Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

death penalty

philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:46:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am generally for justice done for murderers. If someone has the dignity to infringe upon others rights by taking away their life, then I believe the same should be done unto them.
But the thing that I think is messed up about it is that some people get wrongly convicted of murder. I think if the person rightfully admits that they have committed the act of murder than its okay.
But if they deny it, and still lose in court, we only have testimonies to prove that persons guilt.
I watched the news a few years back, and I can't remember the guys name, but he went to jail for 5 years and was sentenced for a lifetime in prison for his murder. However they ended up finding the real murderer later.
Its situations like these that I think complicates things.
And I know that wrongful convictions don't happen all the time, but is it moral to even chance them?

What are your guys thoughts and opinions on the matter?
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:52:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I congratulate the system for correcting their error, but see this as an error of the system, not an error of the punishment.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:58:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To be honest, I don't believe in killing anything unless all parties involved consent, which means the person killing and the person being killed.

Death penalties, not all parties consent.

Euthanasia, all parties consent.

Abortion, all parties consent so long as the foetus lack brain and heart activity.

Coma patient, not all parties consent.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:05:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:58:26 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
To be honest, I don't believe in killing anything unless all parties involved consent, which means the person killing and the person being killed.

Death penalties, not all parties consent.

Euthanasia, all parties consent.

Abortion, all parties consent so long as the foetus lack brain and heart activity.

Coma patient, not all parties consent.

off topic and I don't want to debate this (at least not in this thread), but just want to ask a question about the coma patient. Is there any amount of time that can pass to nullify the coma patient's potential vote? I mean after 30 years, can you pull them off without their consent? Or are we obligated to keep them going on forever because they are unable to give consent?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:25:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:19:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
My main opposition to the death penalty is that people can be wrongly convicted. Here are just a few cases:
http://listverse.com...

yeah Instead of just "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

I'd want that penalty to apply only to those who meet the standard of "Absolutely Friggin Guilty" like that military Medic Terrorist guy
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:45:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My brother is currently on death row for a crime he claims he didn't commit. While the percentage of cases overturned due to wrongful conviction following the execution may be relatively low, it only takes a single case to impact lives.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 3:12:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:45:11 PM, Maikuru wrote:
My brother is currently on death row for a crime he claims he didn't commit. While the percentage of cases overturned due to wrongful conviction following the execution may be relatively low, it only takes a single case to impact lives.

Yeah it really sucks if an innocent is convicted of anything, and especially so if they're put to death b/c of it.

And that should be avoided as best as it can be, and I was serious when I said there should be a higher standard for handing down a death sentence.

But I do think it can be a defensible sentence in certain cases.
Take for example a repeat murderer who just stabbed and killed a prison guard with a makeshift knife. His continued existence has already affected lives, and if he's not now put to death he likely will again.

I think that only those proven beyond any doubt to have a pattern of being heinously violent should be put to death.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I support the death penalty for some forms of rape, murder and attempted murder in principle, in practice it should only be employed for those caught bang to rights, such as the shoebomber or other illegal combatants... I mean real illegal combatants not the loose definition as dreamt up by a retarded struggling alchoholic and drug addict.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 4:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:58:26 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
To be honest, I don't believe in killing anything unless all parties involved consent, which means the person killing and the person being killed.

And I'm sure someone going to consent for their own killing. Right. But on another note, what makes it right for that person to have a say, when they took that same right from the person they have killed, raped, robbed etc?

Death penalties, not all parties consent.

Obviously.

Euthanasia, all parties consent.

Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

Abortion, all parties consent so long as the foetus lack brain and heart activity.

In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:00:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Remind me to rob Panda, since he's never gonna shoot :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:42:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:25:02 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 2:19:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
My main opposition to the death penalty is that people can be wrongly convicted. Here are just a few cases:
http://listverse.com...

yeah Instead of just "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

I'd want that penalty to apply only to those who meet the standard of "Absolutely Friggin Guilty" like that military Medic Terrorist guy

The guy who attacked Fort Hood? Yea, he was nuts. xD
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:45:11 PM, Maikuru wrote:
My brother is currently on death row for a crime he claims he didn't commit. While the percentage of cases overturned due to wrongful conviction following the execution may be relatively low, it only takes a single case to impact lives.

