1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

How can pro-lifers justify support of war and the death penalty?

Discussion in 'Other Policies' started by Dawkinsrocks, Nov 24, 2008.

  1. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    I will start with the death penalty.

    The death penalty means that innocent people will get executed. Always has, always will.

    Expert witnesses lie, the police lie, judges have prejudices, jureys can be unintelligent and prejudiced, there is often an imbalance of legal representation between prosecution and defence etc etc. In fact everyone involved in the legal process is prone to the same weaknesses as everybody else.

    One very easy way to stop innocent people being executed is to abolish the death penalty as most western countries have done and they did not see a significant increase in the murder rate the year after abolition which they would have if the death penalty were a deterrent.

    So my question to pro lifers like BigRob who bang on about the right to life of a foetus, how can you consistently claim you value the right to life when you support a system that guarantees the death of innocent actual people?

    And my next question is 'are you prepared to be executed for a crime you did not commit?'
     
  2. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    OMG we agree! this is a first. at least about not killing prisoners, though I know your ok with killing the inocent children and people like Terri.

    I am not even for killing prisoners who are known to be guilty. All life is valuable. The only exeption I can come up with was someone like Ted Bundy. He kept escaping even from max. security and killing more. He was a very rare case that I thought there was no other choice.




    I am a proud pro life person. I think murdering babies is terrible I also think killing prisoners who have murdered is terrible. Letting Terri Schiavo suffer that terrible death was wrong.

    Life if valuable and all lives are worth saving.
     
  3. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    So you are, by your own standards, a hypocrite
     
  4. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    because of ted bundy?

    If you say so but can you come up with what we could have done with him?

    he escaped twice and killed many girls in the small amount of time he was on the run.

    I would rathar have kept him in prison his whole life, but if he was smarter than the guards and kept escaping to kill more college girls...... you come up with what we could have done.

    Had we stuck him in a cell and never let him out, just fed him through a slot, the flaming liberals would have had a cow that his rights are violated, so they had to let him go in the yard one hour a day for fresh air blah blah and then he would escape and kill more.

    Tim Mcveigh, admitted he bombed that building in OK. I dont think they should have killed him even though he admitted he did it. I think he should have just done life in prison.

    but Ted Bundy, I have no other good solution for. Tell me what you would have done with Ted Bundy
     
  5. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Look matey, either you are pro life or you aren't.

    You started well by saying that all life is precious and then ruined it by saying 'exept when...'
     
  6. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    tell me how you would have delt with Ted Bundy
     
  7. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Make a prison that he cannot escape from.

    The failure tod do this so far is the fault of the state and it is not something that the state should solve with killing.
     
  8. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As is usual with you, your thinking is very shallow. The primary problem with your assesment is the label you attempt to hang on every single person who opposes abortion. I suppose there are some who oppose abortion and all war and capital punishment and those people, I guess you could accurately label as pro life.

    If you want to hang a sign on me that identifies my position, pro life doesn't do it. Better make mine "anti abortion on demand". Take that back to your drawing board and come up with an equally irrational argument against that.

    The secondary problem with your argument is that it is a red herring that doesn't speak to the facts of abortion but rather attempts to distract from abortion entirely by discussing unrelated subjects.

    The simple fact is dawkins, that you don't appear to be bright enough to disuss this subject or any subject. If you believe you can present a rational argument for allowing one individual, kill another, without judiciial review, and without legal consequence, for any or no reason, by all means, present it.
     
  9. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well, by golly, I sure have missed your posts, you are always so civil and never resort to denigrating others.


    There is no judicial review or legal consequence for any person killing a parasite inside their own body. It doesn't matter how you got the parasite--maybe you just LIKE under-cooked pork--you're allowed to kill it the parasite you chose to eat. A fetus can be a parasite according to the dictionary definition if the host doesn't want it, hence the right to kill it.

    Once the parasite becomes capable of living outside the hosts body, then that's a whole different legal matter.
     
  10. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    People who exhibit such ignorance need denigrating. You, for example, need it more than most.

    Sorry, but as usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. We have been through this parasite thing before and it was proven to you that unborns simply are not parasites. One would suspect that you were merely delusional repeating arguments that have been proven to be untrue if one didn't already know that in reality, you simply don't have a great deal of intellectual wattage.
     
