impact on family, friends and work colleagues must be considered. Having said that, the impact of a pregnancy can also be damaging.

Yeah--and this is precisely what I don't get. You are telling me a convicted criminal thug is a person--however heinous their crime, then, with a straight face you tell me that an unborn child is not worth protecting.

On what basis should I care about a thug, if I am not supposed to care about an unborn child? If an unborn child has no rights, why does a thug? This is what you are not explaining.
I have explained this numerous times. The criminal is a person with rights. The unborn is not a person and has no rights. It's quite simple.

Then women do not need to kill their unborn children either. You see, sir, these issues are connected. If you want me to believe that a thug has rights, then you need to recognize the rights of an unborn child.
No, I don't. Rights accrue when born. The foetus is not born, ergo has no rights. This isn't just legalese. In my opinion the giving of rights to a foetus, particularly in early pregnancy, is a grotesque distortion of what rights are, devaluing their importance.

This entirely misses the point! The POINT is that when someone is put death--putting them to death is NOT just about protecting society or deterring crime--it is about giving that person what they justly deserve. It is as much about a fair and just punishment as it is anything else. Their crime is so horrific--that it merits death.
No crime merits death. That's just animalistic revenge. There are several legs upon which punishment is based. Death doesn't meet any of them.

This is the ONLY convincing argument I have ever heard that gives me pause about the use of the death penalty. If there is the possibility that we could put an innocent person to death, that should give us pause.
. It not just possible, it happens. There are many documented cases.

Even if this is true, it is a Red Herring.

Suppose there was indisputable evidence that the death penalty was always justly and evenly applied across all ethnicities and races. Suppose there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the process is in any way racist. Would you support the death penalty in such a case? No. So what does racism have to do with this issue? Answer: Nothing.
Racism is an aggravating factor which reinforces the point I made above about miscarriage of justice.

No, sir, the motivation is justice.

When one seeks revenge, one is seeking to give the person a far greater punishment than the crime deserves. For example: I steal $100 from your wallet and you burn my house down and kill my pets to teach me and other would be robbers a lesson: don't mess with you. That is revenge, sir.

When one seeks justice, one seeks to pay what is owed, nothing more. When someone commits a capital crime, such a crime merits death. Giving someone what they are owed for the crime they commited is justice.

Mercy---is giving someone less punishment than what they are owed.

So the death penalty has nothing to do with "revenge" sir. If people who supported the death penalty wanted "revenge" they would want to torture the person to death, rather than simply kill them.
I would have more sympathy with this point of view if your society wasn't using prisoners to experiment on regarding modes of execution, each apparently more barbaric than the last. Torture and revenge is exactly what you are doing. I reiterate that no crime deserves death as a punishment.

I would agree that mob justice is not justice. I would agree that mob justice is a marker of a juvenile society, barely worthy of the label civilized.

But that applies in ANY case involving a crime. Mob justice in and of itself is a Red Herring. The issue is the death penalty.

Again, if you take mob justice out of the picture and ensure a fair judicial process, etc, would you support the death penalty? No. What does mob justice have to do with this, then?
The death penalty IS mob justice. It is shocking. It is telegenic. It is viscerally satisfying. It is pandering to the worst instincts of the mob. It is a blight on any civilised society.

It has everything to do with abortion. If you are going to claim that an unborn child is not worth anything, not worth protecting and defending, you have absolutely NO basis to tell me a capital criminal has rights that are worth defending!
On the contrary. The condemned prisoner has rights worth defending for precisely the reason that the unborn does not. He is a person, the unborn isn't. To make the unborn a person is to devalue the rights of us all, not just the condemned criminals amongst us.
 
I have explained this numerous times. The criminal is a person with rights. The unborn is not a person and has no rights. It's quite simple.
This does not answer anything. This is just one giant question begging statement.

WHY should the unborn person NOT be recognized as a person? WHY should the unborn person have no rights?
No, I don't. Rights accrue when born. The foetus is not born, ergo has no rights. This isn't just legalese. In my opinion the giving of rights to a foetus, particularly in early pregnancy, is a grotesque distortion of what rights are, devaluing their importance.
Devaluing rights? There was a court case where animal rights activists attempted to argue that a monkey should be given rights. In our nation, there are some states that will not allow you to declaw your cat--becasue doing so is......."barbaric." We have animal "rights" activists all over the place. Don't tell me about "devaluing rights." We do it all the time.

If we can grant animals rights, we can certainly grant an unborn child rights.

