Federal Death Penalty brought back to life

[Orange_Crush]

What? I have no clue what you mean by the bolded. Killing somebody is robbing them of what they are and what they will become. If you disagree, then so be it. That is not the way I see it.



IT IS ABOUT BOTH.



I have addressed both. Literally...for the love. With abortion, it is about BOTH as well. What they are and what they may or may not become.

Murder - robbing a person of what they are and what they will become.
Abortion (to a point) - robbing a life and what it could become.

I am addressing both in both cases.



You are desperately trying to ft is imorce me into saying all I care about is future personhood and then leveling hypocrisy towards the abortion side. It simply isn't true. What IS and what WILL BE are central to both instances and in fact important qualifiers.

It is literally impossible for you to rob me of this moment. By killing me, you can only rob me of the moments to come, and of what I will be, feel, experience, etc in the future.. So, whether you believe it or not, your argument per murder and execution isn't about what IS. It is about the future, as you correctly stated earlier.

So, your "what are they now" distinction is literally inconsequential when we are talking about the stage that you choose to end a human life. In both cases, it is literally, singularly, about depriving a human life of its future personhood.

I really don't care how or whether you see it. That doesn't change it.

 

[rjd970]

It is literally impossible for you to rob me of this moment. By killing me, you can only rob me of the moments to come, and of what I will be, feel, experience, etc in the future.. So, whether you believe it or not, your argument per murder and execution isn't about what IS. It is about the future, as you correctly stated earlier.

So, your "what are they now" distinction is literally inconsequential when we are talking about the stage that you choose to end a human life. In both cases, it is literally, singularly, about depriving a human life of its future personhood.

I really don't care how or whether you see it. That doesn't change it.

No, it isn't. Not in my opinion. Once a person is established, there is nothing but personhood moving forward until death. Once life is established (call it implantation) there is still development happening before the person is established. My opinion is future personhood starts when there is a person to begin with.

So yes, "what they are now" absolutely matters to me.

I don't care that you don't agree. I really don't. But there is nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about what I'm saying. What they are now, and what they will be, both matter.

 

[LouderVol]

No, it isn't. Not in my opinion. Once a person is established, there is nothing but personhood moving forward until death. Once life is established (call it implantation) there is still development happening before the person is established. My opinion is future personhood starts when there is a person to begin with.

So yes, "what they are now" absolutely matters to me.

I don't care that you don't agree. I really don't. But there is nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about what I'm saying. What they are now, and what they will be, both matter.

Yes there is. You are literally saying right here that one human life matters and another doesnt.

You are even taking it as far to say that the same human life only matters after a certain arbitrary point.

Theres no way to argue you are being consistent. You are arguing about life (x) and then go on to add in an arbitrary qualifier of personhood (y) to justify your stance on (x).

You may be consistent on Y, but you certainly arent on X.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, it isn't. Not in my opinion. Once a person is established, there is nothing but personhood moving forward until death. Once life is established (call it implantation) there is still development happening before the person is established. My opinion is future personhood starts when there is a person to begin with.

So yes, "what they are now" absolutely matters to me.

I don't care that you don't agree. I really don't. But there is nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about what I'm saying. What they are now, and what they will be, both matter.

I've never said that it doesn't matter to you. I've said that it's a logical red herring to the argument you've given. It is impossible for you to rob either of what they "are". You can literally only rob them of what they will be. In other words, to use your vocabulary, it is only physically possible to rob either of their future personhood, since it is physically impossible for you to rob them of what they are.

Now, you've established that their future personhood is valuable and shouldn't be robbed from them. But you somehow import the red herring stage of human development into the argument, to make a distinction about what the killing doesn't affect.

I'm not arguing your opinion. I'm saying that your opinion imports a convenient red herring to escape the obvious hypocrisy of robbing future personhood from a human life.

To say it another way, you argument against the death penalty doesn't/can't affect what they are, but claims it immoral to end future personhood. But your argument for abortion tries to import the present to say that it's moral to end future personhood.

And don't forget about the "just one", "not every" slight of hand you tried to pass off as well.

