Arizona execution goes terribly wrong

[JoeB131]

Most of those on this thread who allege that capital punishment is barbaric are humanists. They're absurd. They deny the existence of the only ontologically justifiable grounds for absolute morality, and so they are reduced to making wet, snot-stained-hanky talk about cruelty. The pertinent principle here is the sanctity of human life. But even human life is not the highest principle of all. Justice is. And justice demands a reckoning; otherwise, it is meaningless to even talk about the sanctity of human, let alone cruel or unusual punishment.

But of course the administration of capital punishment should be as humane as we can possibly make it for the same reason.

the problem with "absolute morality" is that you have to have absolute certainty.

148 people have been aquitted of crimes that got them sent to death row. Further investigations found that someone else did it.

 

[Andylusion]

[

Lefty think: capital punishment is barbaric; abortion on demand isn't.

Go figure.

Yeah, fetuses aren't people.

They don't feel pain when aborted in 99% of abortions. (most are performed before the 12th week, pain receptors don't turn on until the 20th.)

So if they don't feel pain, then it's perfectly fine to murder someone?

They are not people? By what rational? Human DNA. It's alive. It uses oxygen, and nutriment. It is human, you are killing it, that is murder.

The last time human beings thought they had the right to say other humans were not a "person", we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Well, I don't believe you have the right to determine which humans are a "person" and which are not.

 

[Andylusion]

Most of those on this thread who allege that capital punishment is barbaric are humanists. They're absurd. They deny the existence of the only ontologically justifiable grounds for absolute morality, and so they are reduced to making wet, snot-stained-hanky talk about cruelty. The pertinent principle here is the sanctity of human life. But even human life is not the highest principle of all. Justice is. And justice demands a reckoning; otherwise, it is meaningless to even talk about the sanctity of human, let alone cruel or unusual punishment.

But of course the administration of capital punishment should be as humane as we can possibly make it for the same reason.

the problem with "absolute morality" is that you have to have absolute certainty.

148 people have been aquitted of crimes that got them sent to death row. Further investigations found that someone else did it.

Then we shouldn't have anyone anywhere in prison. You are ruining their lives, and they might not have done it.

Sorry, that is not a valid excuse to allow murderers to victimize society forever.

 

[Kondor3]

So, when do we bring back St. Catherine's Wheel in the public square?

 

[JoeB131]

Most of those on this thread who allege that capital punishment is barbaric are humanists. They're absurd. They deny the existence of the only ontologically justifiable grounds for absolute morality, and so they are reduced to making wet, snot-stained-hanky talk about cruelty. The pertinent principle here is the sanctity of human life. But even human life is not the highest principle of all. Justice is. And justice demands a reckoning; otherwise, it is meaningless to even talk about the sanctity of human, let alone cruel or unusual punishment.

But of course the administration of capital punishment should be as humane as we can possibly make it for the same reason.

the problem with "absolute morality" is that you have to have absolute certainty.

148 people have been aquitted of crimes that got them sent to death row. Further investigations found that someone else did it.

Then we shouldn't have anyone anywhere in prison. You are ruining their lives, and they might not have done it.

Sorry, that is not a valid excuse to allow murderers to victimize society forever.

That's kind of retarded, actually.

First, when you send someone to prison, you can let him out if you later discover he didn't do it. You can't make someone alive again after you've executed him. That's the point.

Second, when you lock someone up, he can't "victimize society forever". Prison is really a pretty nasty place.

 

[JoeB131]

So if they don't feel pain, then it's perfectly fine to murder someone?

They are not people? By what rational? Human DNA. It's alive. It uses oxygen, and nutriment. It is human, you are killing it, that is murder.

The last time human beings thought they had the right to say other humans were not a "person", we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Well, I don't believe you have the right to determine which humans are a "person" and which are not.

No one ever claimed slaves weren't people. Just that they didn't deserve representation in congress.

A fetus can't live outside the woman's body for more than a few minutes. Therefore, not human in any legal sense.

 

[Meathead]

So if they don't feel pain, then it's perfectly fine to murder someone?

They are not people? By what rational? Human DNA. It's alive. It uses oxygen, and nutriment. It is human, you are killing it, that is murder.

The last time human beings thought they had the right to say other humans were not a "person", we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Well, I don't believe you have the right to determine which humans are a "person" and which are not.

No one ever claimed slaves weren't people. Just that they didn't deserve representation in congress.

A fetus can't live outside the woman's body for more than a few minutes. Therefore, not human in any legal sense.

How about bubble babies or this guy David Vetter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Are they not human by your legal definition?

What about late-term abortions, where the fetus has a chance of living if provided with medical care?

 

[JoeB131]

So if they don't feel pain, then it's perfectly fine to murder someone?

They are not people? By what rational? Human DNA. It's alive. It uses oxygen, and nutriment. It is human, you are killing it, that is murder.

