(10-06-2014 12:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So are you against capital punishment?

Before we get the thread sidetracked about what is my stance on capital punishment for criminals, why don't we find out what UM's stance is about capital punishment for people who aren't guilty of anything?

Why don't we see if he can give us an answer that is more than a "comback" response?

Because on this issue, he seems to be ethically inconsistent. And, once he answers (gives an honest reply that "defends his position" versus a comeback like "deal with it because it's the law"), about why he's fine to devalue some human lives, and value others much more, then I'll be glad to give you an answer.

Typically, though, he's just says something like what I mentions above: "its the law so deal with it" -- regarding issues where he won't defend his position well--like this one at hand.

And, yet, he evidently doesn't want us to just "deal with it" when the existing law allows capital punishment for criminals. So why does he pick and choose which laws we need to "deal with" regarding the value of a human life?

How about it, UofM?

It's a pretty simple question. Yes or no.

Actually it's a pretty good way to derail and sidetrack the conversation (not saying it would be your intent, but just that it would be the likely outcome, regardless) from UofM having to reply. I'll wait. And then you'll get my simple answer after/if he replies.

That sure is a lot of words to not just type 'Yes' or 'No'

(10-06-2014 09:58 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Murder is not a "mistake"

People say about our justice system "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

But not when it comes to killin' folks!

I'm not willing to take that "societal risk"

Also, this is SO ironic.

On the one hand, you want society to be INCONVENIENCED by paying for someone to live for the rest of his/her natural life, who has been found NOT WORTHY TO LIVE by a court and jury (not just some immature teen, but a group of adults sworn to act responsibly).

But on the other hand, you don't want one person (a baby's Mom) being inconvenienced to simply do what is needed to keep that person alive for only a very few months, until someone else will lovingly and willingly pay to care for the person she keeps alive, for that person's natural lifetime?

A fetus is not a baby, and the SCOTUS agrees with me...end of story.

(10-06-2014 12:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So are you against capital punishment?

How about it, UofM?

Believe it or not, responding to your posts in not my job. Executions are legal, I simply disagree with them...just as abortions are legal, and you're welcome to not like it all you want.

(10-06-2014 01:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:58 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Murder is not a "mistake"

People say about our justice system "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

But not when it comes to killin' folks!

I'm not willing to take that "societal risk"

Also, this is SO ironic.

On the one hand, you want society to be INCONVENIENCED by paying for someone to live for the rest of his/her natural life, who has been found NOT WORTHY TO LIVE by a court and jury (not just some immature teen, but a group of adults sworn to act responsibly).

But on the other hand, you don't want one person (a baby's Mom) being inconvenienced to simply do what is needed to keep that person alive for only a very few months, until someone else will lovingly and willingly pay to care for the person she keeps alive, for that person's natural lifetime?

You won't take a "societal risk" when it comes to "killin' folks" and want us to agree that's the right perspective. And yet it's absolutely a societal risk that babies inside their "folks'" wombs, are indeed "folks" themselves (people that are human beings).

It's not even a matter of "scientific evidence" that a baby IS a human after a few weeks. Nothing to speculate about. Nothing to "risk" that the baby is "guilty" of anything.

You say "murder" is not a mistake...so that we shouldn't kill someone found guilty of murdering? And yet you say a guiltless baby IS a "mistake"? So that it can be killed? This just proves how mixed-up your perspective on "life" really is.

A fetus is not a baby, and the SCOTUS agrees with me...end of story.

Untrue. The SCOTUS never made such a ruling. Try reading the actual case law involved (both Roe and subsequent SCOTUS opinions), and then you may attempt a better answer than simply regurgitating your typical type of "fly by" canned response, that you just did once again.

(10-06-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So are you against capital punishment?

How about it, UofM?

Believe it or not, responding to your posts in not my job. Executions are legal, I simply disagree with them...just as abortions are legal, and you're welcome to not like it all you want.

So, there's no humanitarian or ethical issue involved-- just our own particular preferences about whose life is worth more?

Great, now we all get to be our own little god. Actually, you already are.

(10-06-2014 03:39 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:58 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Murder is not a "mistake"

People say about our justice system "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

But not when it comes to killin' folks!

I'm not willing to take that "societal risk"

Also, this is SO ironic.

On the one hand, you want society to be INCONVENIENCED by paying for someone to live for the rest of his/her natural life, who has been found NOT WORTHY TO LIVE by a court and jury (not just some immature teen, but a group of adults sworn to act responsibly).

But on the other hand, you don't want one person (a baby's Mom) being inconvenienced to simply do what is needed to keep that person alive for only a very few months, until someone else will lovingly and willingly pay to care for the person she keeps alive, for that person's natural lifetime?

You won't take a "societal risk" when it comes to "killin' folks" and want us to agree that's the right perspective. And yet it's absolutely a societal risk that babies inside their "folks'" wombs, are indeed "folks" themselves (people that are human beings).

