- 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
In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history. Lets assume that terrorists have abused the Islamic symbol that represents their religion which is also ancient by bombing down towers and buildings ending in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness? While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion. The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.
And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word. I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all. If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.
To begin with, a mother cannot be charged even if she performs an abortion on herself. Various means of abortion includes using abortion pills and morning after pills which would require the mother to ingest the pill so yes through this process she is performing it on herself. No where in the laws define this as a crime.
Would you agree that murder is the intentional and unjustifiable taking of one human life by another?
And if consent is not given then it becomes murder. Isn't that why this statute was created?
Lastly, I fail to see your argument because if lets assume that the fetus was a child, this clause was passed so that it may be applied to situations in which consent of the mother was not given. That is, if the life of the fetus is taken at any stage by another person without the consent of the mother. It does not address the issue of whether or not the fetus is a person. It only addresses the issue of scenarios where consent of the mother is not given. This clause addresses consent, not the question of personhood.
Yet again, you fail to realize the core of my arguments. CONSENT WAS NEVER GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO TAKE THE LIFE OF THE FETUS SO HENCE THE ACT ITSELF IS A CRIME BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTHER HAS THAT RIGHT. Secondly, those articles failed to mention what stages the fetus were at the time of their deaths.
Again, I fail to see a substantive argument. Only the mother has the right to terminate the life of her fetus. No one else has that right so you actually did me the favor of proving my previous arguments. In all those cases you mention, the life of the fetus was taken A) during the commission of a homicide to the mother and B) without the consent of the mother outside the scope of abortion.
Lastly, what legal definition are you referring to? Because if that was the case then abortion would be a crime and it is not.
I assume those laws you refer to are relevant to cases of double homicides where both the fetus and the mother is killed. This is a different situation because consent was never taken from the mother to engage in such action. You fail to grasp my point. My argument was not that the fetal stage is not entitled to rights but rather that there is certain period during which rights are entitled. Even the U.S Supreme Court has argued, using medical facts that the fetus is not a person unless it reaches a certain point. Science would describe the fetus as a mass of cells undergoing development but which has not attained the stage of personhood.
But you are assuming that every reward will be a material. Words of encouragement and exposure to the community can cause the student to become a role model for other students. Such status is obtained as a reward for gaining outstanding accomplishment. This in turn, will motivate other students to work harder. Even in the work place and in society, employees and citizens are rewarded for good behavior in several ways. In teaching these students about rewards and motivating them to excel, we are also creating a more competitive society where competition and rewards are key factors of financial success.
I argued that most people who commit gruesome crimes are psychopaths because statistics and science have shown there is a strong criminological correlation between the two concepts. At no point did I use the term, "all." You have no qualifications within criminology nor have you been put to death row so how can you argue that death row affects freedom of guilt when in fact, science has shown that there is no guilt as it relates to psychopathy. Even if I am not a psychopath, I have studied and analyzed criminal behavior and patterns as it relates to gruesome crimes. And based on previous patterns of criminal behavior and gruesome crimes, psychology would argue that it is a strong possibility in the face of fact unless you can prove otherwise.
And how would you know this for a fact? What if through death the criminal is still not able to get rid of his guilt because he is a psychopath and psychopaths feels no emotion nor guilt. Rather their execution is enforced as a safeguard against society and even other inmates. You have never committed a crime nor have you been put on death row so how can you argue that it gets rid of all guilt when most people who commit gruesome murders are actually psychopaths who feels no emotion nor guilt.
Nothing about death is a gift. We live in a democratic society where the principles of the constitution must be reflected within our legal system and its philosophies. Torturing people and forcing them to suffer, regardless of the crimes they committed is a reflection of the many unfair practices within previous society. If as a nation, we argue that life is sacred and that it must be treated with respect, then that applies to all categories of people regardless of their actions.