Would you feel better if I just said that your argument is logically inconsistent? You're free to have whatever opinion you want, of course. People have logically inconsistent opinions all the time.

 

[ajvol01]

We've had this debate before. The difference is between life and a person. I don't use them interchangeably.

I draw the line at personhood. Executing a prisoner is ending a real person and guaranteed future. Removing a 2 week old embryo is not ending a person, and is only ending a potential future. If you believe all that is needed to be a person is unique genetic material then we will have to agree to disagree.

What percentage of abortions remove a 2 week old embryo?

I don’t know the answer but I’d wager a guess it’s much less than half.

 

[ajvol01]

The person in prison could die of any number of things, so no his future is not guaranteed. Even if not in prison they could die. You have a very subjective take on what is "guarenteed".

No life is guarenteed, infact there is a 100% mortality rate in humans.

Take a look at life expectancy. It keeps climbing. But there is more correlation to that climb being a result of lower infant mortality rate, than it is people living longer. So one could argue you do more good protecting the young life than the old.

*typos

Jeffrey Epstein agrees

 

[rjd970]

Yes there is. You are literally saying right here that one human life matters and another doesnt.

You are even taking it as far to say that the same human life only matters after a certain arbitrary point.

Theres no way to argue you are being consistent. You are arguing about life (x) and then go on to add in an arbitrary qualifier of personhood (y) to justify your stance on (x).

You may be consistent on Y, but you certainly arent on X.

Wrong, again. Please, for the love of all that is holy, point out one place where I have argued anything about human life and human personhood having the same value. I even said in the very beginning, human life and human personhood are not interchangeable. They are separate and one matters more than the other. I have been very, very clear about this.

Persons are sacred, life isn't. If you don't agree, fine. But my stance absolutely is consistent with that statement.

 

[ajvol01]

If we are talking about early embryos, not a single person was or has been killed (unless you believe a person is simply genetic material). Period. What was stopped, was a potential future person.

If we are talking about a prisoner executed, a person is in fact killed. 100% of time. Period. There is no arguing this. What was stopped, was an actual future person.

I literally don't know how to say it any more simple. There is a distinction between the two that you seem to not see, not care, or not understand (and I don't think it is the last one).



That is not beside my logical point, it is central to it (assuming you understand my point). A real person is being killed in one instance, and not in the other. My position is all life and potential futures are not sacred, all persons and real future personhoods are.



No, it's not. But your attempt to ascribe a position to me is noted.

My position is elementary simple. It is wrong to rob a person of future personhood. That's it. Up to a certain point, abortion doesn't apply.

What is that point?

When a heartbeat is detected?

That would cover most or all fetuses.

 

[ajvol01]

This makes no sense. If the needle doesn't go in the arm, the gun isn't fired, the electricity switch isn't pulled, it is certain he/she doesn't die at that moment. There is some future guaranteed past it.

Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t even on death row

 

[Orange_Crush]

Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t even on death row

He was in close circuit recorded solitary suicide wa... Hey!

 

[LouderVol]

Wrong, again. Please, for the love of all that is holy, point out one place where I have argued anything about human life and human personhood having the same value. I even said in the very beginning, human life and human personhood are not interchangeable. They are separate and one matters more than the other. I have been very, very clear about this.

Persons are sacred, life isn't. If you don't agree, fine. But my stance absolutely is consistent with that statement.

I dont see how you can separate them. Is there personhood without life?

If there is I would love to see that explained out side of religion.

 

[rjd970]

I've never said that it doesn't matter to you. I've said that it's a logical red herring to the argument you've given. It is impossible for you to rob either of what they "are". You can literally only rob them of what they will be. In other words, to use your vocabulary, it is only physically possible to rob either of their future personhood, since it is physically impossible for you to rob them of what they are.

Now, you've established that their future personhood is valuable and shouldn't be robbed from them. But you somehow import the red herring stage of human development into the argument, to make a distinction about what the killing doesn't affect.

I'm not arguing your opinion. I'm saying that your opinion imports a convenient red herring to escape the obvious hypocrisy of robbing future personhood from a human life.