Wow man, I've never really met (through the internet but same basic thing here) someone in that situation. I'm sorry.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:59:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 7:20:47 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 1/21/2010 2:45:11 PM, Maikuru wrote:
My brother is currently on death row for a crime he claims he didn't commit. While the percentage of cases overturned due to wrongful conviction following the execution may be relatively low, it only takes a single case to impact lives.

Wow man, I've never really met (through the internet but same basic thing here) someone in that situation. I'm sorry.

I appreciate that. I was actually a supporter of the policy before his arrest. My views have obviously changed since then, but more so because his circumstances drove me to research it in greater detail.

In any case, he has filed an appeal and we are hopeful =)
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 4:31:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 4:32:30 PM, philosphical wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:58:26 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
To be honest, I don't believe in killing anything unless all parties involved consent, which means the person killing and the person being killed.

And I'm sure someone going to consent for their own killing. Right. But on another note, what makes it right for that person to have a say, when they took that same right from the person they have killed, raped, robbed etc?

It's called prison.


Death penalties, not all parties consent.

Obviously.

Euthanasia, all parties consent.

Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.


Abortion, all parties consent so long as the foetus lack brain and heart activity.

In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.

Foetus is an extension of the woman until it reaches brain and heart activity. It's like getting your appendix removed.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 4:33:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:00:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remind me to rob Panda, since he's never gonna shoot :)

I will shoot. Just not to kill.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 4:39:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 4:33:15 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:00:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remind me to rob Panda, since he's never gonna shoot :)

I will shoot. Just not to kill.

To make a point, there are other ways of dealing with robbers that don't require weapons. Have you people learned nothing from the Home Alone movies?
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 6:19:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And I'm sure someone going to consent for their own killing. Right. But on another note, what makes it right for that person to have a say, when they took that same right from the person they have killed, raped, robbed etc?

It's called prison.

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.


Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.

Animals can sign documents? Interesting...

In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.

Foetus is an extension of the woman until it reaches brain and heart activity. It's like getting your appendix removed.

Or its like taking away the vote for the party who needs the deciding vote most.
Or else there wouldn't be need for a deciding vote for that party in the first place.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 6:26:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 6:19:16 AM, philosphical wrote:

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.

Ask any prisoner if theyd rather have a life-sentence than death row.

Furthermore, ask someone who was released because his innocence was proven after he was sentenced to prison, if he wouldve prefered to have had the death sentence and not have been able to be released.

Or its like taking away the vote for the party who needs the deciding vote most.
Or else there wouldn't be need for a deciding vote for that party in the first place.

What does that statement have to do with abortion.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 7:28:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 6:19:16 AM, philosphical wrote:
And I'm sure someone going to consent for their own killing. Right. But on another note, what makes it right for that person to have a say, when they took that same right from the person they have killed, raped, robbed etc?

It's called prison.

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.

It's more humane to keep a person alive and try to rehabilitate them. Life sentences keep those dangerous to society in a place where they can't hurt society.

People are more liekly to kill when on death row, and do other stupid stuff, there's no more worse punishment than death. Whereas with a life sentence , they have a chance to be rehabilitated and eventually if significant progress is made, let out.


Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.

Animals can sign documents? Interesting...

Humans sign documents. Animals are property.


In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.

Foetus is an extension of the woman until it reaches brain and heart activity. It's like getting your appendix removed.

Or its like taking away the vote for the party who needs the deciding vote most.
Or else there wouldn't be need for a deciding vote for that party in the first place.

No, it isn't. It's a lump of cells before it has any form of heart or brain activity. It's attached to the mother who has to feed it and care for it without consent. The mother should have the say until the foetus is actually life.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 7:54:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.

It's more humane to keep a person alive and try to rehabilitate them. Life sentences keep those dangerous to society in a place where they can't hurt society.

But there in there for life just wasting away. They aren't ever going anywhere. All they are doing is eating food and taking up space and air. Its better to kill them and get rid of them.

People are more liekly to kill when on death row, and do other stupid stuff, there's no more worse punishment than death. Whereas with a life sentence , they have a chance to be rehabilitated and eventually if significant progress is made, let out.