But who is saying anything about the worth of life? Torture does not have to involve death. It can be used in a manner that allows for the retrieval of information. And to further expand on your statements, the safety of a thousand lives is powerful enough to outweigh the life of one person who is terrorist and is willing to die anyways. Its the power of a thousand lives when compared to the power of one life who is willing to die. What if a thousand children are left orphans on that day? How would you feel if you were the officer that allowed this to happened had it occurred?
I was referring to people with authority such as medical examiners or qualified medical professionals. By legal actions, I would argue that assisted suicides should be permissible only upon applying for a court order to terminate life. In such cases, assisted suicide will only be allowed to take place upon the permission of the court which has the power and authority to carefully examine the circumstances relating to that person. I beg to differ that there is no way a court would allow an innocent person to die. Many people who are brain dead are not necessarily dead and there may be a slight chance of approval but yet courts have granted approval by means of court orders to terminate the life of that person.
Are you referring to Oscar Pistorious? Because if you are, that case is still in trial and the defendant has not been found guilty. Witnesses are currently being cross examined so I believe your facts might not be accurate. But lets set aside the example you used and lets assume that he was found guilty indeed. Psychology still plays a role in EVERY case and plays a powerful role in bringing the defendant to justice. Psychology involves the manner in which the judge, prosecutors and members of the jury view the facts and evidence of the case and their interpretation of the circumstances which they may relate to their own personal experiences or values. Without forensic technology, society would be crowded with criminals and dangerous offenders. It is science that helps to determine whether a person die by murder or other suspicious means so yes science plays a powerful role also in bringing an offender to justice. Psychology has to be backed by scientific data before it can even be allowed in the courtroom or it becomes unsupported facts which are often instructed by the judge to be disregarded. Our court system has failed in the past but it does not mean we have to let the past affect the present and the future when our constitution constantly evolves.
But in order for persons with authority to assist in suicides, the law needs to permit assisted suicides thus legalizing it anyways. Don't you think that the law would outline what elements needs to be present when determining if the act itself was an assisted suicide? Take for example, rape is a crime of forced sexual intercourse but yet while many often argue that it was consensual, science and developments in forensic technology and psychology have helped in solving many extraordinary cases and continues to do so.
Assuming that assisted suicide was a crime and you lend someone your gun for the purposes of hunting or passed a note to his or her mom without knowing the contents of such note does not mean you can be charged with the crime of assisted suicide because in order for there to be a crime of assisted suicide, there must be two elements present. These elements are known as 'mens rea' and 'actus reus.' The mens rea basically states that the person has to possess the mental intent to commit the crime knowingly and voluntarily.
Tax payers pay money towards the maintenance of prisons and that also harms the economy so is it logical to say we should eliminate funding towards prisons then? Because without welfare programs, the prison population will double or triple as we are already seeing.
I agree that this country was founded on individuality as it relates to decision making but there is an extent to which that decision making is allowed. I agree that welfare programs' money comes from taxes but such spending is allocated towards programs which have been proven to benefit society in the deviance, economic and educational sectors. You are arguing that spending should be allocated towards the military when in fact, reports show that in 2011, 20% of the budget equivalent to 718 billion USD was allocated towards the military and other international security defense measures. There needs to be a balance within society where the different sectors are financially funded accordingly or else the social issues that will be created can create havoc within society thus increasing more government spending than would be required to spend on welfare programs.
Also, no one is supporting or paying for poor people. The taxes you pay is actually an investment into your own future in cases of old age or disability. No one on welfare is taking away that benefit from you because in the end, you will still enjoy the benefits of your payment. You seem to think that tax spending goes towards welfare programs when in fact, the larger amount of that goes towards so many sectors. Societal balance should involve adequate consideration to all sectors because as a nation we strive for economic development and welfare programs provides the stepping stone for such accomplishment. Maybe it does not work for all but it works for most.
But won't you agree that taking steps to retrieve information when the lives of thousands are in danger is better than doing nothing even when it involves torture? How do you weigh the life and well-being of one terrorist against a thousand innocent lives? Where is the balance? Where is the duty to protect society against evil and wrong-doing?