If Only They Would Stick to Fiscal Issues

[Skipjack]

Stubby, forget about it. People like GIT are believers. They can not be convinced by logic and rational arguments.

[MSimon]

Unless any of you have a uterus, you really should shut the hell up.

Sounds like someone who's afraid of a rational discussion of the issue.
The underlying issue is whether the fetus is human, deserving protection by the law, or a tissue mass to be disposed of at the convenience of the parents. I'm guessing Stubby takes the latter position.

Some supporting the "pro choice" position appear to do so rejecting human life as of value. Such people tend to also support the most radical Malthusian position, or see humans outside "their people" as something to exploit or dispose of.

Different religions have different opinions on the subject.

Pro-choice doesn't reject the value of the human to be. It weighs that values against other values. The life of the mother, her mental health, her financial ability.

Well in any case if abortion is banned there WILL be a black market. Nothing will change. The only question is who provides the service.

I have no idea why Republicans love criminals so much that they like to support them with black markets. But there you have it. Republicans are a criminals best friend.

"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us." -- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

[Diogenes]

Stubby, forget about it. People like GIT are believers. They can not be convinced by logic and rational arguments.

Parody *IS* funny.

[Diogenes]

Unless any of you have a uterus, you really should shut the hell up.

Sounds like someone who's afraid of a rational discussion of the issue.
The underlying issue is whether the fetus is human, deserving protection by the law, or a tissue mass to be disposed of at the convenience of the parents. I'm guessing Stubby takes the latter position.

Some supporting the "pro choice" position appear to do so rejecting human life as of value. Such people tend to also support the most radical Malthusian position, or see humans outside "their people" as something to exploit or dispose of.

Different religions have different opinions on the subject.

Pro-choice doesn't reject the value of the human to be. It weighs that values against other values. The life of the mother, her mental health, her financial ability.

Utter lie.

99.999% of abortions are for convenience. Nothing else. I notice that you didn't even mention "convenience" in your list. You are well aware that your list is an utter lie, but you don't point out the truth because it seriously hurts your argument.

Well in any case if abortion is banned there WILL be a black market. Nothing will change. The only question is who provides the service.

I have no idea why Republicans love criminals so much that they like to support them with black markets. But there you have it. Republicans are a criminals best friend.

"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us." -- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

Not this one. Were it up to me, I would execute both drug dealers and abortionists. Then lets see how many of them wish to continue the fight.

[Stubby]

Sounds like someone who's afraid of a rational discussion of the issue.
The underlying issue is whether the fetus is human, deserving protection by the law, or a tissue mass to be disposed of at the convenience of the parents. I'm guessing Stubby takes the latter position.

Some supporting the "pro choice" position appear to do so rejecting human life as of value. Such people tend to also support the most radical Malthusian position, or see humans outside "their people" as something to exploit or dispose of.

Different religions have different opinions on the subject.

Pro-choice doesn't reject the value of the human to be. It weighs that values against other values. The life of the mother, her mental health, her financial ability.

Utter lie.

99.999% of abortions are for convenience. Nothing else. I notice that you didn't even mention "convenience" in your list. You are well aware that your list is an utter lie, but you don't point out the truth because it seriously hurts your argument.

Well in any case if abortion is banned there WILL be a black market. Nothing will change. The only question is who provides the service.

I have no idea why Republicans love criminals so much that they like to support them with black markets. But there you have it. Republicans are a criminals best friend.

"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us." -- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

Not this one. Were it up to me, I would execute both drug dealers and abortionists. Then lets see how many of them wish to continue the fight.

Most drug dealers are gang members, why would they fear death?
They are killing each other every day, they face death every day. You would need to go after the people that actually would fear death a.k.a. the bankers who launder their money.

Just means that the price goes higher to cover 'costs'. The price goes higher, more people commit more crime to pay the higher costs.

But then again capital punishment is so morally wrong, I would not use anyway.

[GIThruster]

Most drug dealers are gang members, why would they fear death?

Obviously, you're writing about things you know nothing about. Drug dealers carry guns because they are afraid of death. Pretending they're not so afraid of death to support a spurious argument is not worth the time to post or to read.

[Diogenes]

Not this one. Were it up to me, I would execute both drug dealers and abortionists. Then lets see how many of them wish to continue the fight.

Most drug dealers are gang members, why would they fear death?

Everyone fears death, especially when it is breathing down their neck, but in this case it is not necessary that they fear it. It is necessary that they experience it. Kill a drug dealer, and you will have one less drug dealer selling product.

They are killing each other every day, they face death every day. You would need to go after the people that actually would fear death a.k.a. the bankers who launder their money.

Just means that the price goes higher to cover 'costs'. The price goes higher, more people commit more crime to pay the higher costs.

But then again capital punishment is so morally wrong, I would not use anyway.

Refraining from Capital punishment is morally wrong. Bringing swift and sure death to murderers saves future lives. You would not only have these future lives lost, but you would have us all forced into work to pay for their very expensive upkeep.