Whether they kill or not, they are still taking up space, where prisoners who aren't on life sentence could be. Death penalty creates room.


Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.

Animals can sign documents? Interesting...

Humans sign documents. Animals are property.

Animals are considered property. Some humans are considered property. Thats not our say.


In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.

Foetus is an extension of the woman until it reaches brain and heart activity. It's like getting your appendix removed.

Or its like taking away the vote for the party who needs the deciding vote most.
Or else there wouldn't be need for a deciding vote for that party in the first place.

No, it isn't. It's a lump of cells before it has any form of heart or brain activity. It's attached to the mother who has to feed it and care for it without consent. The mother should have the say until the foetus is actually life.

By killing it you take away the option of it ever growing and living to make that decision on its life. You talk in circles.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Sunlight-on-water
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 7:59:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:46:57 PM, philosphical wrote:
I am generally for justice done for murderers. If someone has the dignity to infringe upon others rights by taking away their life, then I believe the same should be done unto them.

Do we punish rapists by raping them? Do we punish sadists by torturing them? No, we don't. Because we are living in an enlightened society, without that type of eye-for-an-eye punishment. The law should not be based on some kind of emotional revenge response.

Also, the death penalty doesn't even work in the intended way: discouraging people from committing crimes. As shown by this compilation (1), based on the FBI Uniform Crime report (2), "for 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3".

Additionally,(as many people here have said) there is a risk of convicting innocent people. I think it's quite clear that the death penalty is a cruel, unjust and archaic punishment.

(1) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
(2) http://www.fbi.gov...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:00:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 7:59:01 AM, Sunlight-on-water wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:46:57 PM, philosphical wrote:
I am generally for justice done for murderers. If someone has the dignity to infringe upon others rights by taking away their life, then I believe the same should be done unto them.

Do we punish rapists by raping them? Do we punish sadists by torturing them? No, we don't. Because we are living in an enlightened society, without that type of eye-for-an-eye punishment. The law should not be based on some kind of emotional revenge response.

his actual argument wasn't about that, just his first statement
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sunlight-on-water
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:50:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:00:50 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

his actual argument wasn't about that, just his first statement

|
|
V

At 1/21/2010 1:46:57 PM, philosphical wrote:

What are your guys thoughts and opinions on the matter?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:57:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 7:54:35 AM, philosphical wrote:

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.

It's more humane to keep a person alive and try to rehabilitate them. Life sentences keep those dangerous to society in a place where they can't hurt society.

But there in there for life just wasting away. They aren't ever going anywhere. All they are doing is eating food and taking up space and air. Its better to kill them and get rid of them.

People are more liekly to kill when on death row, and do other stupid stuff, there's no more worse punishment than death. Whereas with a life sentence , they have a chance to be rehabilitated and eventually if significant progress is made, let out.

Whether they kill or not, they are still taking up space, where prisoners who aren't on life sentence could be. Death penalty creates room.

Sure, let's just abolish prisons and hang any man who commits an crime. No space, air or food wasted what so ever.

But then the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

A state made of men isn't infallible. It makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes, then it shouldn't be able to say 100% X killed Y. Sure, there are some cases where it's obvious, I agree, but if you give a prisoner life or death, they'll probably opt for life.

They don't think sitting in a cell is a waste of their life. If they then consent being killed, that's Euthanasia.



Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.

Animals can sign documents? Interesting...

Humans sign documents. Animals are property.

Animals are considered property. Some humans are considered property. Thats not our say.

A human being signs a document saying they want to be killed. If someone is willing to do it, brilliant. It's basic economics.

A person owns a dog. They want it put down. Same logic.



In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.

Foetus is an extension of the woman until it reaches brain and heart activity. It's like getting your appendix removed.

Or its like taking away the vote for the party who needs the deciding vote most.
Or else there wouldn't be need for a deciding vote for that party in the first place.

No, it isn't. It's a lump of cells before it has any form of heart or brain activity. It's attached to the mother who has to feed it and care for it without consent. The mother should have the say until the foetus is actually life.