The last time human beings thought they had the right to say other humans were not a "person", we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Well, I don't believe you have the right to determine which humans are a "person" and which are not.

No one ever claimed slaves weren't people. Just that they didn't deserve representation in congress.

A fetus can't live outside the woman's body for more than a few minutes. Therefore, not human in any legal sense.

How about bubble babies or this guy David Vetter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Are they not human by your legal definition?

What about late-term abortions, where the fetus has a chance of living if provided with medical care?

Wow, dude, you are stretching.

Vetter was obviously capable of living outside his mothers womb. (Although he only lived 13 years).

As for late abortions (the phrase "Late term" is a misnomer,as the fetus is not brought to term) those are only performed when something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy. but because it kind of looks like a baby in drawings, the misogynists like to pretend that's what all abortions look like.

 

[Meathead]

No one ever claimed slaves weren't people. Just that they didn't deserve representation in congress.

A fetus can't live outside the woman's body for more than a few minutes. Therefore, not human in any legal sense.

How about bubble babies or this guy David Vetter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Are they not human by your legal definition?

What about late-term abortions, where the fetus has a chance of living if provided with medical care?

Wow, dude, you are stretching.

Vetter was obviously capable of living outside his mothers womb. (Although he only lived 13 years).

As for late abortions (the phrase "Late term" is a misnomer,as the fetus is not brought to term) those are only performed when something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy. but because it kind of looks like a baby in drawings, the misogynists like to pretend that's what all abortions look like.

So you think a bubble lends itself better to a legal definition of what is human than a womb? In your legal expertise, are babies in neonatal incubators human?

You've gone into a mine field where you have neither the expertise, wherewithal nor intelligence to deal with. Come to think of it, that's true of practically anywhere you go.

 

[JoeB131]

[So you think a bubble lends itself better to a legal definition of what is human than a womb? In your legal expertise, are babies in neonatal incubators human?

You've gone into a mine field where you have neither the expertise, wherewithal nor intelligence to deal with. Come to think of it, that's true of practically anywhere you go.

Well, there is a major difference even a fucking complete retard like you can understand.

There's no point where the Bubble can REFUSE to have someone inside of it.

And there's no way you can make a woman carry a child she doesn't want...

so you can go on all day pretending a kidney-bean sized fetus is the same as a 13 year old boy.

But at the end of the day, the womb's owner gets to make that decision, not you, buddy.

 

[Meathead]

[So you think a bubble lends itself better to a legal definition of what is human than a womb? In your legal expertise, are babies in neonatal incubators human?

You've gone into a mine field where you have neither the expertise, wherewithal nor intelligence to deal with. Come to think of it, that's true of practically anywhere you go.

Well, there is a major difference even a fucking complete retard like you can understand.

There's no point where the Bubble can REFUSE to have someone inside of it.

And there's no way you can make a woman carry a child she doesn't want...

so you can go on all day pretending a kidney-bean sized fetus is the same as a 13 year old boy.

But at the end of the day, the womb's owner gets to make that decision, not you, buddy.

I was sure your criteria was the inability to survive outside the womb which made them non-human.

 

[JoeB131]

[So you think a bubble lends itself better to a legal definition of what is human than a womb? In your legal expertise, are babies in neonatal incubators human?

You've gone into a mine field where you have neither the expertise, wherewithal nor intelligence to deal with. Come to think of it, that's true of practically anywhere you go.

Well, there is a major difference even a fucking complete retard like you can understand.

There's no point where the Bubble can REFUSE to have someone inside of it.

And there's no way you can make a woman carry a child she doesn't want...

so you can go on all day pretending a kidney-bean sized fetus is the same as a 13 year old boy.

But at the end of the day, the womb's owner gets to make that decision, not you, buddy.

I was sure your criteria was the inability to survive outside the womb which made them non-human.

Bubble Boy can survive outside the womb.

But I keep waiting for you misogynists (and that's what it's really about, your misogyny, not your concern for children) tell me how you are going to force women to have babies they don't want.

 

[Meathead]

Well, there is a major difference even a fucking complete retard like you can understand.

There's no point where the Bubble can REFUSE to have someone inside of it.

And there's no way you can make a woman carry a child she doesn't want...

so you can go on all day pretending a kidney-bean sized fetus is the same as a 13 year old boy.

But at the end of the day, the womb's owner gets to make that decision, not you, buddy.

I was sure your criteria was the inability to survive outside the womb which made them non-human.

Bubble Boy can survive outside the womb.

But I keep waiting for you misogynists (and that's what it's really about, your misogyny, not your concern for children) tell me how you are going to force women to have babies they don't want.

Why is he in a bubble then. Why are some babies in incubators?

I am not pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever it is you want to call it. I just think you're stupid and shouldn't try to articulate anything at any level.