Why spend $ 40,000.00 per year instead of using a bullet?

[Stubby]

WHY?

Because you can't be 100% sure that 100% of all death row inmate are actually guilty.
OOPS is not a valid response to executing an innocent person.

I do not deny that some inmates are so heinous that killing them would make you feel good.

I hope you will not deny that some inmates are innocent and yet still find themselves on death row.

The problem is where to draw the line between the 2 groups. You can't. And because you can't, you can't execute anybody for fear executing innocent people.

OOPS is not a valid response from society for executing an innocent person.

[Diogenes]

WHY?

Because you can't be 100% sure that 100% of all death row inmate are actually guilty.
OOPS is not a valid response to executing an innocent person.

I have some empathy for this argument. I have noted many times in the past that our legal system often renders WRONG verdicts. I have pointed out cases where a man was convicted of rape, and DNA testing later proved that the man did not commit the rape.

However, I have a caveat. The Justice system needs to be changed in it's methodology. There are often cases in which the evidence is not clear, but rather suggestive, and where the verdict is more solid than is the information used to create it.

I would say in cases where the evidence is not entirely conclusive, an inmate should be given a temporary sentence of life in prison pending the discovery of further evidence which might prove conclusive or exculpatory. If subsequent evidence demonstrates that someone did indeed commit the murder of which they were accused, their sentence could be upgraded to the death penalty. If on the other hand, information comes forth to exonerate them, then their sentence could be abrogated.

In cases where the evidence is conclusive, and where no reasonable doubt exists as to their guilt or innocence, in such cases as these, the death penalty ought to be swift and sure.

I do not deny that some inmates are so heinous that killing them would make you feel good.

I hope you will not deny that some inmates are innocent and yet still find themselves on death row.

The problem is where to draw the line between the 2 groups. You can't. And because you can't, you can't execute anybody for fear executing innocent people.

OOPS is not a valid response from society for executing an innocent person.

There are cases in which the evidence is absolutely conclusive, and there are cases in which it is not. In the former I want the Death penalty applied, in the later, I want a temporary life in prison verdict pending further information. Unfortunately the legal system moves on procedure, and cares more that their methodology is followed than that they serve actual justice.

[GIThruster]

The argument for capital punishment is not an economic one. It costs more to execute someone than to give them life imprisonment because of the multitude of appeals and such we provide.

Also, the argument that capital punishment is immoral based upon the possibility of error is an uninformed argument that again, reduces to absurdity quite easily. The same argument can be used to say people should never be incarcerated. It's never acceptable to incarcerate an innocent person. This does not however address the real need to incarcerate.

If someone wants to correct 6,000 years of civilization, one ought to at least be cognizant of the real issues and arguments.

[seedload]

But then again capital punishment is so morally wrong, I would not use anyway.

Do you find it hypocritical to conclude so easily that capital punishment is morally wrong while simultaneously mocking people for believing that abortion is morally wrong? I guess that murder is in the eye of the beholder, except when it isn't.

You should, at the very least, learn to temper your condemnation of other's beliefs in light of the apparent contradiction of your own.

[Skipjack]

I think that capital punishment is problematic for the sole reason of being irreversible. You can release (and compensate) someone who has been falsly imprisoned, but you cant bring someone back to life who was falsly executed.
I think that there are very little things that could be worse than being executed for a murder (usually) that somebody comitted, while the real killer is still going free. This must be especially agonizing if the person that was killed was close to you. This is probably among the worst things that a person could experience.

[GIThruster]

You can release (and compensate) someone who has been falsly imprisoned. . .

How exactly? This seems obviously wrong to me. I don't see any way to compensate someone for the wrong and damage done from false imprisonment. I think you're making the statement because you're against capital punishment. It's an obviously incorrect statement one could only purchase if they had a vested interest in the outcome. Certainly, it's not rational.

[Diogenes]

The argument for capital punishment is not an economic one. It costs more to execute someone than to give them life imprisonment because of the multitude of appeals and such we provide.

This is not the fault of capital punishment, but is instead the fault of it's opponents who should be made to pay this bill. Procedural and technicalities of law should not stop justice, and we should not tolerate a system that allows this to occur.

I would see appeals only on the basis of guilt or innocence. Procedure based appeals should be disallowed.

Also, the argument that capital punishment is immoral based upon the possibility of error is an uninformed argument that again, reduces to absurdity quite easily. The same argument can be used to say people should never be incarcerated. It's never acceptable to incarcerate an innocent person. This does not however address the real need to incarcerate.

If someone wants to correct 6,000 years of civilization, one ought to at least be cognizant of the real issues and arguments.

What you said.

[Skipjack]

How exactly? This seems obviously wrong to me. I don't see any way to compensate someone for the wrong and damage done from false imprisonment.

Money? It wont be a great compensation, but it would help. Of course you cant give the person the lost years back, but lost years are still better than a lost life...