By killing it you take away the option of it ever growing and living to make that decision on its life. You talk in circles.

Potential life =/= Life. Sperm is potential life. An egg is potential life.

The foetus is part of the mother until it has brain function and heart function. Until then it cannot make a decision, nor feel pain. It is essentially a lump of cells, and lacks the characteristics of life. What part don't you get?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:40:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:57:16 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/22/2010 7:54:35 AM, philosphical wrote:

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.

It's more humane to keep a person alive and try to rehabilitate them. Life sentences keep those dangerous to society in a place where they can't hurt society.

But there in there for life just wasting away. They aren't ever going anywhere. All they are doing is eating food and taking up space and air. Its better to kill them and get rid of them.

People are more liekly to kill when on death row, and do other stupid stuff, there's no more worse punishment than death. Whereas with a life sentence , they have a chance to be rehabilitated and eventually if significant progress is made, let out.

Whether they kill or not, they are still taking up space, where prisoners who aren't on life sentence could be. Death penalty creates room.

Sure, let's just abolish prisons and hang any man who commits an crime. No space, air or food wasted what so ever.

Im talking about people who are life sentenced smart one. Obviously we wouldn't do that to someone who is only a in for a few years. If they're going to be their just to rot away, killing them is just the smartest option.


But then the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

A state made of men isn't infallible. It makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes, then it shouldn't be able to say 100% X killed Y. Sure, there are some cases where it's obvious, I agree, but if you give a prisoner life or death, they'll probably opt for life.
They don't think sitting in a cell is a waste of their life. If they then consent being killed, that's Euthanasia.

When they think they should live or not, though, is irrelevant. Though most people sentenced to a life time in prison are probably gonna wanna just die.
But its for economic purposes as well. These people have nothing more they can contribute to society. They are never going to get out of prison, so they are just going to take up space and food, when we could use the space for prisoner who actually CAN get their sentence over.




Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.

Animals can sign documents? Interesting...

Humans sign documents. Animals are property.

Animals are considered property. Some humans are considered property. Thats not our say.

A human being signs a document saying they want to be killed. If someone is willing to do it, brilliant. It's basic economics.

Yeah, but again we're talking about how if prisoners who are life sentenced whould get this option. And like I said above, they shouldn't for those reasons.

A person owns a dog. They want it put down. Same logic.

Yes but it goes against your logic. According to you, every party must get an option. In this case the dog doesn't get an option. If its the dogs life on hand, then its obvious that the dog should be considered its own seperate party. With abortion your denying the main party the ability to vote its own. If it weren't its life at stake, then there would be no need for their to be any "party" desicions. This is where your logic has holes. Same with the prisoners. Its basic utalitarianism. Is it right to allow prisoners to just live, and take up space and eat food they don't even deserve after taking away all of that from another individual.
Whats the greatest good for the greatest number of people?



In this scenario, it has any option of consent taken away from it. If your talking about consent then you would imply that that is the individuals choice as well being an active "party". So in this case, not all parties get consent.

Foetus is an extension of the woman until it reaches brain and heart activity. It's like getting your appendix removed.

Or its like taking away the vote for the party who needs the deciding vote most.
Or else there wouldn't be need for a deciding vote for that party in the first place.

No, it isn't. It's a lump of cells before it has any form of heart or brain activity. It's attached to the mother who has to feed it and care for it without consent. The mother should have the say until the foetus is actually life.

By killing it you take away the option of it ever growing and living to make that decision on its life. You talk in circles.

Potential life =/= Life. Sperm is potential life. An egg is potential life.

Yet if its life at hand, its a party. A party with no vote on its own hand, because according to you, it doesn't get a vote, which contradicts your logic!


The foetus is part of the mother until it has brain function and heart function. Until then it cannot make a decision, nor feel pain. It is essentially a lump of cells, and lacks the characteristics of life. What part don't you get?

The part I don't get is how you can keep saying the same thing and not grasp what I am saying. There would be no point in having a party decision on abortion if its not alive. According to you it would just be an object, correct?
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:51:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 11:40:19 AM, philosphical wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:57:16 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/22/2010 7:54:35 AM, philosphical wrote:

You can kill in prison too bud.. Why not just get rid of them for good so they can't do any harm? Also prison cells need to be kept for the people who have committed crimes and will one day be released. Life sentences just take up room. If anything, you would think that it would be more humane to just kill the person.

