|
Post by fretslider on Jun 28, 2012 13:07:16 GMT -5
You could really boost the ratings for the networks and give good quality family entertainment simply by taking all of your people on death row and putting them through Gladiator school. Then hold the games on a frequency that suits in places like Kyle Field; Memorial Stadium, Nebraska; Jordan Hare Stadium; Rose Bowl etc etc. The 'sport' would be regulated by the NGL - the National Gladiator League. What's the prize? After a certain number of victories, you decide how many, they get to to be a free man. Just a thought but, not an intelligent thought Coming from an irrational man - yes, you do believe, do you not! - I take that as a compliment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:51:12 GMT -5
There would at least be some kind of consistency if execution was the invariable punishment for all crimes.
Even if it was the consistent result of murder it might be justifiable.
What is absurd is the utterly irrational manner in which some individuals are executed and others are not.
Of course I freely confess that I am morally opposed to all executions but the present shambles if indefensible on every level.
Why is, for instance, Theresa Lewis more deserving of execution than Christa Pike or Richard Ramirez?
Either execute everyone or no one (preferably the latter)
Otherwise you simply have an organised hypocrisy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:14:42 GMT -5
Not a good idea. It is better to have them brought to the death chamber in shackles, then put them to sleep forever. Having them fight like that only allows some of them to kill again. I think hanging would be the cheapest way to go, because you can always re-use the rope. you're obviously totally correct, of course, but the worst part of that nonsense is the notion of ever allowing a murderer to go free we allow women who have killed their unborn babies and the medical staff that provides the "service" to walk free everyday.....how much hyprocracy do we need in this country? I guess killing unborn children is more fashionable and justified
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Jun 29, 2012 10:14:17 GMT -5
There would at least be some kind of consistency if execution was the invariable punishment for all crimes. Even if it was the consistent result of murder it might be justifiable. What is absurd is the utterly irrational manner in which some individuals are executed and others are not. Of course I freely confess that I am morally opposed to all executions but the present shambles if indefensible on every level. Why is, for instance, Theresa Lewis more deserving of execution than Christa Pike or Richard Ramirez? Either execute everyone or no one (preferably the latter) Otherwise you simply have an organised hypocrisy. Hi MM. While I agree that it is absurd that some are executed, while there are some whom are more deserving are not is not only unfair, but stupid, I feel it is still better to get some than none. A serial killer will kill again if he is given a second chance, yet there are serial killers who have been convicted of murder, who eventually get released, then murder again. A death sentence, whether you execute or not, ensures that as long as the sentence is death, the convicted will never leave the prison alive, hence, will never kill again unless he murders while incarcerated. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Jun 29, 2012 10:16:58 GMT -5
you're obviously totally correct, of course, but the worst part of that nonsense is the notion of ever allowing a murderer to go free we allow women who have killed their unborn babies and the medical staff that provides the "service" to walk free everyday.....how much hyprocracy do we need in this country? I guess killing unborn children is more fashionable and justified Hi CM, When it comes to abortions, I am basically opposed to them. However, they are legal. Executions are also legal. If murder was legal, I guess I would opposed to it like I oppose abortions, but still, if legal, it is legal. Ak.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 29, 2012 11:55:27 GMT -5
you're obviously totally correct, of course, but the worst part of that nonsense is the notion of ever allowing a murderer to go free we allow women who have killed their unborn babies and the medical staff that provides the "service" to walk free everyday.....how much hyprocracy do we need in this country? I guess killing unborn children is more fashionable and justified Believe it or not Cheffy, sometimes it is kinder to the child not to let it live.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Jun 29, 2012 14:30:54 GMT -5