It's not even a matter of "scientific evidence" that a baby IS a human after a few weeks. Nothing to speculate about. Nothing to "risk" that the baby is "guilty" of anything.

You say "murder" is not a mistake...so that we shouldn't kill someone found guilty of murdering? And yet you say a guiltless baby IS a "mistake"? So that it can be killed? This just proves how mixed-up your perspective on "life" really is.

A fetus is not a baby, and the SCOTUS agrees with me...end of story.

Untrue. The SCOTUS never made such a ruling. Try reading the actual case law involved (both Roe and subsequent SCOTUS opinions), and then you may attempt a better answer than simply regurgitating your typical type of "fly by" canned response, that you just did once again.

Quote:The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

(10-06-2014 03:43 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So are you against capital punishment?

How about it, UofM?

Believe it or not, responding to your posts in not my job. Executions are legal, I simply disagree with them...just as abortions are legal, and you're welcome to not like it all you want.

So, there's no humanitarian or ethical issue involved-- just our own particular preferences about whose life is worth more?

Great, now we all get to be our own little god. Actually, you already are.

There is the law...everything else is opinion.

(10-06-2014 03:48 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 03:39 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:58 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Murder is not a "mistake"

People say about our justice system "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

But not when it comes to killin' folks!

I'm not willing to take that "societal risk"

Also, this is SO ironic.

On the one hand, you want society to be INCONVENIENCED by paying for someone to live for the rest of his/her natural life, who has been found NOT WORTHY TO LIVE by a court and jury (not just some immature teen, but a group of adults sworn to act responsibly).

But on the other hand, you don't want one person (a baby's Mom) being inconvenienced to simply do what is needed to keep that person alive for only a very few months, until someone else will lovingly and willingly pay to care for the person she keeps alive, for that person's natural lifetime?

You won't take a "societal risk" when it comes to "killin' folks" and want us to agree that's the right perspective. And yet it's absolutely a societal risk that babies inside their "folks'" wombs, are indeed "folks" themselves (people that are human beings).

It's not even a matter of "scientific evidence" that a baby IS a human after a few weeks. Nothing to speculate about. Nothing to "risk" that the baby is "guilty" of anything.

You say "murder" is not a mistake...so that we shouldn't kill someone found guilty of murdering? And yet you say a guiltless baby IS a "mistake"? So that it can be killed? This just proves how mixed-up your perspective on "life" really is.

A fetus is not a baby, and the SCOTUS agrees with me...end of story.

Untrue. The SCOTUS never made such a ruling. Try reading the actual case law involved (both Roe and subsequent SCOTUS opinions), and then you may attempt a better answer than simply regurgitating your typical type of "fly by" canned response, that you just did once again.

Quote:The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

JUST EXACTLY like I said. They never ruled the fetus is NOT a baby, did they?

ah, splitting hairs, I see...abortion is legal, if you don't approve, simply don't get one.

(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Murder is not a "mistake"

People say about our justice system "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

But not when it comes to killin' folks!

I'm not willing to take that "societal risk"

But abortion is fine??? Contradict much??!!

UofM obviously doesn't have integrity (in the true definition of the word) with his concern about the "possibility of an innocent human life".

He wants to prohibit all executions when he thinks there's a "possibility" of a 1 out of 10 chance that the jury/judge may have gotten the verdict wrong.

On the other hand, he's fine to allow anyone to have an abortion, as long as it's "legal" regardless of the odds of whether here is an innocent human life at stake.

Pretty indefensible argument, he has there...

(10-06-2014 04:03 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Murder is not a "mistake"

People say about our justice system "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

But not when it comes to killin' folks!

I'm not willing to take that "societal risk"

But abortion is fine??? Contradict much??!!

Abortion is legal, and I'll trust the MDs, PhDs, and Judges on the limits...Execution is legal, but I'm against it.

(10-06-2014 04:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  UofM obviously doesn't have integrity (in the true definition of the word) with his concern about the "possibility of an innocent human life".

He wants to prohibit all executions when he thinks there's a "possibility" of a 1 out of 10 chance that the jury/judge may have gotten the verdict wrong.

On the other hand, he's fine to allow anyone to have an abortion, as long as it's "legal" regardless of the odds of whether here is an innocent human life at stake.

Pretty indefensible argument, he has there...

I'm not a woman and will never have a child, so I'll simply trust the MDs, PhDs, and Judges to decide.

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

Basically the same people who can make up a jury and argue a case.

(10-06-2014 04:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 04:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  UofM obviously doesn't have integrity (in the true definition of the word) with his concern about the "possibility of an innocent human life".

He wants to prohibit all executions when he thinks there's a "possibility" of a 1 out of 10 chance that the jury/judge may have gotten the verdict wrong.

