Man Put To Death For 1989 Murder

[GMDino]

(04-23-2018, 10:08 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: With that logic every pro abortion person should be for the death penalty.

As for this Christian, I am against the death penalty.

So your argument is stupid

Actually that would be wrong also.

"pro-choice" means the woman can decide what to do (choose) with her own body.  Many pro-choice are anti-abortion.  I am one of them.  For your example to work they would have to be  rpo criminal deciding if he want to die or not.  

I am against the death penalty in principle, but I can understand it's use in cut and dry cases.  I don't know how many of them there are, but if there is truly no doubt, and no chance of rehabilitation, then I can see it as an acceptable end in particular heinous cases.  In other words, in EXTREMELY rare occasions...not the assembly line time killings we have seen in the past in some states.

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2018, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no problem with the death penalty; as I do not see how abolishing it would make for any fewer erroneous arrests. I would only advocate for it in cases of taking an innocent life. Call it a "pound of flesh" if you will. What should we call imprisoning an innocent person for life? Should we do away with life in prison because we could get it wrong?

Yes. Imprisonment can be reversed and there can be compensation. Death is irreversible.

[Belsnickel]

The death penalty is expensive, it fails in its concept as a deterrent, it is applied disproportionately to certain segments of the population, and in an error riddled criminal justice system it is risky.

It should absolutely be abolished.

[BFritz21]

(04-24-2018, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Actually that would be wrong also.

"pro-choice" means the woman can decide what to do (choose) with her own body.  Many pro-choice are anti-abortion.  I am one of them.  For your example to work they would have to be  rpo criminal deciding if he want to die or not.  

I am against the death penalty in principle, but I can understand it's use in cut and dry cases.  I don't know how many of them there are, but if there is truly no doubt, and no chance of rehabilitation, then I can see it as an acceptable end in particular heinous cases.  In other words, in EXTREMELY rare occasions...not the assembly line time killings we have seen in the past in some states.

Incorrect.  

Let me explain:

[GMDino]

(04-24-2018, 02:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.  

Let me explain:

Feel free to disagree but that is what the law currently says.

Or would you rather someone else get to decide what a woman does with her own body?

[Belsnickel]

(04-24-2018, 02:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.  

Let me explain:

Not to get too off topic, but do you think about this issue in relation to your pending stem cell treatments?

[*PhilHos*]

(04-24-2018, 02:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Feel free to disagree but that is what the law currently says.

Or would you rather someone else get to decide what a woman does with her own body?

What if a woman wants to sell her body - both for sex and to sell her body parts? What if a woman wants to inject narcotics into her blood? What if a woman wants to walk around town completely naked? What if a woman wants to take a hug, steaming dump in the middle of the street?

"Someone else" has already made a lot of decisions on what a woman does with her own body. Why does this one get to be different? (And that's not even getting into the fact that the unborn child is not "her own body").

[Belsnickel]

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What if a woman wants to sell her body - both for sex and to sell her body parts? What if a woman wants to inject narcotics into her blood? What if a woman wants to walk around town completely naked? What if a woman wants to take a hug, steaming dump in the middle of the street?

"Someone else" has already made a lot of decisions on what a woman does with her own body. Why does this one get to be different? (And that's not even getting into the fact that the unborn child is not "her own body").

Well, apart from taking the dump (which would be an environmental quality issue as it would be considered raw sewage) I don't think any of those things should be illegal. All are restrictions on individual liberty.

[*michaelsean*]

I definitely think we should be paid for our organs after death. Not a highest bidder type thing, but a set price paid by whoever is paying for it to be transplanted. It goes to the same person it would have gone to. No changes at all in how they are allotted. Just an addition to the bill. Don’t know why it’s ok for everyone else to make money on a transplant but the donor. Probably see a big uptick in organ donors.

[GMDino]

I'll take them one at a time:

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What if a woman wants to sell her body - both for sex

I saw let her. I'd rather she be legally protected and tested but it's her body to sell.

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: and to sell her body parts?

Well we let people sell their blood and plasma and hair. I remember a story on men selling their testicles. So I guess we already allow that.

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What if a woman wants to inject narcotics into her blood?

Depending on the drug it is probably illegal to use. But I don't care if she does it herself as long as she is not a threat to others.

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What if a woman wants to walk around town completely naked?

Again, *I* do not have a problem with it. We have too puritan a view on the human body here anyway as far as I am concerned. But I know there are laws against it because it can affect others.

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What if a woman wants to take a hug, steaming dump in the middle of the street?

Will she clean up after herself? I think this would fall under the same as the public nakedness in the sense that it affects others.

(04-24-2018, 03:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: "Someone else" has already made a lot of decisions on what a woman does with her own body. Why does this one get to be different? (And that's not even getting into the fact that the unborn child is not "her own body").

I always assumed it was because the woman is solely affected by the pregnancy (her body) and the fetus is not granted as rights as it is not a person yet.