we allow women who have killed their unborn babies and the medical staff that provides the "service" to walk free everyday.....how much hyprocracy do we need in this country? I guess killing unborn children is more fashionable and justified Believe it or not Cheffy, sometimes it is kinder to the child not to let it live. Hi Fretslider, Although you are correct, we cannot determine whether it would be kinder to abort or not. No one can see the teminated child's future. So, should we say it is kinder to abort? If that is the case, then everyone should abort. AK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 14:49:08 GMT -5
There would at least be some kind of consistency if execution was the invariable punishment for all crimes. Even if it was the consistent result of murder it might be justifiable. What is absurd is the utterly irrational manner in which some individuals are executed and others are not. Of course I freely confess that I am morally opposed to all executions but the present shambles if indefensible on every level. Why is, for instance, Theresa Lewis more deserving of execution than Christa Pike or Richard Ramirez? Either execute everyone or no one (preferably the latter) Otherwise you simply have an organised hypocrisy. Yes indeed. I've always felt that way.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 29, 2012 16:09:11 GMT -5
Believe it or not Cheffy, sometimes it is kinder to the child not to let it live. Hi Fretslider, Although you are correct, we cannot determine whether it would be kinder to abort or not. No one can see the teminated child's future. So, should we say it is kinder to abort? If that is the case, then everyone should abort. AK But you miss the point, we can make a determination. Let's take a victim of rape, for example. She falls pregnant as a result of the attack and there is no way she will accept the child. Or let's take the example of a foetus which is so deformed it would be a kindness to abort it. In the end it's a woman's choice. ".So, should we say it is kinder to abort? If that is the case, then everyone should abort." Are you really being serious with this line, Akamai? I said there are times when that is most definitely the case, I have not said "everyone should abort" as well you know, but I know that's all you have left at your disposal.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Jun 29, 2012 18:32:42 GMT -5
Hi Fretslider, Although you are correct, we cannot determine whether it would be kinder to abort or not. No one can see the teminated child's future. So, should we say it is kinder to abort? If that is the case, then everyone should abort. AK But you miss the point, we can make a determination. Let's take a victim of rape, for example. She falls pregnant as a result of the attack and there is no way she will accept the child. Or let's take the example of a foetus which is so deformed it would be a kindness to abort it. In the end it's a woman's choice. ".So, should we say it is kinder to abort? If that is the case, then everyone should abort." Are you really being serious with this line, Akamai? I said there are times when that is most definitely the case, I have not said "everyone should abort" as well you know, but I know that's all you have left at your disposal. Fretslider, I think you mis-understand. I am a proponent to legal abortions, especially in the cases of rape, a deformed child, or retardation. However, even in the conception of a rape, there is always a couple who cannot have a child wanting one, regardless of the circumstances. But to say it could be more "humane" to terminate a pregnancy, when we cannot see the future is absurd. Yes, bringing an unwanted child into this world is unfair to everyone including the child, but a fetus that will become a human child may not be wanted by its mother or father, but in this country, some couples would love to adopt it, especially if it is a normal, healthy child. AK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 19:55:08 GMT -5
we allow women who have killed their unborn babies and the medical staff that provides the "service" to walk free everyday.....how much hyprocracy do we need in this country? I guess killing unborn children is more fashionable and justified Believe it or not Cheffy, sometimes it is kinder to the child not to let it live. I understand but when did we become God and judge who has the right to be born and who doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 30, 2012 3:42:41 GMT -5
Believe it or not Cheffy, sometimes it is kinder to the child not to let it live. I understand but when did we become God and judge who has the right to be born and who doesn't? As I said, it's a woman's choice in the end. God doesn't come into it. There's no problem becoming God and judge with the DP...
