Zeta-Flux,

I apologize for having written merely "(You, too, Zeta-Flux.)" without explaining exactly which small portion of the other text in that posting I intended to apply to you "too". It is understandable that your response can be interpreted as though you thought I meant much more of that posting to apply to you than I actually did. I won't try to clarify it now, but simply say I regret having thrown in that parenthetical remark.

- - - - -

Prime95,

My references to differences in compensation between wrongful executions and wrongful life sentences were intended to apply to the time period where there were differences in the fate of the prisoner: that is, the (usually many years') period between the time that the prisoner would be executed in the first case, and the time of death if the same prisoner had been in the second case. Of course, once the life prisoner dies, my arguments about such differences do not apply, but I never intended or presumed that my arguments covered the time after death of the life prisoner.

Clearly, while the wrongfully-imprisoned life prisoner is still alive, he [U]can[/U], after the mistake is discovered, yet be compensated. So your "equally inane counter challenge" is inapplicable.

After this clarification, I repeat that you have ducked my challenge to "set aside that rhetoric and make an honest argument" to replace your exaggerated "In fact, if you take this argument to its logical conclusion we must not have a prison system at all!"

So goes the law.
 

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;85338]I figure that the soul discussion in the Bible thread has in fact left Mally in a bit of a lurch. Here is a quote for him from the "Law of Moses" that is applicable here and might enlighten him:


Please note that the life for life, etc. is a maxiumal and not a requirement.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Thank you Uncwilly. Its the OT and thats the way the law goes.

Mally :coffee:

abortion is a dichotomy.

It divides peoples opinions, divides mothers minds, divides mother from baby, divides babies from life, divides our society, and divides us from our conscience.

Double-entendre's occur often, triple-entendre's occasionally, but really good multiple-entendre's are rare.



Re Bob's statements above about people who support the death penalty but not abortion. Its inconsistent, but consider that an adult who has wronged society is not on the same foundation as a baby that is not yet born. If someone gets really perturbed at Bob and murders him, would he want society to catch the murderer and put him/her to death? Hopefully his ex-wife is able to resist temptation. (;-)>

Fusion

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;75324]I personally do not understand the people who are pro death penalty but nevertheless scream about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion.[/QUOTE]It's very simple. A person who has committed an illegal act such as murder has given up the right to his or her life by committing such an act. An unborn baby has not done anything to deserve it. Some of us don't believe that the reason, "I don't want it or it would be emotionally painful for me" should be an acceptable idea.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;75354]You seem to be assuming that the juries/judges involved in capital cases are infallible. (If not, please explain.) If so, then that contradicts the numerous real-life cases (notably, in Illinois recently) in which it is shown (e.g., by DNA tests) that some death-row inmates were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted (not to mention the other cases in which it is shown that errors in judicial procedures should at least entitle the prisoner to a retrial, and not to mention the significant racial/financial biases shown by capital conviction statistics).

... including those adults serving as judges, attorneys, prosecutors, and juries in capital cases, legislators who write capital punishment statutes, and voters who approve capital punishment, correct?

[I]Even the ones shown conclusively to have been innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted?[/I]

- - -

[I]Might it be that your underlying reasons for your positions on these matters are not only the ones you express above?[/I][/QUOTE]I know you won't like this, but it's not a jury's fault if someone is actually shown to be innocent some months or years later by the introduction of new technology. Juries have to use what they have at the time. You can't get rid of a law just because someone MIGHT make a mistake or misuse it. I know you won't agree, but more often than not, the justice system is actually right in its decisions, even if it is clogged and spends too much money at times. If we can't trust that it is right, there's no point to having laws at all because it all boils down into an arbitrary and chaotic mess.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;75365]How about the more reasonable argument, consistent with what I wrote above, "If many dozens or even hundreds of ..."
Oh, come on -- I can't believe you really mean that after careful thought.

Wrongful life imprisonment can be [I]partially[/I] corrected by releasing the prisoner and compensating him/her financially or in other ways.

(In fact, we've just recently had a case of that here in Wisconsin -- a lifer, wrongly imprisoned, was released and allowed to sue in court for damages. Now, in this particular case, there's the complication that the formerly-wrongfully-imprisoned person is now accused of having actually murdered someone after his release, but that's quite unusual and doesn't affect the original injustice. Some, indeed, argue that without the wrongful imprisonment, the person might never have developed the inner rage leading to the subsequent alleged murder, which doesn't [I]excuse[/I] the latter but might partially [I]explain[/I] it.)

