Return to CreateDebate.comseriousbusiness • Join this debate community

Serious Business


Atrag's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Atrag's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

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

2 points

"Tuesday always succeeds Monday".

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

2 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?

2 points

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???

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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?

1 point

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

2 points

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

4 points

"Tuesday always succeeds Monday".

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

1 point

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

0 points

Whoever happens to be the USA president.

Atrag(5666) Clarified
4 points

Its because you sacrificed those puppies to the devil :S

0 points

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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.)

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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?

1 point

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.

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

Words have meanings yes. This is what semantics is.

Yes it is molestation of a child if it means bothering a fetus (not necessarily an immoral act) which is what you're saying it is according to the dictionary. I don't see how thats in anyway contencious. You don't mean the sexual abuse of a born child - an immoral act.

1 point

Born children and unborn children (if you choose to use those expressions) are clearly deserving of different rights. It doesn't matter if you can one a child and one a fetus or one a human being and the other one not.

You don't have to ignore the laws. You just have to say that some children (namely unborn children) don't enjoy the same rights as others. I think nearly everyone, including you, would agree with that.

1 point

Can you tell me how its more than semantics? Your only counter to any point seems to be "no that isn't want the dictionary says". If they mention something other than semantics then you tend to ban them.

No its not debateable. What you're asking people is what the dictionary says. People are confused because they don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to. It isn't debateable that a fetus is molested (/bothered) by being destroyed. How can it be? No one is debating that point in this thread with you - its a question of fact.

I'm still confused why semantics interest you so much.

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

Your interest in debating semantics in general. But yes, why does it interest you to debter whether or not a fetus is bothered / molested by being aborted? It doesn't seem a debatable point to me.

1 point

Pretty please tell me why it interests you.

2 points

Well done you can read a dictionary. What a clever boy you are. It is true that to molest means to bother snd feotus is bothered by being aborted. What I can't work out is why this is interesting to you or why you'd think this would be interesting to any of us. Maybe it simply is that you're proud of being able to use the dictionary. How odd that would be.

1 point

A dictionary isn´t the holder of all truth. All your arguments suggest that you just don´t get that - although others have tried to explain it to you. You seem to treat it like Christians treat to bible.

Of course a human being in the fetal stage of life is a human being. The dictionary says so but yet that statement is nothing more than a commentary on the use of language. It doesn´t mean that feotuses are the same as those that are born or that they should be given the same rights. It may well be the case that they should be given the same rights. However, to make a case for this you would need to do much more than look in the dictionary and tell us what a child or a human being is according to it!

1 point

There are many many instances in law and in every day life in which the definition of a child doesn´t include a feotus.

3 points

Yes agree that when life begins there is a right to have it preserved. However this right isn't always an absolute right. Depending on the status of the life e.g. if you say that life begins at conception there are clearly, at least, two statuses of life - before and after birth. The right to life should then be better protected after birth, as is currently the legal situation in all countries I believe. Although if life is said to begin before birth that should be at least some protection of it.

A bit sloppily written sorry.

Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

Well I guess there will be another debate to follow and I can argue against you in that. A point that might also support your arguement is found in english law (I'm a law student):

section 1(1) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929:

“(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:

Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

"

4 points

Young is: "offspring, especially of an animal before or soon after birth". So yes I suppose it 'the young'.

However, very few people would call this a child. It does not have the same legal rights as a child and a child is generally a being with, at the very least has limbs, internal organs etc as well as a consciousness. The embryo does have the potential to be a child.



Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]