Death Penalty in Nevada (crime, delivery, bars)

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by burdell

Speaking of "falsely accused/convicted" people has nothing to do with whether the death penalty is just or not, it's questioning whether we can reliably determine guilt.

There was a case in NJ where a young man, in celebration of his birthday walked up tp a stranger on the sidewalk and shot(fatally) the stranger in the face. There were witnesses, this was not a circumstantial case. I couldn't think of a more just use of the death penalty. I'd gladly push the plunger myself and feel no remorse.

I'm not saying there aren't criminals out there who deserve to die for what they do, but there's too many people who've gotten off of death row for me to support it... it's a permanent and irreversible punishment that can't be taken back if aquitting evidence comes into the picture. I think that by keeping the death penalty legal, even while you may be giving more "justice" to 95-96% of the people who receive it, there's still that small minority who may be innocent but for whatever reason have the evidence stacked against them. And the REALLY bad Jeffrey Dahmer/Ted Bundy types would likely have their asses raped in prison so much that life in prison could end up being a worse punishment than death, anyway.

But overall, the death penalty strikes me as a very difficult punishment to administer justly and fairly.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

"It's not a baby, it's a blueprint", huh?

Well, it'll fit on a Prius-sized bumpersticker. That seems to be the philosophical criterion for "Progressives" these days.

Thanks for being so considerate and giving us one-stop shopping. It's so convenient to get the cheesiness right along with the whine

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by burdell

Since neither the law nor science consider early abortion to be "terminating a life" I find that reasoning to be at best a biased opinion with no basis in fact.

You may carefully insert "early" and think that you are on safe philosophical grounds. Especially with the lawyers and labcoats looming over your shoulder.

But I happen to disagree -- and in the absence of definite proof to the contrary, my point of view has just as much validity as yours, regardless of how you characterize it.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by burdell

Thanks for being so considerate and giving us one-stop shopping. It's so convenient to get the cheesiness right along with the whine

He said it, not I.

Sorry to grate on your sheesh.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

But I happen to disagree -- and in the absence of definite proof to the contrary, my point of view has just as much validity as yours, regardless of how you characterize it.

I'll side with the law of the land, no matter how you may characterize anything else.

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

He said it, not I.

Sorry to grate on your sheesh.

Do you believe a fertilized egg cell is a person?

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by burdell

I'll side with the law of the land, no matter how you may characterize anything else.

When it suits you. Like everyone else.

[boiseguy]

Originally Posted by burdell

Since neither the law nor science consider early abortion to be "terminating a life" I find that reasoning to be at best a biased opinion with no basis in fact.

I agree, it is trying to take a belief one gets from religion and applying it to fact and science... it just doesn't make sense, BUT I can understand where they are coming from.. but does that "feeling" or "belief" make their notion correct and absolute truth? no... so therefore it is biased.
I believe life should be valued don't get me wrong, but those lives which exist in fully functioning cognative and absolute terms should take precedence...that is why the living functioning cognative "possible mother" is given her right to make that choice because it involves her health and body mind and soul as well. Late term abortions are illegal, and are so because cognative ability is proven scientifically to be in question. You cannot encompass the practice to include circumstances that are not legal or allowed to weigh in on what is legal and allowed. So with that said, and the scientific community acknowleging at point of abortion the fetus or "goop" lacks cognative funtioning thought and feelings.. it is no different than stopping a pregnancy from happening by using condoms and other birth controls.. I will say this though.. Catholics and certian other christian groups who claim that ANY use of birth control is bad.. their argument makes more sense logically and although i would personally disagree, they actually have a leg to stand on because they make no exceptions to the rule and that argument follows logic according to their viewpoint, even if science is involved.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Do you believe a fertilized egg cell is a person?

No, but if you hum a few bars, I can fake it.

[boiseguy]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Semen is not a life.

And I don't appreciate your tone.

semen is a life.. it is cells that are alive and are the seed that fertilizes an egg to make life happen.. it is alive.. and it is a viable human being so long as it goes into a woman and not a condom...