Come on now. We all have views that vary when it comes to various subject. Quick answer the question below before GRIM shows up and says I am "attacking" you (which I am not but GRIM seems to think I attack everybody lol). The question addressed to you and nobody else even though anyone can respond: "are you equatting the life of an innocent baby with the life of a killer? Are they both equal to you?" Just your view. I couldn't care less about Ron Paul because to use Rush Limbaugh's words: "He hasn't got a snowball chance in hell." So can you give me your view?
I believe their lives are equally valuable. No one life is more valuable than another in my mind, and if anything, the murderer is a full grown viable adult, not a clump of cells of an undeveloped fetus. If you don't look at it from a biological standpoint, and treat them both as humans, then yes, I see them as equal. While one has done no wrong, and the other has, it is not my role to be their judge, jury, and executioner. I look at the Christian standpoint, and I cannot see how you can justify capital punishment when you believe in an all-powerful God who is the sole decider of people's fate. By undertaking capital punishment, you are playing God. I look at it from the atheist standpoint, and I can't justify it either. For me, life is the last thing we humans have upon this earth. That's it. What do I gain by condemning a murderer to an early death...peace? He's already locked up. Justice? What justice do I give by giving the murderer the easy path and ending the one thing he can't escape from in prison, himself? It accomplishes nothing, and takes away everything, and this is just on the assumption that our government kills the right people. Add in the x factor of screwing up pretty often, and suddenly I can't see how you could ever justify it.
I appreciate YOUR answer. I am not going to comment further. Maybe we should start another thread on either abortion or capital punishment
umm, actually its totally rational its based on the fact that a fetus in early development is not person, it just a cluster of cells so its not "killing the innocent baby" . And either way its decision that should be total left totally to the mother , and she has to deal with the consequences of her decision on the the death penalty, they convict the wrong person all the time, they just overturned some life convictions on DNA evidence, being for the death penalty means you are for executing innocent people, some percentage of the time. Which is wrong.
Just some friendly advice: when your wife is pregnant, don't ask her: "Honey, how's the fetus doing?" I think after you clean yourself off the floor you wil correct yourself: "I meant the BABY. How's the BABY doing?"
I would have not even responded, yet my name is brought up. There is a huge difference from starting threads attacking religions or non religions that are not your own compared to having a discussion on a topic such as abortion. Quoting loud mouth Rush, I guess that explains all BTW I am in firm belief it's a state rights thing, not on the federal government. I am not anti abortion as in the early stages I do not see much of a difference than using birth control to stop the process from happening in the first place. I especially believe it should be available in cases of rape and when the womans life is at risk.
yeah right, if my girlfriend gets pregnant she will most likely be headed to the abortion clinic with my permission or not neither of us have any interest in reproducing, its one of the many reason we get along so well
Fair enough, appreciate the civility I'll probably start a thread when I get home, gotta head out for lunch now.
Absence of a heartbeat is death. Presence of a heartbeat is life. A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks in the womb. It is a living being. No one gives birth to a cancer tumor nor does a tumor have a heartbeat. You just proved an important point. DNA does help overturn cases, in which they are not put to death. I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the ones that are guilty. There is no rationality for murdering babies and keeping the murdering pedophile alive.
oh some people do give birth to tumors, just not the way the do to babies fetal heart beat is more like 6-7 weeks and then you should have no problem aborting a fetus before then the "ones that are guilty" where the same ones who until DNA proved innocent, how may have been innocent and executed before DNA was around, how now are innocent but no one will know because no DNA tests are done, it there simply is decent chance of being wrongly convicted in our court system, therefore killing people based on it is wrong I don't know if you have trouble with reading comprehension, but even by your own definition its not a baby until 6-7 weeks, so its not "murdering babies" before then. And the "murdering pedophile" we are keeping alive is a wrongly convicted most likely innocent poor guy. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I've made no claim of or to any definition that includes 6-7 weeks. I've previously argued this point...that a baby's heartbeat begins at five weeks. You are entitled to the opinion that murdering babies is cool and keeping baby killers alive is the right thing to do. This is what I was saying on the previous page. That some have no problem murdering babies, but somehow believe keeping the murdering pedophiles alive is the right thing to do. It simply doesn't make sense. I can see supporting the death penalty for the guilty and supporting not murdering babies. I can see fletch's point (the most logical, from a compassion stand point) of keeping both alive. However, I see no rational or common sense of murdering babies yet keeping the baby killers alive.
your obtuseness is just irritating at this point i did not say "keeping baby killers alive is the right thing to do", I said executing the wrong person is a wrong thing to do Its not about keeping the guilty alive its about keeping the wrongly convicted alive
Also how old before there is any real brain activity, because a heart without a brain is not person in my opinion
You've already pointed out the success of DNA preventing such. The argument negates your own assertion there.
not every innocent has some DNA evidence to set them free, the cases over turned because of DNA simply point out the flawed system that wrongly convicts people. Sometimes courts won't allow new evidence, regardless if it show innocence. Because someone doesn't have DNA evidence to the contrary does not mean they are any less innocent, if they are innocent
So I take it you are for euthanasia by the state for people in comas? I just wanted to say that it is really cool that when we get off the topics we don't agree about, I can find some topics in common with debunked, GTech, lorien, etc. Makes posting here much more productive and interesting than fighting all of the time.
So if you were in a car accident & was brain dead, then your no longer a person? could i take your wallet & pee on you?
Yea, GTech, I strongly side with you here. How can you give mortal people the decision to decide whether or not to keep a baby's life, and yet be so opposed to the killing of someone who has done so much wrong? If you can accept that humans can make the conscious decision to terminate a fetus's chance to develop into a fully birthed human, why can you not accept a society's ability to judge a life proven unworthy of coping with societal rules without killing other human beings? Whether or not you agree with my stance, it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of hypocrisy seen in the generally liberal/Democratic view on both issues.
He for the most part wants to keep it at the state level, but he did vote to ban partial birth abortions.