To say it another way, you argument against the death penalty doesn't/can't affect what they are, but claims it immoral to end future personhood. But your argument for abortion tries to import the present to say that it's moral to end future personhood.

And don't forget about the "just one", "not every" slight of hand you tried to pass off as well.

Would you feel better if I just said that your argument is logically inconsistent? You're free to have whatever opinion you want, of course. People have logically inconsistent opinions all the time.

I feel fine just the way I am. The moment personhood is established is a qualifier to my argument, not a red herring to escape the hypocrisy. To end a developing life is ending future development. Once personhood is established, then ending it is ending a future person.

 

[rjd970]

I dont see how you can separate them. Is there personhood without life?

If there is I would love to see that explained out side of religion.

There can be life without personhood, so yes, they can be separated. That is why the moment of personhood is the qualifier in my argument. That is the moment where future life and personhood will be ended if the pregnancy is terminated or the prisoner is executed.

As I said, and you may not agree, all life is not sacred. All people are.

 

[rjd970]

What is that point?

When a heartbeat is detected?

That would cover most or all fetuses.

I don't know.

I don't think it is at conception, and I absolutely believe a third trimester fetus is a person. If I'm boxed into a corner and I have to decide, I would say the start of higher wave brain activity is a compelling position.

 

[rjd970]

What percentage of abortions remove a 2 week old embryo?

I don’t know the answer but I’d wager a guess it’s much less than half.

I don't know, I just threw an example out there.

 

[LouderVol]

There can be life without personhood, so yes, they can be separated. That is why the moment of personhood is the qualifier in my argument. That is the moment where future life and personhood will be ended if the pregnancy is terminated or the prisoner is executed.

As I said, and you may not agree, all life is not sacred. All people are.

We are having a square/rectangle argument.

You are being exclusive arguing it's a square, without proving that it's not a rectangle first.

And for me it's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to be exclusive in life/death(personhood) arguments.

You have separated off personhood without providing any specifics as to anchor your belief in personhood beyond an arbitrary time. Which opens personhood up to any number of arguments.

In the case of the death penalty one could argue that that life's personhood has been lost at sentencing. Someone (a judge) made a determination based on time (whenever the judgment comes thru) about another life's personhood. And they have the backing of the law to the point beyond reasonable doubt as decided by court case.

Now you are willing to accept a much lower bar for abortions on personhood. So yes it is inconsistent to hold separate beliefs on the matter.

At least for those who protect life in the womb but back the death penalty they side on a higher standard than the lower.

 

[rjd970]

We are having a square/rectangle argument.

You are being exclusive arguing it's a square, without proving that it's not a rectangle first.

And for me it's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to be exclusive in life/death(personhood) arguments.

You have separated off personhood without providing any specifics as to anchor your belief in personhood beyond an arbitrary time. Which opens personhood up to any number of arguments.

In the case of the death penalty one could argue that that life's personhood has been lost at sentencing. Someone (a judge) made a determination based on time (whenever the judgment comes thru) about another life's personhood. And they have the backing of the law to the point beyond reasonable doubt as decided by court case.

Now you are willing to accept a much lower bar for abortions on personhood. So yes it is inconsistent to hold separate beliefs on the matter.

At least for those who protect life in the womb but back the death penalty they side on a higher standard than the lower.

Going to be honest, I don't know what you are trying to say here. I also don't know how somebody loses personhood at sentencing. I am me and I will continue to be me until the moment of death.

Outside of my genetic makeup, as an embryo I wasn't me until I developed personhood. At that moment I mattered and my future mattered. If I were to slip into a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, I am also no longer me and my future doesn't matter. FWIW, I have in my will to pull the plug in that case.

If I were to be executed tomorrow, me and my future would be ended at the moment I died.

And let me be clear, I lean towards agreeing with the death penalty. I believe there are crimes that deserve it and people have forfeited their right to exist in those cases. I don't believe aborting an early embryo is murder. And I do believe late term abortion is murder. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent.

