1) How is it not murder?

 

2) Why doesn't the government get to choose what to do with criminals, but women get to choose what to do with innocent babies?

 

1. How is it murder?

 

2. If a woman chooses she chooses, if the government chooses, I choose.

1. How is it murder?

 

2. If a woman chooses she chooses, if the government chooses, I choose.

 

1) You're killing a person, how is that not murder?

 

2) If the government chooses, they choose.

1) You're killing a person, how is that not murder?

 

2) If the government chooses, they choose.

 

I guess that is a matter of how you as an individual believe.

 

And to commit murder you have to have what is known as Mens Rea, otherwise known as a "Guilty mind". I doubt those who get an abortion are doing it thinking that they are murdering a child. They probably believe differently than you do.

I guess that is a matter of how you as an individual believe.

 

And to commit murder you have to have what is known as Mens Rea, otherwise known as a "Guilty mind". I doubt those who get an abortion are doing it thinking that they are murdering a child. They probably believe differently than you do.

 

So as a example, say a person believes all minorities are out to harm them. Said person kills an innocent minority. Do you really believe he wouldn't be convicted of murder? I mean to him he wasn't murdering someone, he was protecting himself.

So as a example, say a person believes all minorities are out to harm them. Said person kills an innocent minority. Do you really believe he wouldn't be convicted of murder? I mean to him he wasn't murdering someone, he was protecting himself.

 

There's a really big difference in your two examples, and you know that.

 

Abortion is currently legal due to Roe vs. Wade. While I'm willing to admit there is and always will be an ongoing debate about abortion, there is absolutely no debate about killing someone because they believe all minorities are out to get them. That would just be racism, paranoia and ignorance.

There's a really big difference in your two examples, and you know that.

 

Abortion is currently legal due to Roe vs. Wade. While I'm willing to admit there is and always will be an ongoing debate about abortion, there is absolutely no debate about killing someone because they believe all minorities are out to get them. That would just be racism, paranoia and ignorance.

 

Of the three, this is the one the defense would hang its hat on.

Of the three, this is the one the defense would hang its hat on.

 

You are probably right. :lol:

Please stop turning this into an abortion thread. Thanks.

I'm also a very big eye for an eye guy when it comes to crime. Would I like the death penalty to be reformed so it is more cost effective? Absolutely, but I'd rather have it like it is, then not have it at all.

 

I also think we are way too humane with how the executions are carried out.

 

I agree with the eye for an eye concept, but the fact of the matter is it's not happening with the speed and cost efficiency to make it practical. As an economic-minded person, I would think the incredible cost to the state — which you pay for in taxes — would make it a candidate for at least a moratorium until a better process is in place. It seems pointless to me to spend millions of dollars in court costs, housing and other expenses for a person in this fashion when it seems clear he/she isn't going to be put down in a timely manner.

What is the purpose of the death penalty?

 

What is meant to be accomplished by it?

What is the purpose of the death penalty?

 

What is meant to be accomplished by it?

 

A few schools of thought:

 

1) Punishment

2) Deterrent

3) Eliminating clear cut threat to an orderly society

 

 

 

Again I am no longer a proponent of the death penalty in civilian settings. I am all for life in solitary confinement.

A few schools of thought:

 

1) Punishment

2) Deterrent

3) Eliminating clear cut threat to an orderly society

 

 

 

Again I am no longer a proponent of the death penalty in civilian settings. I am all for life in solitary confinement.

 

I would think those are probably the primary schools of though, however

 

1)Isn't it more of a punishment to confine someone to prison for their life. Once they are dead, the punishment is over

 

2) It has been proven over and over and over again that it is not a deterrent, crime rates are higher in the countries that continue to have the death penalty

 

3) Doesn't confinement eliminate the threat?

Edited November 13, 200916 yr by bugatti

Please stop turning this into an abortion thread. Thanks.

Sorry, did not mean to thread jack.

Sorry, did not mean to thread jack.

 

Don't feel too bad. If it wasn't you, someone else would. Every P&R thread gets turned into an abortion thread at some point, and it flat-out wears me out.

i would think those are probably the primary schools of though, however

 

1)Isn't it more of a punishment to confine someone to prison for their life. Once they are dead, the punishment is over

 

2) It has been proven over and over and over again that it is not a deterrent, crime rates are higher in the countries that continue to have the death penalty

 

3) Doesn't confinement eliminate the threat?

 

 

To those:

 

1) I agree with you. Although if people were really intent on punishment I think psychological torture would be more effective.

 

2) No argument again.

 

3) While confinment does contain the threat it is not wholly eliminated unless the threat itself is eliminated. The odds of the threat escaping are minimal in U.S. prisons though.