On the other hand, he's fine to allow anyone to have an abortion, as long as it's "legal" regardless of the odds of whether here is an innocent human life at stake.

Pretty indefensible argument, he has there...

I'm not a woman and will never have a child, so I'll simply trust the MDs, PhDs, and Judges to decide.

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

How convenient for you to trust medical and legal professionals in one situation and not another.

Medical professionals are directly involved in executions, often to administer the method of execution, and to be involved in recording the death. And judges and attorneys are the legal professionals who push for, and/or allow the death sentence.

Obviously, they know more than you, but instead, evidently YOU don't "trust" them...

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

(Such hypocrisy by you, UofM)

(10-06-2014 05:03 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 04:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 04:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  UofM obviously doesn't have integrity (in the true definition of the word) with his concern about the "possibility of an innocent human life".

He wants to prohibit all executions when he thinks there's a "possibility" of a 1 out of 10 chance that the jury/judge may have gotten the verdict wrong.

On the other hand, he's fine to allow anyone to have an abortion, as long as it's "legal" regardless of the odds of whether here is an innocent human life at stake.

Pretty indefensible argument, he has there...

I'm not a woman and will never have a child, so I'll simply trust the MDs, PhDs, and Judges to decide.

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

How convenient for you to trust medical and legal professionals in one situation and not another.

Medical professionals are directly involved in executions, often to administer the method of execution, and to be involved in recording the death. And judges and attorneys are the legal professionals who push for, and/or allow the death sentence.

Obviously, they know more than you, but instead, evidently YOU don't "trust" them...

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

(Such hypocrisy by you, UofM)

I disagree, as a man and a non-medical professional...I have no idea about the risks and dangers of having a child...and therefore it's not my place to make that decision for any woman.

having a doctor there to oversee and sign a death cert does not mean they approve, as you seem to claim.

if you don't approve of abortions, don't get one...

if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get gay married...

I never stated executions are illegal, I said I don't approve of them.

(10-06-2014 05:38 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 05:03 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 04:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 04:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  UofM obviously doesn't have integrity (in the true definition of the word) with his concern about the "possibility of an innocent human life".

He wants to prohibit all executions when he thinks there's a "possibility" of a 1 out of 10 chance that the jury/judge may have gotten the verdict wrong.

On the other hand, he's fine to allow anyone to have an abortion, as long as it's "legal" regardless of the odds of whether here is an innocent human life at stake.

Pretty indefensible argument, he has there...

I'm not a woman and will never have a child, so I'll simply trust the MDs, PhDs, and Judges to decide.

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

How convenient for you to trust medical and legal professionals in one situation and not another.

Medical professionals are directly involved in executions, often to administer the method of execution, and to be involved in recording the death. And judges and attorneys are the legal professionals who push for, and/or allow the death sentence.

Obviously, they know more than you, but instead, evidently YOU don't "trust" them...

I love how trusting medical and legal professionals is frowned upon around here.

(Such hypocrisy by you, UofM)

I disagree, as a man and a non-medical professional...I have no idea about the risks and dangers of having a child...and therefore it's not my place to make that decision for any woman.

having a doctor there to oversee and sign a death cert does not mean they approve, as you seem to claim.

if you don't approve of abortions, don't get one...

if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get gay married...

I never stated executions are illegal, I said I don't approve of them.

Then, assuming that you are a law abiding citizen and non criminal, as one... you have no idea about the risks and dangers of committing crimes that could get you executed...and therefore it's not your place to make that decision for any judge or jury.

having a doctor there to oversee an abortion does not mean they approve, as you seem to claim.

if you don't approve of people being put to death, don't commit a crime that gets you a death penalty...

if you don't approve of heterosexuality, become a... how in the hell did gay marriage enter into this discussion? Are you everUofM?

And your stance about which lives DESERVE to be lived, still reveals a lack of ethical integrity on your part, which you either cannot, or will not, engage.

"you have no idea about the risks and dangers of committing crimes that could get you executed...and therefore it's not your place to make that decision for any judge or jury."

I have simply stated my opinion, in no way am I trying to make a decision for a judge, or a jury...nor do I think I'm qualified to do so. (although I've sat on a jury before)

Wow are you ever backpedaling, UofM. Why not just show some CONSISTENCY with your position?

You either DO value innocent human life, or you don't. Which is it?

You seem to be willing to make decisions that will affect the ability for someone to live based on "trust" in professionals in some cases, and not in others, or even more scary--based solely upon what just one other person "wants".

At least a tried and convicted criminal has had SEVERAL people making the decision whether he lives or dies. So why aren't you even more reassured about executing someone who has been found "guilty" of something? If you're willing to let a baby be aborted, because of the decision of one person, then why not allow a convict to be executed when many people charged with upholding the law, says he should be?

Who cares what your "preference" is?

It's the law.

Deal with it.

Right?