arrrrgghh!!! I've just been murdered! But only if we change the definition to 'the slight annoyance of a human being.'

"Tuesday always succeeds Monday".

I haven't proven my claim. Are you going to dismiss it?

Again you have just forgotten the series of arguments we've had. I said:

""Tuesday always succeeds Monday".

I present you no proof. Are you going to dismiss it?"

You said I don't have to present proof in that case. Therefore, you agree that sometimes Hitchens Razon doesn't apply. Right?

Yes you do. You just said it above. I don't need to provide proof and I can expect you to go and find it. Don't you remember what you put???

But it is inevitable, as it is for any other crime. The problem with the death penalty is that the sentence is irreconcilable. In support the death penalty you have to concede that the risk of wrongful execution is an acceptable risk.

Ok good, then you conced that Hitchens Razor is wrong. I can make a statement and assume that you're going to find the proof yourself - I can say that Tuesday comes after Monday and that you will find a calender to prove it.

I don't think it is practical. "beyond reasonable doubt" is the highest burden we can give.

The threshold for beyond reasonable doubt is no higher when considering a crime with a potential death sentence than it is for any other crime. People are sentenced to death of far less evidence than you're saying.

What is 'reasonable' doubt is a matter of opinion. The fact that people have been found to have been wrongfully executed but were guilty beyond reasonable doubt means, to me, that in every case there is enough doubt to warrant a person not being executing.

As a society we should make it very clear that every citizen has a right to life that cannot be taken away from them by any person or public body unless necessary. There is no necessity to kill someone for a crime.

The justification for the death sentence is the feeling of revenge. Its argument solely based on hatred and I find it disgusting.

There are a number of studies that suggest that innocent people have been wrongfully executed the USA. How can anyone suggest this is acceptable?

Then it is not logical for me to assert that Tuesday comes after Monday then? Unless I provide you with proof?

So I can assert something without evidence if empirical evidence exists?

"Tuesday always succeeds Monday".

I present you no proof. Are you going to dismiss it?

That's a typical USAian reply. Like corruption is the worst quality a country can have.

Whoever happens to be the USA president.

Its because you sacrificed those puppies to the devil :S

0:50. Ah cool you gave us a video with you in it. Nice to put a face to to name.

Yes. Molestation isn't really the right legal term then. Although I guess you choose to use it because of its layman's association to sexual abuse.

Yes I understood that. I'm saying that this is the full extent of what you've established here. That an abortion does nothing more than bother the fetus.

(btw, molestation, in the way you're using it, isn't a crime. Its usually associated with civil proceedings and could be said to be a tort.)

Not sure the law supports that it is a human being. You have equality laws there I believe. That all people are given the same rights. A fetus isn't. Therefore, we'd have to either say that the equality laws makes an exception for human being that are unborn or else they are generally seen as not being human beings. I think the latter is probably more realistic from a legal perspective.

Well that wasn't the point you were making here. You were saying that it fits the legal term molest.

Yes. Ive always agreed that an unborn child has rights. Clearly though their rights aren't as important as the rights of a born child and I think American law unilaterally supports my view in that. The fact that you're charged with a lesser crime for destroying an unborn child compared to a born child is an example of that.

I think the legal definition is the legal definition. I don't think I can dispute it. What does American law say?

If it says that murder is one person unlawfully killing another, but yet if you kill an unborn child but the act is not capable of being charged as murder one, then I suppose American law in this instance is saying that an unborn child is not a person. Right?

I find American law a little strange. However the way I understand it is that in most states you cannot commit murder one against an unborn child. Whereas of course you can against a child. This suggests that the unborn child has less rights than a born child even in criminal law.