But once again, your statement just begs the question. HOW does granting an unborn child rights devalue rights? WHY should we not grant an unborn child rights? Why are you so afraid of granting unborn children rights--especially since---women can take steps to avoid pregnancy if they do not want to get pregnant?
No crime merits death. That's just animalistic revenge. There are several legs upon which punishment is based. Death doesn't meet any of them.
Baloney. You take someone's life in cold blood, you forfeit your right to life. This is exactly what I do not get about you bleeding hearts. You have more sympathy for the criminal than the victims. Why? I have sympathy for the victims, not the criminal.

In the second place, and perhaps more importantly: you tell me with a straight face that the use of the death penalty is "animalistic" and "barbaric," then turn around and tell me that abortion is just a medical procedure. For some reason, in your mind, abortion is neither "animalistic" and "barbaric" but a fundamental human right. And you see no contradiction here! You see absolutely no hypocrisy!
It not just possible, it happens. There are many documented cases.
What difference does it make? Like I said---you would not support the death penalty even IF it could be guaranteed that no innocent person would ever be put to death. Thus, it has nothing to do with this conversation.
Racism is an aggravating factor which reinforces the point I made above about miscarriage of justice.
Again, more Red Herrings. Since you would be against the death penalty regardless, this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
I would have more sympathy with this point of view if your society wasn't using prisoners to experiment on regarding modes of execution, each apparently more barbaric than the last. Torture and revenge is exactly what you are doing. I reiterate that no crime deserves death as a punishment.
Yet more Red Herrings sir. I will tell you what---you never met a Red Herring you didn't like, did you?

You would be against the death penalty even if the above was not the case, so it has absolutely nothing to do with our conversation.

Now, if you WOULD be sympathetic to the use of the death penalty if the above were not the case---then the solution is not to outlaw the death penalty--but to reform the justice system so the above is not the case.
The death penalty IS mob justice. It is shocking.
No, sir, it has nothing to do with mob justice. Mob justice happens when a mob of people care nothing for the facts, nothing for a person's guilt or innocence, they just want someone to pay for whatever evil happened. Mob justice is vigilantism. Mob justice takes the law into their own hands. You know--like what happened to Jesus. The mob didn't care about his guilt or innocence did they?

Even GRANTING your point it does not help you. Once again, yet another Red Herring. You would still be against the death penalty regardless.
It is telegenic. It is viscerally satisfying. It is pandering to the worst instincts of the mob. It is a blight on any civilised society.
Yes, here we go again. You say that putting a criminal to death who merited death by a heinous crime----is pandering to the worst instincts of a mob--you say giving someone what they are justly owed for a heinous crime--is a "blight" on any civilized society. You say this all with straight face. Then in the same breath you tell me abortion is a fundamental right that should be defended. This is not in your mind a "blight" on society, for some reason--and you fail to see the utter hypocrisy in your statements.

Sir, again, you have absolutely no basis to defend the rights of a criminal when you refuse to recognize the rights of an innocent unborn child! When you recognize an unborn child for what it is, and defend the rights of said child--then you have room to talk about the death penalty. Until such time--don't sanctimoniously get on some high horse about the death penalty and "blights on society" or anything like that when you care nothing for the rights of innocent unborn children.
On the contrary. The condemned prisoner has rights worth defending for precisely the reason that the unborn does not.
Yes--and incredibly--you are arguing that one of those "rights" is the "right to life." You want to argue that the right to life of a capital criminal is absolute, but who cares about some innocent unborn child. And you do this with a straight face! This is what I find absolutely amazing.
He is a person, the unborn isn't. To make the unborn a person is to devalue the rights of us all, not just the condemned criminals amongst us.
Well then I can turn that exact same logic on its head an use it against you.

"To not punish a capital criminal with death is to devalue the rights of society and the victims of the crime."

I mean you arbitrarily declare that an unborn person has no rights, but then sanctimoniously condemn the death penalty becasue--that is "barbaric" and "uncivilized."

Dude: SERIOUSLY!!?
 
This does not answer anything. This is just one giant question begging statement.

WHY should the unborn person NOT be recognized as a person? WHY should the unborn person have no rights?

Devaluing rights? There was a court case where animal rights activists attempted to argue that a monkey should be given rights. In our nation, there are some states that will not allow you to declaw your cat--becasue doing so is......."barbaric." We have animal "rights" activists all over the place. Don't tell me about "devaluing rights." We do it all the time.

If we can grant animals rights, we can certainly grant an unborn child rights.

But once again, your statement just begs the question. HOW does granting an unborn child rights devalue rights? WHY should we not grant an unborn child rights? Why are you so afraid of granting unborn children rights--especially since---women can take steps to avoid pregnancy if they do not want to get pregnant?