It's more humane to keep a person alive and try to rehabilitate them. Life sentences keep those dangerous to society in a place where they can't hurt society.

But there in there for life just wasting away. They aren't ever going anywhere. All they are doing is eating food and taking up space and air. Its better to kill them and get rid of them.

People are more liekly to kill when on death row, and do other stupid stuff, there's no more worse punishment than death. Whereas with a life sentence , they have a chance to be rehabilitated and eventually if significant progress is made, let out.

Whether they kill or not, they are still taking up space, where prisoners who aren't on life sentence could be. Death penalty creates room.

Sure, let's just abolish prisons and hang any man who commits an crime. No space, air or food wasted what so ever.

Im talking about people who are life sentenced smart one. Obviously we wouldn't do that to someone who is only a in for a few years. If they're going to be their just to rot away, killing them is just the smartest option.

Or making them do hard labour which effectively pays for their stay.



But then the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

A state made of men isn't infallible. It makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes, then it shouldn't be able to say 100% X killed Y. Sure, there are some cases where it's obvious, I agree, but if you give a prisoner life or death, they'll probably opt for life.
They don't think sitting in a cell is a waste of their life. If they then consent being killed, that's Euthanasia.

When they think they should live or not, though, is irrelevant. Though most people sentenced to a life time in prison are probably gonna wanna just die.

That's Euthanasia. The death penalty is when you murder someone.

But its for economic purposes as well. These people have nothing more they can contribute to society. They are never going to get out of prison, so they are just going to take up space and food, when we could use the space for prisoner who actually CAN get their sentence over.

Which is why I propose hard labour.

Do we real need homeless people? No. let's kill them. Do we really need people who make plastic flowers? No, they're useless, let's kill them. Someone has cancer? They're useless, kill them.







Thats assuming the human or animal consents to its own death.

All they have to do is sign a document.

Animals can sign documents? Interesting...

Humans sign documents. Animals are property.

Animals are considered property. Some humans are considered property. Thats not our say.

A human being signs a document saying they want to be killed. If someone is willing to do it, brilliant. It's basic economics.

Yeah, but again we're talking about how if prisoners who are life sentenced whould get this option. And like I said above, they shouldn't for those reasons.

They go to a prison guard "I'd like to receive Euthanasia". They then receive and sign a document consenting to Euthanasia.


A person owns a dog. They want it put down. Same logic.

Yes but it goes against your logic. According to you, every party must get an option. In this case the dog doesn't get an option. If its the dogs life on hand, then its obvious that the dog should be considered its own seperate party. With abortion your denying the main party the ability to vote its own. If it weren't its life at stake, then there would be no need for their to be any "party" desicions. This is where your logic has holes. Same with the prisoners. Its basic utalitarianism. Is it right to allow prisoners to just live, and take up space and eat food they don't even deserve after taking away all of that from another individual.

No, animals can't communicate, ergo, they can't consent or not give consent. A dog can't tell me he wants to be killed. But if he's my property, I speak for him since he can't.

And it's ok for those prisoners to waste space if they're doing hard labour and paying for their own meals.

Whats the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

Lot's of things thats in the theory of communism. It's best for the greater good, or a while. If it can be sustained, then yes, but it can't.


Potential life =/= Life. Sperm is potential life. An egg is potential life.

Yet if its life at hand, its a party. A party with no vote on its own hand, because according to you, it doesn't get a vote, which contradicts your logic!

No, if something is human life, it should not be killed unless it give implicit consent.

If it's an animal, it's property. There's a huge difference. We eat animal meat. Animals are inferior to humans, ergo our property.



The foetus is part of the mother until it has brain function and heart function. Until then it cannot make a decision, nor feel pain. It is essentially a lump of cells, and lacks the characteristics of life. What part don't you get?

The part I don't get is how you can keep saying the same thing and not grasp what I am saying. There would be no point in having a party decision on abortion if its not alive. According to you it would just be an object, correct?

An extension of the mother, yes.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.