=> Tell us how wrongful execution can be remedied. Care to explain to us how to resurrect from the grave?

You're clearly exaggerating here for "straw man" purposes. Care to set aside that rhetoric and make an honest argument?[/QUOTE]Why is it that using the whole premise of the "logical extreme outcome" is ok when some people here want to use it, but not others? I saw that nearly everyone here was ok with that one mock conversation between a religious person and one who was not even though it made the same kind of argument and belittled the religious person by doing so. I find that interesting. I can't find the mock conversation, but when I do I will post it unless someone else remembers it first.

[QUOTE=garo;75408]It seems to me - and I may be wrong - that CarlSagan43 does not have any personal experience with rape victims or cases where women's physical or emotional well-being maybe in danger or when the fetus suffers from severe congenital disease. Please take the time to acquaint yourself with individual(s) in these situations before you take the moral high ground.
Carrying a baby to term is a huge endeavour requiring massive commitment from the woman and (to a lesser extent from) her partner even when the pregnancy is planned. When it results from non-consensual sex or from an accident (miscalculations and condom tears do happen) or when the fetus is not fully healthy the stress on the woman is unimaginable by anyone to whom it has not happened. So I would urge Carlsagan43 to take his bully pulpit and shove it somewhere discrete.

Also, I can tell from the experience of a close family members that not just implantation failures but also miscarriages in the first 3-4 months are pretty common. And while the pain of loss due to a miscarriage is immense, it does not compare with the pain of the loss of a baby.[/QUOTE]Ya know, if people took this kind of point of view all the time, I would have never been born. That's one reason I can't agree with it. Also, why should, "It's gonna cause emotional problems and stress for the biological mother" be a reason to allow it? I know you won't like this, but a person can get over crap that happens to them given enough time and counseling and medication. That being true, unless a person is so emotionally unstable or immature to begin with, you can't really use that as a morallly sound reason. It's practically like saying, "You should die or go away because my emotions are more important than your existence and presence". I find that repulsive, personally.

[QUOTE=Citrix;75531]As you can tell, I diagree with several laws that exist today. In my thinking there should be as much freedom as possible as long as ones' actions does not hurt some one else.[/QUOTE]I never would have figure you for a hippy, Citrix. The whole, "if it feels good, do it" or "do whatever you want, but don't bother me" lines of thinking I had hoped were starting to diminish.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;89863]It's very simple. A person who has committed an illegal act such as murder has given up the right to his or her life by committing such an act.[/QUOTE]
It always puzzles me that people can be for the death penalty.

When some one kills an other human, it is wrong and he/she gets capital punishment.

When the executionor kills a human in capital punishment, it is ok?
When a soldier kills a human, it is ok? or only when the other is also a soldier?
When a police officer kills a human, it is ok? or only when that human would kill an other human if it wouldn't be killed by the police officer?

Only the first person gets punishment, the other three are allowed to go home, drink a cup of coffee, eat pies and life their life further without any restrictions for their actions.

( /me grew up in a country that doesn't have capital punishment and has liberal abortion laws (yes yes that country) since i was born)

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;75540]Concerning the 'unique DNA' issue. I would suggest that those that want to take the position that that is what makes them 'babies', enter "HeLa cells" into a handy search engine and read about Henrietta Lacks' gift to the world.[/QUOTE]I know why you chose her for your argument, but I think most people would agree that tumor cells, no matter how strange they are in medical science, except the one weirdo who wanted to make it a new species, are not human life anymore than an organ itself is human life. I see the main problem here with this sort of thing when people start using the "potential for life" thing on the pro-choice side being that they apparently see no difference at all between what they call a fertilized egg/fetus/blastocyst etc. and any other cell in a human body. As for the "it's part of the woman's body" argument, that is like saying conjoined twins are the same person just because they are joined together. In several of those cases, even with medical advances, you can't separate them or one or both will die. That doesn't make both not people. Yes, I realize that twins are already born and older by the time they are separated, but I think it still applies.

[QUOTE=BotXXX;89875]It always puzzles me that people can be for the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

You and everyone else reading this thread believes in the death penalty.

Scenario: A home invader breaks into your home and is about to plunge a knife into your wife. Fortunately you heard the commotion and enter the room with a gun. In that moment, you believe in the death penalty.