Baloney. You take someone's life in cold blood, you forfeit your right to life. This is exactly what I do not get about you bleeding hearts. You have more sympathy for the criminal than the victims. Why? I have sympathy for the victims, not the criminal.

In the second place, and perhaps more importantly: you tell me with a straight face that the use of the death penalty is "animalistic" and "barbaric," then turn around and tell me that abortion is just a medical procedure. For some reason, in your mind, abortion is neither "animalistic" and "barbaric" but a fundamental human right. And you see no contradiction here! You see absolutely no hypocrisy!

What difference does it make? Like I said---you would not support the death penalty even IF it could be guaranteed that no innocent person would ever be put to death. Thus, it has nothing to do with this conversation.

Again, more Red Herrings. Since you would be against the death penalty regardless, this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

Yet more Red Herrings sir. I will tell you what---you never met a Red Herring you didn't like, did you?

You would be against the death penalty even if the above was not the case, so it has absolutely nothing to do with our conversation.

Now, if you WOULD be sympathetic to the use of the death penalty if the above were not the case---then the solution is not to outlaw the death penalty--but to reform the justice system so the above is not the case.

No, sir, it has nothing to do with mob justice. Mob justice happens when a mob of people care nothing for the facts, nothing for a person's guilt or innocence, they just want someone to pay for whatever evil happened. Mob justice is vigilantism. Mob justice takes the law into their own hands. You know--like what happened to Jesus. The mob didn't care about his guilt or innocence did they?

Even GRANTING your point it does not help you. Once again, yet another Red Herring. You would still be against the death penalty regardless.

Yes, here we go again. You say that putting a criminal to death who merited death by a heinous crime----is pandering to the worst instincts of a mob--you say giving someone what they are justly owed for a heinous crime--is a "blight" on any civilized society. You say this all with straight face. Then in the same breath you tell me abortion is a fundamental right that should be defended. This is not in your mind a "blight" on society, for some reason--and you fail to see the utter hypocrisy in your statements.

Sir, again, you have absolutely no basis to defend the rights of a criminal when you refuse to recognize the rights of an innocent unborn child! When you recognize an unborn child for what it is, and defend the rights of said child--then you have room to talk about the death penalty. Until such time--don't sanctimoniously get on some high horse about the death penalty and "blights on society" or anything like that when you care nothing for the rights of innocent unborn children.

Yes--and incredibly--you are arguing that one of those "rights" is the "right to life." You want to argue that the right to life of a capital criminal is absolute, but who cares about some innocent unborn child. And you do this with a straight face! This is what I find absolutely amazing.

Well then I can turn that exact same logic on its head an use it against you.

"To not punish a capital criminal with death is to devalue the rights of society and the victims of the crime."

I mean you arbitrarily declare that an unborn person has no rights, but then sanctimoniously condemn the death penalty becasue--that is "barbaric" and "uncivilized."

Dude: SERIOUSLY!!?
Why does an unborn child have no rights? That's not the question I'm asking. It's a fact that it doesn't. You might as well ask why is theft illegal but taxation compulsory? You are asking the wrong person about why facts are facts Address that question to the legislators in your own country. As to why SHOULD the unborn have no rights, that's a different question, which we have discussed at length here. Opinions differ, but my opinion is that the unborn is not ready to have rights unless it is ready to be born. Giving rights to a developing embryo is obscene, in my view. Your view is different. We are unlikely ever to agree. In the meantime, we act on the status quo, which is that abortion is legal in most countries, and that capital punishment has been abandoned in most countries. That doesn't make either position objectively right or wrong, but it does indicate that neither is an extreme or absurd position to take. At bottom accepting either abortion or capital punishment is a moral decision, up to each individual to make. You don't like my decision or the reasons I make it. Shrug. I don't like yours either, and I certainly don't find your arguments convincing. We are free to make our own decision on both matters. I don't see to prevent that. We are also free to influence legislators to alter laws to be more in tune with our personal ideas. I don't have to do that where I live, since neither capital punishment nor abortion laws are seriously threatened in any way. You have more of a job on your hands. If the best you can do is what you have shown here, you've no chance.
 
