- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
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?
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?
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.
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.