 

[JoeB131]

I was sure your criteria was the inability to survive outside the womb which made them non-human.

Bubble Boy can survive outside the womb.

But I keep waiting for you misogynists (and that's what it's really about, your misogyny, not your concern for children) tell me how you are going to force women to have babies they don't want.

Why is he in a bubble then. Why are some babies in incubators?

I am not pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever it is you want to call it. I just think you're stupid and shouldn't try to articulate anything at any level.

So essentially, you're a troll?

Thanks. We knew that.

 

[Meathead]

Bubble Boy can survive outside the womb.

But I keep waiting for you misogynists (and that's what it's really about, your misogyny, not your concern for children) tell me how you are going to force women to have babies they don't want.

Why is he in a bubble then. Why are some babies in incubators?

I am not pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever it is you want to call it. I just think you're stupid and shouldn't try to articulate anything at any level.

So essentially, you're a troll?

Thanks. We knew that.

Since everyone keeps telling you you are very dull-minded, don't you think there may be more than a grain of truth to it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

Lefty think: capital punishment is barbaric; abortion on demand isn't.

Go figure.

Yeah, fetuses aren't people.

They don't feel pain when aborted in 99% of abortions. (most are performed before the 12th week, pain receptors don't turn on until the 20th.)

So if they don't feel pain, then it's perfectly fine to murder someone?

They are not people? By what rational? Human DNA. It's alive. It uses oxygen, and nutriment. It is human, you are killing it, that is murder.

The last time human beings thought they had the right to say other humans were not a "person", we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Well, I don't believe you have the right to determine which humans are a "person" and which are not.

You don't understand.

As a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person' entitled to Constitutional protections (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)), and consequently the state is appropriately prohibited from violating a woman's right to privacy by seeking to dictate to her whether she may or may not have a child.

Now, you're at liberty to believe an embryo/fetus is a 'person,' and you're at liberty to express that belief predicated on your subjective opinion, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that subjective belief.

 

[JoeB131]

Why is he in a bubble then. Why are some babies in incubators?

I am not pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever it is you want to call it. I just think you're stupid and shouldn't try to articulate anything at any level.

So essentially, you're a troll?

Thanks. We knew that.

Since everyone keeps telling you you are very dull-minded, don't you think there may be more than a grain of truth to it?

I've got 6500 in rep, you've got 1100. ON a right wing board, no less.

So I'll take "everyone" with a grain of salt.

the kind of people who disagree with me tend to be 1) Racists, 2) Homophobes, 3) Misogynists, and 4) Batshit crazy.

You can judge a man by the quality of his enemies.

 

[Meathead]

So essentially, you're a troll?

Thanks. We knew that.

Since everyone keeps telling you you are very dull-minded, don't you think there may be more than a grain of truth to it?

I've got 6500 in rep, you've got 1100. ON a right wing board, no less.

So I'll take "everyone" with a grain of salt.

the kind of people who disagree with me tend to be 1) Racists, 2) Homophobes, 3) Misogynists, and 4) Batshit crazy.

You can judge a man by the quality of his enemies.

That you give a shit about rep is telling enough without going into cumulative difference between 46k to 5.5k.

Is there no end to your idiocies?!

 

[JoeB131]

Honestly, guy, 5.5K posts of just trolling just shows you don't have all that much to say.

There are Rightwingers here who talk about interesting stuff, even though I disagree with them quite a bit.

You rarely add anything to a conversation other than to troll.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

More like, other countries that were providing the drugs to do it aren't playing along anymore...

because it's fucking barbaric.

Here are my two problems with the Death Penalty.

Eventually, you are going to get the wrong guy, if you haven't already. 148 people on death row have been let go because someone else did what they were convicted of.

Second, in attempts to keep the first one from happening, ever, we spend a huge amount of money second- guessing and re-examining cases of the 3100 on Death Rows so we can execute 30 or so of them a year.

Lefty think: capital punishment is barbaric; abortion on demand isn't.

Go figure.

Abortion is one of the few topics I tread lightly on because I am undecided in my own mind. However, I will say the it seems hypocritical in the extreme to show such compassion on the death penalty for the worst of humanity than the most innocent. It is something that must take extreme and perverse conviction to justify.

Actually not.

Prior to birth, a woman's right to privacy is paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Moreover, you're confusing civil law with regard to the right to privacy (substantive due process), with that of criminal law concerning the death penalty (procedural due process).

The death penalty and privacy rights are two completely unrelated issues.

Consequently, it's perfectly appropriate and consistent to be opposed to the death penalty on the one hand, and support a woman's right to privacy on the other. Indeed, no one 'supports' abortion, and everyone wishes to see the practice ended; the conflict manifests as how to best end the practice, where in addition to being un-Constitutional, seeking to 'ban' abortion is not a viable 'solution.'