Why does an unborn child have no rights? That's not the question I'm asking. It's a fact that it doesn't. You might as well ask why is theft illegal but taxation compulsory? You are asking the wrong person about why facts are facts Address that question to the legislators in your own country. As to why SHOULD the unborn have no rights, that's a different question, which we have discussed at length here. Opinions differ, but my opinion is that the unborn is not ready to have rights unless it is ready to be born. Giving rights to a developing embryo is obscene, in my view. Your view is different. We are unlikely ever to agree. In the meantime, we act on the status quo, which is that abortion is legal in most countries, and that capital punishment has been abandoned in most countries. That doesn't make either position objectively right or wrong, but it does indicate that neither is an extreme or absurd position to take. At bottom accepting either abortion or capital punishment is a moral decision, up to each individual to make. You don't like my decision or the reasons I make it. Shrug. I don't like yours either, and I certainly don't find your arguments convincing. We are free to make our own decision on both matters. I don't see to prevent that. We are also free to influence legislators to alter laws to be more in tune with our personal ideas. I don't have to do that where I live, since neither capital punishment nor abortion laws are seriously threatened in any way. You have more of a job on your hands. If the best you can do is what you have shown here, you've no chance.
In other words:

You have no idea why a capital criminal should have the right to life, but an unborn child does not have the right to life--save---your own personal opinion on the matter. Since most people agree with you--and they are cool and hip, you do not feel the need to reevaluate your opinions.

Might makes right, majority makes right.
 
In other words:

You have no idea why a capital criminal should have the right to life, but an unborn child does not have the right to life--save---your own personal opinion on the matter. Since most people agree with you--and they are cool and hip, you do not feel the need to reevaluate your opinions.

Might makes right, majority makes right.
You should sack your reader and employ an honest one, since that is a dishonest representation of what I said. But I'm sure that know that. Continue to rail at reality.
 
You should sack your reader and employ an honest one, since that is a dishonest representation of what I said. But I'm sure that know that. Continue to rail at reality.
Romish is right, its your.opinion when it comes to justifying abortion apart from the law. You have selected criteria which are at best no more logical than the refutations put to you.

As to reality, well you are in an ideological fantasy land
 
In other words:

You have no idea why a capital criminal should have the right to life,
I do, and have said so.
but an unborn child does not have the right to life-
I do, and have said so.
-save---your own personal opinion on the matter.
That is all anyone has. Are you claiming something weightier than opinion? Such as the law for example? Or historical precedent? Or comparison with other cultures and times? No? Just your opinion then.
Since most people agree with you--and they are cool and hip, you do not feel the need to reevaluate your opinions.
I don't need to re-evaluate my opinions, because I think that they are right. Most people agree with me because they independently think that they are right. The agreement doesn't make them right, it's the being right that brings the agreement.

Might makes right, majority makes right.
Nothing to do with might, or majority. Presumably you think that you are right, despite a pitiful number of extremists agreeing with you. Have you re-evaluated your opinions? Why should you? It isn't the small number who agree with you that makes you wrong. It's because you are wrong that only a small number of people agree with you. Correlation is not the same as causation.
 
Opinions differ, but my opinion is that the unborn is not ready to have rights unless it is ready to be born.
And thus life is no longer an inalienable right, dropped in its rightful status, so the murderer can be free to kill the innocent.
 
And thus life is no longer an inalienable right, dropped in its rightful status, so the murderer can be free to kill the innocent.
Life never was an unalienable right. It has always been qualified. The only unalienable or unqualified right is freedom from torture. The fact that in some circumstances the taking of another's life is permissible, does not mean that murderers are free to kill anyone.
 
Life never was an unalienable right. It has always been qualified. The only unalienable or unqualified right is freedom from torture.
The only "unalienable or unqualified right is freedom from torture"says you? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

What do you think abortion is---- if not--torturous? You don't think burning the child with saline is torture? You do not think going in with forceps and cutting the child up is torturous? You do not think puncturing the child's skull and sucking out its brains is torturous?

I guess you and I understand what it is to torture someone differently, huh?
The fact that in some circumstances the taking of another's life is permissible, does not mean that murderers are free to kill anyone.
You should qualify that statement to say:

"The fact that in some circumstances the taking of another's life is permissible, does not mean that murderers are free to kill anyone, except in cases of abortion."
 
The only "unalienable or unqualified right is freedom from torture"says you? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

What do you think abortion is---- if not--torturous? You don't think burning the child with saline is torture? You do not think going in with forceps and cutting the child up is torturous? You do not think puncturing the child's skull and sucking out its brains is torturous?

I guess you and I understand what it is to torture someone differently, huh?
Well for a start it's impossible to torture someone with no cerebral cortex or functioning nervous system.

You should qualify that statement to say:

"The fact that in some circumstances the taking of another's life is permissible, does not mean that murderers are free to kill anyone, except in cases of abortion."
Why would I do that? I'm not the one telling lies. Why would I start now?
 
Well for a start it's impossible to torture someone with no cerebral cortex or functioning nervous system.


Why would I do that? I'm not the one telling lies. Why would I start now?
Really? Abortion up to 24 weeks and you think the unborn has no functioning nervous system or cerebal cortex.
 
Back
Top