Do you agree with the death penalty?

Yes. Especially for repeat offenders.

I'm not disagreeing with you. My previous statement was on my opinion on what the law should be, I didn't mean to state it as a fact that that's what some countries actually do.
Of course everyone should have a fair trial whether there's capital punishment or not. Personally I just think that it shouldn't class as a crime to kill a guilty person.

Repeat offenders of which offences? I'm pretty sure there's never been a case in the uk of a murderer being released then murdering again



But even if I watch someone commit a murder I can't say they're guilty, that's part of the point of the right to a fair trial.

I'm aware that you weren't stating it as though it's fact but what I'm saying is no legal system, not even dodgy Arab ones, are backward enough to allow vigilante justice against murderers, certainly not by statute.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Repeat offenders of which offences? I'm pretty sure there's never been a case in the uk of a murderer being released then murdering again



But even if I watch someone commit a murder I can't say they're guilty, that's part of the point of the right to a fair trial.

I'm aware that you weren't stating it as though it's fact but what I'm saying is no legal system, not even dodgy Arab ones, are backward enough to allow vigilante justice against murderers, certainly not by statute.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I

Well clearly it wouldn't be as the murderer would have killed an innocent person whereas the death penalty gets rid of guilty people so clearly they are not equally justified.

I'm sure many murderers would argue that there victims were guilty, and that they deserved it.

All of that only happens a certain amount of time into the pregnancy. Abortion is completely wrong beyond that point.
Before that, it is not a baby, it's essentially a bunch of cells that cannot feel pain and cannot feel emotions and could not exist separately to the woman bearing it. Abortion should be acceptable here.

Have you heard of in defence of abortion, it's a collections of arguements in support of abortion assuming the featus has a right to life in the first place. Basically saying that the right to life is not the issue it is the right to use another's body. Let's say the unborn baby has a right to life, does it have a right to use the mother's body against her will. If yes then can the same not be use to justify force human experimentation/forced organ transplant. After all individual lives will be saved and people have a right to life (even in a death penalty case, the right of life is removed due to previous actions).

Again you utterly misunderstood the argument (granted I did it in the most briefest way possible).

For example you say the baby is innocent but this isn't an argument about guilt. I assume you have read the papers. What I am going to do is steal one of the arguments.

Let's say you wake up tomorrow morning and find yourself trapped in a strange room, connected you via an assortment of wires is an unconscious man, (think of him as whoever you want). You discover that this man is dieing, his liver has failed. A surgeon reveals he is the one that brought you there, he also reveals that after 9 months of being connected to this man he will live, he will need no aid. But as you posses a rare genetic marker if you leave the man will die. Are you morally obligated to stay. If the answer is no then the question turns why not, the unconscious man is innocent (assume he had been unconscious for a long time), he has a right to life, and he didn't ask to be unconscious (ie the unconscious man compared with the unborn child). If the answer is yes then some morally questionable action suddenly become morally obligatory.

There are issues with the argument but yore does little to actually challenge it.

First the sex being consensual is irrelevant to the arguments. The kidnapping is reference to the baby being there unwillingly.

I've the kidnap is not a reference to the sex that produced the child but the presence of having a child connected to you against your will

Second if we assume your initial point stands then why is abortion in the case of rape wrong. You say two wrongs don't make a right but the argument is that abortion is not a wrong.

Third your willingness to give away your liver does weaken the argument. You choose to give away your liver, but it's a person choice to not choose . Unless of course you believe people should be pirated to donate 60% of their liver every 6 month (I forget the statistic but it's something like you can donate 60% of your liver once every 6 months as it grows back in that period)

but why should the tax payer pay for them to have very easy lives?

That's irrelevant. Questioning moral ideas usually occurs through hypothetical events unlikely to happen.

I.e

Ticking time bomb scenario
Trolley problem
The violinist (this case is basically the violinist)
The expanding child (hypothetical situation Judith Thomson, who came up with the violinist)
The sadistic guard
The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
Lecherous millionaire

Thought experiments are used thought out philosophy and ethical theories. I doubt you could find me a single major ethical theorist/philosopher who hasn't contributed to a thought experiment.

They are more than just there for mental stimulation, they are made to challenge ideas/support them. The violinist is meant to challenge the narrative of right of life. It legitimately does, if it cannot be rebutted then it demonstrates a contradiction. Which effectively renders opposition to abortion (assuming the arguements works) an emotional one/irrational one.