An infant child can't survive on his/her own. Someone needs to take care of it. By your logic would be ok to kill that infant?
it's not an infant, yet. she still has the right to kill it, and by all means she should if she doesn't want it. you can't kill an infant, but the fetus is free game.
She will know the consequences of her actions. If she truly doesn't want the child, give it up for adoption and hopefully she would ever make that mistake again.
do you know how many girls are up for adoption right now in china? millions of girls are up for adoption in china because the family wanted a boy as the first born. there are too many babies on this earth right now in china alone, so why should we add even more stress to the world's food, water, electricity, and oxygen supply just because your god demands multiplication?
I'm gonna give you that one because if that child is sickly or is endangering the mothers life then its better to be aborted.
what happened to your zeal? you said the mother has to live with her mistakes even if it kills her, so what is different here? maybe god is only obsessed with beautiful babies.
Is this nazi germany were eugenics is practiced?
there is a difference between eugenics, and american abortion. eugenics forced the mother to have the children, judged the "arian level" of the child, and then banned her from having any more should she birth a child with any defect. this system, however, gives the mother plenty of options, won't restrict her from aborting on her own will, and
will let her have children again. these systems are more or less opposites. nice use of pathos rhetoric though.
If i slit your throat in your sleep you wont be aware, but that doesnt mean i should kill you.
it isn't alive to begin with, so therefore your statement is invalid.
A tumor cant become a human life.
essentially, a tumor and a fetus are a mass of cells. until both become to great to control, they can be removed accordingly.
Adoption is an option. If that woman had consenual sex, she will have to bear those 9 months. Give up the child to an orphanage so he/she can at least have a life.
already went over this. look at china.
Very few murderers contribute to society. Very few.
wouldn't that prove the system, however little result, can work? all it needs in order for it to be better, is more support.
(Sandy Hook, Aurora) and we lived in a society where money was not an issue, would you support the death penalty.
in most cases like that, the gunman kills himself already, so it wouldn't really matter.
Deterrence for future crimes, the removal of an evil and sadistic person from society, and justice for the family and friends of the victim(s) and the victim(s) himself/herself.
if the person is insane, then this is a flawed view. there is no such thing as deterrence from insanity, so killing an insane person to prevent insane people from being insane is just as irrational as the insane person's perspective.
That murderer choose when his victim would die. His victim did not have a choice. His victim did not have a chance to live there life. Why should he.
because "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."-Ghandi.
for future reference, I don't really care how death penalty plays out, but I can argue for both sides.
-Blade