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 30, 2012 3:54:58 GMT -5
But you miss the point, we can make a determination. Let's take a victim of rape, for example. She falls pregnant as a result of the attack and there is no way she will accept the child. Or let's take the example of a foetus which is so deformed it would be a kindness to abort it. In the end it's a woman's choice. ".So, should we say it is kinder to abort? If that is the case, then everyone should abort." Are you really being serious with this line, Akamai? I said there are times when that is most definitely the case, I have not said "everyone should abort" as well you know, but I know that's all you have left at your disposal. Fretslider, I think you mis-understand. I am a proponent to legal abortions, especially in the cases of rape, a deformed child, or retardation. However, even in the conception of a rape, there is always a couple who cannot have a child wanting one, regardless of the circumstances. But to say it could be more "humane" to terminate a pregnancy, when we cannot see the future is absurd. Yes, bringing an unwanted child into this world is unfair to everyone including the child, but a fetus that will become a human child may not be wanted by its mother or father, but in this country, some couples would love to adopt it, especially if it is a normal, healthy child. AK "there is always a couple who cannot have a child wanting one, regardless of the circumstances."That's life, it's unfortunate, but it IS an entirely natural condition and nobody ever died from an inability to reproduce. That's how natural selection works. It's not as if the barren have no options at all.... www.childrenshomes.org/E-mail Us: children@childrenshomes.org Far better to deal with the ones you've already got, wouldn't you say.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Jun 30, 2012 10:42:49 GMT -5
Fretslider, I think you mis-understand. I am a proponent to legal abortions, especially in the cases of rape, a deformed child, or retardation. However, even in the conception of a rape, there is always a couple who cannot have a child wanting one, regardless of the circumstances. But to say it could be more "humane" to terminate a pregnancy, when we cannot see the future is absurd. Yes, bringing an unwanted child into this world is unfair to everyone including the child, but a fetus that will become a human child may not be wanted by its mother or father, but in this country, some couples would love to adopt it, especially if it is a normal, healthy child. AK "there is always a couple who cannot have a child wanting one, regardless of the circumstances."That's life, it's unfortunate, but it IS an entirely natural condition and nobody ever died from an inability to reproduce. That's how natural selection works. It's not as if the barren have no options at all.... www.childrenshomes.org/E-mail Us: children@childrenshomes.org Far better to deal with the ones you've already got, wouldn't you say. Fretslider, There are a couple of things on that. Natural selection has nothing to do with abortions. The child as the result of a pregnancy that is allowed to go the full term for adoption is reared by his adoptive parents who cannot reproduce, That is not going to make him less healthy than a child product of any normal pregnancy. To some, there is a moral problem with abortions, and the reason they impose their beliefs on others, fall into a very similar reasoning for being a good citizen of this planet, trying to prevent a murder that you see taking place on the streets. Whether abortions are morally wrong or not, by law, is a decision made by the parents of the unborn. Because abortions are legal, as they should be, those who oppose abortions are actually activists if they take any action other than voice of their opinions. Ak
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 30, 2012 11:33:09 GMT -5
"there is always a couple who cannot have a child wanting one, regardless of the circumstances."That's life, it's unfortunate, but it IS an entirely natural condition and nobody ever died from an inability to reproduce. That's how natural selection works. It's not as if the barren have no options at all.... www.childrenshomes.org/E-mail Us: children@childrenshomes.org Far better to deal with the ones you've already got, wouldn't you say. Fretslider, There are a couple of things on that. Natural selection has nothing to do with abortions. The child as the result of a pregnancy that is allowed to go the full term for adoption is reared by his adoptive parents who cannot reproduce, That is not going to make him less healthy than a child product of any normal pregnancy. To some, there is a moral problem with abortions, and the reason they impose their beliefs on others, fall into a very similar reasoning for being a good citizen of this planet, trying to prevent a murder that you see taking place on the streets. Whether abortions are morally wrong or not, by law, is a decision made by the parents of the unborn. Because abortions are legal, as they should be, those who oppose abortions are actually activists if they take any action other than voice of their opinions. Ak Abortion, as I have already said, is ultimately a woman's choice. There are plenty already there for the adopting, around 800,000 each year in the States, so there's no shortage is there. That's why your childrens homes are full to bursting. Deal with the ones you have first... and then consider extra mouths to feed. "To some, there is a moral problem with abortions, and the reason they impose their beliefs on others,"Ah, the religious lunatics.
|
|