 

[volfanhill]

Since there is no way to insure we don’t execute an innocent person we should have no death penalty. We know we have executed innocent people through DNA evidence after the fact.

 

[zeppelin128]

Since there is no way to insure we don’t execute an innocent person we should have no death penalty. We know we have executed innocent people through DNA evidence after the fact.

Agreed.

 

[LouderVol]

Going to be honest, I don't know what you are trying to say here. I also don't know how somebody loses personhood at sentencing. I am me and I will continue to be me until the moment of death.

Outside of my genetic makeup, as an embryo I wasn't me until I developed personhood. At that moment I mattered and my future mattered. If I were to slip into a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, I am also no longer me and my future doesn't matter. FWIW, I have in my will to pull the plug in that case.

If I were to be executed tomorrow, me and my future would be ended at the moment I died.

And let me be clear, I lean towards agreeing with the death penalty. I believe there are crimes that deserve it and people have forfeited their right to exist in those cases. I don't believe aborting an early embryo is murder. And I do believe late term abortion is murder. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent.

You are randomly assigning personhood to people at some arbitrary time. With no way to back that up.

The court of laws is removing personhood based on precedent, a court case, the actions of the individual in question, evidence, and a resolution that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Its plain to see you dont hold a consistent view on personhood.

You/society are assigning personhood. But you dont accept society removing personhood.

Either you accept society as the arbiters of personhood, or you dont. I dont see how you can let them say yes/no at one point in time, but not also yes/no at another.

 

[Weezer]

Since there is no way to insure we don’t execute an innocent person we should have no death penalty. We know we have executed innocent people through DNA evidence after the fact.

We know that on cases prior to the rise of DNA evidence. Now we have DNA evidence that can conclusively link perpetrators to their crimes, so does that change things? Maybe the death penalty should be okay for cases where DNA evidence is present, or where, due to conclusive witness evidence, guilt is not in doubt? Maybe it's the circumstantial cases where the death penalty should be off the table? I'm not sure total elimination of the death penalty is necessary.

 

[Weezer]

The last few months I've been watching a lot of the ID channel, or as I like to call it, the murder channel. One thing I've come to conclude is I don't agree with a lot of the sentencing for murderers. I honestly do not think it is harsh enough. I understand the reform argument for lesser crimes, but when you take the life of someone with intent, I'm not sure if you should ever see release. The person you killed will never see life again, so why should you go free? This is, of course, barring certain circumstances such as self-defense, or abuse, or other reasonable arguments.

 

[rjd970]

You are randomly assigning personhood to people at some arbitrary time. With no way to back that up.

The court of laws is removing personhood based on precedent, a court case, the actions of the individual in question, evidence, and a resolution that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Define what you think I mean when I say personhood. I don't believe a court can remove it. It is removed at the moment of biological brain death. Up until that point, the court can't do jack**** with regard to personhood. They can take away freedom, they can punish, they can do a lot. Unless I'm executed, I'm still me and that can't be taken away.

You seem to be desperately trying to corner me into a position that I simply don't hold.

Its plain to see you dont hold a consistent view on personhood.

You/society are assigning personhood. But you dont accept society removing personhood.

Either you accept society as the arbiters of personhood, or you dont. I dont see how you can let them say yes/no at one point in time, but not also yes/no at another.

It's obvious we are not on the same page. As I said, I am for the death penalty. If that isn't removing personhood in your view, then we are in different universes with this discussion.

If I believe personhood is ended at the moment of biological brain death, then it would make sense that I believe it begins at the moment of biological brain activity. When and at what level that happens is up to debate. I have no qualms about admitting that. While it may not be nailed down to a specific point down to the day, hour, minute, second in human development...it is bracketed. As I have said, I don't believe it is at the moment of conception, and I do believe it happens before physical birth. But it is certainly not arbitrary.

 

[luthervol]

What is that point?

When a heartbeat is detected?

That would cover most or all fetuses.

The end of the first trimester seems to be a pretty good compromise.

 

[n_huffhines]

AG Barr orders reinstatement of the federal death penalty

This is definitely for the Clintons and Obamas