Originally posted by Bardock42I agree that abortion should be legally supported under extenuating circumstances.
If you can no legally abort, the state is forcing you to carry out the pregnancy, or do you disagree with this?
I thought you were proposing we allowed all women to abort whenever they wanted.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Some people consider all of those better then real life.Especially hard core criminals.
Lots of convicts extend their sentence to stay in by doing more bad stuff in jail.
While that may be true for some, it doesn't matter, it is not about them, it's about what's best for society
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So it's best for society to clog up prisons with a bunch of murderers instead of killing them and making room for less violent offenders?
I also think that we should have more distinction between prisons that are designed to keep seriously dangerous people away from the public and prisons that are supposed to rehabilitate the less dangerous ones. Maybe that already exists though with minimum and maximum security prisons.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why?
This is really not the thread for it, but if you are interested I have debated this issue over hundreds of posts in multiple threads (including the large Abortion thread in this forum). Though if you are at all familiar with the issue, I believe it for many of the reasons that most other pro-choice people believe it as well...
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd argue it'd be better if we stopped handing out so many prison sentences for all sorts of non-violent crime so that there'd be more room for the more violent offenders.I also think that we should have more distinction between prisons that are designed to keep seriously dangerous people away from the public and prisons that are supposed to rehabilitate the less dangerous ones. Maybe that already exists though with minimum and maximum security prisons.
One of the problems with gun violence is the sentences are not harsh enough and all murderers need to be killed.
And yes we need to soften sentences on some things like weed and cocain.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But, so you feel better, I will answer dadudemon:
Well, it at least made me feel better. kitty
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, I agree with you if we take the definition of punishment you used. When I used the word I just meant the legal consequences that a criminal faces.
Then that's my bad.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So we agree.
Of course. I don't know why any normal person would want the violent re-offending rate to be any higher. But...some polices almost assure that re-offenders will re-offend which is what we are talking about. I'd like to get that number to drop to 10-15% in the US. That would be a miracle.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, you can insert anything into this sentence, some things will be true, others will not be true.For example:"I'm not relegating trees to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."
Couple of things:
1. What you just did is a red-herring. It is very much irrelevant to the point I made. You ignored the point I made and then tried to paint my argument as silly with an illogical comparison.
2. That's in illogical comparison. A tree, according to some, may very well be better than a human. Additionally, I compared a human situation to another human situation, not a seemingly non-sapient organism from the Plantae Kingdom. I mean, at least keep your comparative arguments to the same Kingdom much less species. 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we both agree the example is correct. We disagree on it when it comes to human foetuses of a certain age.
This is a much better argument but it is wrong. I agree that abortion should be available for first trimester pregnancies. I still morally oppose abortions except in the following cases: medical necessity, rape, incest, or in the cases of the mother being harmfully (to either herself or the developing baby) mentally ill.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In that case we disagree on what the humane thing to do is then. However, like I stated, I do believe in the right of people to assisted suicide, so if the human criminal agrees with your idea of what is humane he would have the option if it were up to me.
Careful not to try to represent my perspective. I was only providing alternatives to your perspective (which should be clear that they are not my perspective since I made my perspective quite clear). Some do hold that incarceration is inhumane. They are a minority, obviously, but they make good arguments. "Death is better than life in prison." That's not an uncommon statement. Look:
Originally posted by Bardock42
At any rate, you were the one claiming that you are relegating the criminal to subhuman status, not I.
A argumentation tactic is to make an argument that you don't agree with but you think your opponent will latch onto. The trick is, you already have a counter for your predicted opponents counter. After your opponent latches onto that argument, you then counter with the planned counter which is designed to end the point of debate as the other party sees the folly in their line of thinking.
It can be a risky debate tactic but the payoff is good for both parties. You see the error in your perspective, and I've made my point more clear.
The only thing unsatisfactory from your response is I did not get, "I see what you're saying..." It still allows for you to disagree but as long as you acknowledge that it can be considered more humane to execute an unrepentant murderer, then my point is complete.
Originally posted by Bardock42
We are imposing the continuation of a pregnancy if we make abortion illegal.
We are? How?
And we can do that? How?
Are we the anti-abortion police? Who goes around enforcing not-abortions?
"Hold it right there, doctor! Put the fetus vacuum down! You're under arrest by the anti-abortion police."
😆
I don't have time for that. And if I did, I'd pretend to let the doctor off just so I could get his/her vacuum (I'd confiscate it under the "criminal asset forfeiture" precedence) to get those pesky pieces of trash in the absurdly tiny cracks and crevasses in my car.
Of course, I'm mostly joking. But enforcing anti-abortion policies is hard to do and it is harmful.
Women who want abortions but do not have a readily available and legal means will get abortions in back-alleys or try to use "home remedies." It is a story as old as modern humankind. I think tolerating first trimester abortions is the tolerable solution. I still oppose it on moral grounds.