  11. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And I appreciate your input (or is it "output"?).


    "Sorry, but as usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about."(Reprinted without perimission of Palerider) You claim to have disproven it, that's not the same as having disproven it. Just because someone says something and they are really nasty when they say it, that's not necessarily proof.

    "2 a : an organism living in or on another living organism, obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification..." "b : such an organism that causes some degree of real damage to its host..."

    "3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return..."
     
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Get yourself a book on parasitology if you want an accurate definiton. All to often all you get from the standard dictionary is the mundane (common) defintion which gives an impression but not much useful information, or you could try a better dictionary:

    http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?print=1&cdrid=44310

    parasite - An animal or plant that gets nutrients by living on or in an organism of another species. A complete parasite gets all of its nutrients from the host organism, but a semi-parasite gets only some of its nutrients from the host.

    Parasites are by definition a member of one species who live in or on the body of another species. Further, parasites depend upon their host for the bulk of their lives as they lack organs or systems required to live out their lives on their own.

    Here is an idea. Go grab yourself a book and actually learn something.
     
  13. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    they had him in the best prison of max security the US has, and he still escaped and killed more girls.

    I am not for the DP but nothing is black and white cut and dry. This is one man that it was not safe for anyone if he stayed alive, he was though, a rare case.

    just simply saying build a better prison is not a good enough answer
     
  14. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I suppose that if you can define something narrowly enough you can make all kinds of assertions. The term parasite is often used in the broader cultural meaning of someone who takes advantage of you (the brother-in-law who mooches off of you for months), people who take welfare, liberals or conservatives (depending on your political bent), and certainly an unwanted baby growing inside your body can fall within the common usage of the term "parasite" since it gets all its nutrients from the woman and has not got the organs to live outside of her body.

    Once the fetus is viable outside the woman's body then that's a horse of another color.
     
  15. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63

    So, at this point, we have determined that you are unable to justify your position as you must use an inaccurate definition in an attempt to support it. Rather than use the word accurately, you must use a common, broad brush definition that might apply to anything. Typical. We are talkiing about ending human lives here. If you were in court, being tried for your life, would you accept broad brush definitions being used in an effort to prove a case against you? No decent legal representative would. If you can't make an argument that you would accept if it were being used against yourself, you can't make anargument.

    Your reference to viability being the requisite to having the right to live is also wrong. (who would have guessed it). Consider conjoined twins. Very often, one lacks a vital organ. That twin lacks the organs to live separate from the other. They may not be separated, however, unless the shared organ is too weak to support both and both will die unless separation is attempted. The operation is in self defense of the one who has the organ.

    Unless death will result, the twin with the full compliment of organs must share his or her "nutrients" and bodily resources with the other. Sorry mare, but the facts simply don't support your argument. They never have.

    I suggest that you review the roe case as I doubt that you ever have. If you do, you will find that the justices said that a woman has the right to terminate a potential human life. They never suggested that a woman has the right to kill another living human being. I can certaiily provide plenty of credible science that states explicitly that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved. Can you provide any that suggests that an unborn at any stage of development is a "potential human life".

    Roe was decided based on an incorrect assumption. Justice Blackmun acknowledged this when in his majority decision he said:

    "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Justice Blackmun said explicitly that if the suggestion of personhood is established, then roe collapses as the life of the unborn would be guaranteed by the 14th amendment. At the time, no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment. That is, no case could be cited where an individual was convicted of criminal homicide for killing an unborn. A large number of cases can be cited today mare and the question of personhood has been answered.

    In this country, you can't even be charged for criminal homicide, much less tried, convicted, and sentenced unless you have, in fact, killed a person. There are a fairly large and growing number of people in prison today having been charged separately, and specifically for killing unborns. The question of personhood has been answered in spades and the justice who wrote the roe decision has acknowledged that if the question of personhood is answered, that the unborn would be guaranteed the protection of the 14th amendment.

    Now do feel free to either prove that unborns are something other than living human beings, or that no one is in prison serving a sentence for the crime of criminal homicide for killing an unborn. If you can do either, you have the embryo of an argument. If you can't, then you have no rational argument in support of your position.
     
Loading...

Share This Page