- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
It should be banned, a baby, be it fully developed or not is still a life, it is not right to take away a life, and abortion may harm to mother too, in other words, abortion should be banned. If it is not right to take away a persons life, then why is it legal to take away a babies life, not even a more than 9 months alive? The baby can feel too, they have life too.
Your counter argument is invalid, you had already contradicted yourself in what you had said two days ago,
"Yes, and it should be the punishment for most crimes.
At one time if you stole a horse, you got hung. If the death penalty existed for thieves, you wouldn't have to lock your doors.
Death to all, that break the law."
Since you had said death to all, that break the law, then kicking in considered as violating once human rights according to the international law on human rights article 7 and article 17.
Your counter argument timed 12hours 17 minutes ago was an assumption, in fact these may be an direct insult to law enforcers too, "Anybody that deems this to be unfair is no doubt a thief themselves or they wouldn't have a problem with this.", i think that this is an unfair action, in other words, you are actually trying say that i am a thief, so where's your statistics and proofs? The court talks about evidence and not assumptions.
Since many lawyers and law makers, including the member of united nations, would deem this penalty as unfair, you are actually trying to say that all this people are actually thieves, which you have thus violated their human rights on article 19 of the international law on human rights, as you are not respecting the reputations of others.
What is equality in law? As accordance to the international law on human rights, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
However is this really achieved? If yes, why is there still wars all over the world?
If we are all equal in the eyes of law, there will be peace in the world...
But, please remember that the international law is currently used in the present. Second, do you mean that if you kick a person and he sues you for assault, you will get a death penalty?
Have you considered the effects of such laws? If any crimes will lead to death penalty, eventually a riot will take place against law enforcers and the civilians, causing major chaos around the world. So is this the type of happiness you are hoping for?
But according to Darwin's theory of natural selection, it states that Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. It states that human evolve from monkey where monkey fossil is found at enocene period, 55million years ago, the monkey are evolve from other species which means DNA of humans always lived together with dinosours
You mean death to all that break the law? Which means the judge would break the law too. Because by giving a death penalty, the judges are taking away a life too. Now lets take a look at the international law on human rights, article 6 -
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
So, death penalty should only be implemented according to the severity of the crime.
Women should be legally prevented from smoking, in an angle of law, although article 1 of the international law on human rights, civil and political section states that,
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
However, does it mean that the child in the mothers stomach has the rights to want to stay healthy and grow as a normal child? If the babies were borned abnormal, it would be for life, the get the pain for life, whereas the mother only gets the pain when she starts smoking the that was what she chooses to. The baby will most probably not have a choice to choose whether he/she wants to lead a normal or abnormal life due to the mother smoking.
Now lets look at some negative effect that will inflict on the child if the mother smokes - Babies born to women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to be born:
With birth defects such as cleft lip or palate
At low birthweight
Underweight for the number of weeks of pregnancy
Babies born prematurely and at low birthweight are at risk of other serious health problems, including lifelong disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, mental retardation and learning problems), and in some cases, death. So in the welfare of the child the pregnant women be legally prevented from smoking.
Furthermore, although the mother can destress when smoking and this is proven by scientist in Switzerland, it still remains a fact that smoking will accompany diseases, child can get borned with defects and mother will also be affected.
Here are some of the diseases the mother can get when smoke during pregnancy - Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have:
An ectopic pregnancy
Placental abruption (placenta peels away, partially or almost completely, from the uterine wall before delivery)
Placenta previa (a low-lying placenta that covers part or all of the opening of the uterus)
Thus, I conclude that women should be legally prevented from smoking during pregnancy.