Again, I know people don't like it. I'm not here to argue in favor of abortion just to discuss the point made that everyone who is "pro-choice" should be for the death penalty.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-24-2018, 03:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I definitely think we should be paid for our organs after death. Not a highest bidder type thing, but a set price paid by whoever is paying for it to be transplanted. It goes to the same person it would have gone to. No changes at all in how they are allotted. Just an addition to the bill. Don’t know why it’s ok for everyone else to make money on a transplant but the donor. Probably see a big uptick in organ donors.

(04-24-2018, 03:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll take them one at a time:


I saw let her.  I'd rather she be legally protected and tested but it's her body to sell.



Well we let people sell their blood and plasma and hair.  I remember a story on men selling their testicles.  So I guess we already allow that.



Depending on the drug it is probably illegal to use.  But I don't care if she does it herself as long as she is not a threat to others.


Again, *I* do not have a problem with it.  We have too puritan a view on the human body here anyway as far as I am concerned.  But I know there are laws against it because it can affect others.


Will she clean up after herself?    I think this would fall under the same as the public nakedness in the sense that it affects others.


I always assumed it was because the woman is solely affected by the pregnancy (her body) and the fetus is not granted as rights as it is not a person yet.

Again, I know people don't like it.  I'm not here to argue in favor of abortion just to discuss the point made that everyone who is "pro-choice" should be for the death penalty.

I applaud you're consistency, both of you, but my point was more along the lines of how it seems the only time people complain about who gets to have a say in what people do with their bodies is during an abortion debate.

[BFritz21]

(04-24-2018, 02:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Feel free to disagree but that is what the law currently says.

Or would you rather someone else get to decide what a woman does with her own body?

Did you not see the pictures I posted?  A baby inside a woman is not her own body.

And there's many flaws in a lot of laws.

(04-24-2018, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not to get too off topic, but do you think about this issue in relation to your pending stem cell treatments?

What do you mean?

Do you mean do I feel the same way because stem cells can come from aborted babies?

If so, and I think that's what you mean, I'll explain to you, like I had to with Fred:  the stem cells that would be used for my treatment don't come  from aborted babies.  In fact, very few stem cells used do come from aborted babies, but that's what everyone associates with stem cells because that's the controversial one.  Most stem cells, including the ones that would be used for my treatment, come from things like bone marrow, blood plasma, skin, etc.  

People are either uneducated on the topic or have other agendas when they assume that all stem cells come from aborted babies when it's actually a very small amount.

[GMDino]

(04-24-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I applaud you're consistency, both of you, but my point was more along the lines of how it seems the only time people complain about who gets to have a say in what people do with their bodies is during an abortion debate.

(04-24-2018, 04:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Did you not see the pictures I posted?  A baby inside a woman is not her own body.

And there's many flaws in a lot of laws.

I'm just answering these two together to save time:

The fetus is not seen as being a person and therefore has no rights that would supercede the rights of the mother and what she can do to her body.  At least that is how I have taken the law. 

Again, I'm not trying to argue abortion is good.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-24-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I applaud you're consistency, both of you, but my point was more along the lines of how it seems the only time people complain about who gets to have a say in what people do with their bodies is during an abortion debate.

Oh I’m pro-life, I just threw that in when I saw your examples.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2018, 12:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Imprisonment can be reversed and there can be compensation. Death is irreversible.

Imprisonment cannot be reversed after you die and how do those released while alive  get their years back?

[*bfine32*]

There are plenty other threads in this forum that address the subject of abortion. The person that introduced it into this forum was simply trolling.

[BmorePat87]

(04-24-2018, 05:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Imprisonment cannot be reversed after you die and how do those released while alive  get their years back?

You don't, hence Matt mentioning monetary compensation. I imagine that nearly every single person with a life sentence who was exonerated is happy that they were not killed and consider that better than losing 5-25 years behind bars. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2018, 05:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You don't, hence Matt mentioning monetary compensation. I imagine that nearly every single person with a life sentence who was exonerated is happy that they were not killed and consider that better than losing 5-25 years behind bars. 

I'd imagine most are; however, the time cannot be reversed. I also sure there are many innocent men that have spent a life wrongly imprisoned, life everyday knowing they are innocent, and die in that very state. To me to abolish capital punishment is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water. The focus should be and has been on improved methods of investigation. But unfortunately, once all the evidence is presented, a suspect has been found guilty by a jury of his or her peers, and the sentence is death; then the sentence should be carried out. People die everyday for unjustified reasons. But we are allowed to pick and choose what we apply zero tolerance to.

I have said in the past the CP should be reserved for extreme cases in which there is no ambiguity. Can anyone against the death penalty tell me why Dylan Roof should not die for his crimes?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2018, 05:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Imprisonment cannot be reversed after you die and how do those released while alive  get their years back?

Who cares if they can't get the years back.  They are capable of getting their freedom back.

Have you ever heard of a guy getting his conviction overturned after 20 years in prison say "Never mind.  If I can't get those years back I'll just stay in prison."

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2018, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Can anyone against the death penalty tell me why Dylan Roof should not die for his crimes?

Because we should be better than the murderers.

All an execution does is satisfy bloodlust.  It serves no purpose for deterrent.  It brings no one back to life.  And, worst of all, sometimes the person executed becomes a martyr.  Then the death penalty has done more bad than good.