would you ?

[pnkpanther]

would you offer your childrens future earnings as collateral?

[LSU]

Would you abort a baby that could turn out to be the one person this millenium that could solve the problems in the middle east?

[pnkpanther]

Would you abort a baby that could turn out to be the one person this millenium that could solve the problems in the middle east?



would Me personally? Nope

i wouldnt abort any baby, save the product of rape.

[Vegas]

Would you execute a murderer that was going to be let go and murder more people?

[LSU]

would Me personally? Nope

i wouldnt abort any baby, save the product of rape.



The products of rape have the same biological features and potential brain power as the product of consensual sex.

[LSU]

Would you execute a murderer that was going to be let go and murder more people?


Whoa whoa whoa.


You're leaving out one important alternative, which is life in prison, no parole.


Just wanted to interject that one...

[pnkpanther]

The products of rape have the same biological features and potential brain power as the product of consensual sex.

aye, but if my "wife/girlfriend" was raped i wouldnt want her to carry that baby to term.

[Vegas]

Whoa whoa whoa.


You're leaving out one important alternative, which is life in prison, no parole.


Just wanted to interject that one...

I get to set my own rules in my own question.

[LSU]

aye, but if my "wife/girlfriend" was raped i wouldnt want her to carry that baby to term.


That's her choice, not yours.

[pnkpanther]

Would you execute a murderer that was going to be let go and murder more people?

if i was 100% sure of both cases maybe, i'd prefer him just locked up in prison

[LSU]

I get to set my own rules in my own question.



OK. Just wanted it on the table.

[pnkpanther]

That's her choice, not yours.

if she chose to keep it, i'd respect her choice.

i'd hope she would give it up for adoption.

[ryr8828]

Whoa whoa whoa.


You're leaving out one important alternative, which is life in prison, no parole.


Just wanted to interject that one...

Giving murderer a chance to kill a guard or another inmate.

Or have a bleeding heart let him out so he could kill again.

[Jiddy78]

Would you con a con man?

[Jiddy78]

I get to set my own rules in my own question.

Imperialist alert!!

[Vegas]

Imperialist alert!!

You can set the rules for your own question, too.

And to answer that question, yes I would con a con man.

[Jiddy78]

You can set the rules for your own question, too.

And to answer that question, yes I would con a con man.

Babylonian alert!!!

[Vegas]

Babylonian alert!!!

Maybe we need to add a "report a Babylonian" button to the boards??

[ryr8828]

Would you con a con man?

Of course, easiest mark around.

[Jiddy78]

Of course, easiest mark around.


NOW you motivate me...

http://www.bestbuddies.ca/gala06/gala06/galawebpage/homepage/gala06/gala06/photos/Louis_Gossett.jpg

[Jiddy78]

Maybe we need to add a "report a Babylonian" button to the boards??


Welcome to Wal-Mart, may I help you?

Yes...I'm looking for some Babylonian repellant...Which aisle would that be in?

[Nixon's Head]

Would you die for the Lotus?

[Reagan Smash]

Would you give up all of your teenage blue eyed groupies to get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone?

[ryr8828]

Would you give up all of your teenage blue eyed groupies to get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone?

Only the ones who wouldn't do anything we say.

[Iron Jaw]

Whoa whoa whoa.


You're leaving out one important alternative, which is life in prison, no parole.


Just wanted to interject that one...


Which doesn't guarantee the prisoner will never emerge again. In 1974, Robert L. Jones, serving a life sentence without parole, escaped from prison. He was orginally sentenced to death but in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all death penalty cases in the U.S. and changed them to life sentences. The SCOTUS handed the death penalty issue back to the states for review (the death penalty re-emerged in 1976 under different guidelines accepted by SCOTUS). Anyway, Jones was a fugitive for two years, and during that period murdered another person. Jones is one of many who found a way out of prison after his death sentence - then life without parole sentence.


Also, convicted murderers serving life without parole, do not remain in isolation like their brethern on death row. With that, regular acts of murder are committed within the prison walls that feature the lifelong murderers in general population. And the potential means of escape are far greater in general population than in isolation.

[Hotpapa666]

Which doesn't guarantee the prisoner will never emerge again. In 1974, Robert L. Jones, serving a life sentence without parole, escaped from prison. He was orginally sentenced to death but in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all death penalty cases in the U.S. and changed them to life sentences. The SCOTUS handed the death penalty issue back to the states for review (the death penalty re-emerged in 1976 under different guidelines accepted by SCOTUS). Anyway, Jones was a fugitive for two years, and during that period murdered another person. Jones is one of many who found a way out of prison after his death sentence - then life without parole sentence.


Also, convicted murderers serving life without parole, do not remain in isolation like their brethern on death row. With that, regular acts of murder are committed within the prison walls that feature the lifelong murderers in general population. And the potential means of escape are far greater in general population than in isolation.

The problem you point out is prisons that aren't doing their job (ie keeping prisoners in. The way to fix that problem isn't to kill everyone who commited a murder, the solution is to make the make prison more secure.

I don't have a really firm stance on the death penalty. I know that the only thing that it does is punish. It doesn't act as a detterant, it doesn't save money (it costs much more) and it isn't lower murder rates.

[LSU]

Which doesn't guarantee the prisoner will never emerge again. In 1974, Robert L. Jones, serving a life sentence without parole, escaped from prison. He was orginally sentenced to death but in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all death penalty cases in the U.S. and changed them to life sentences. The SCOTUS handed the death penalty issue back to the states for review (the death penalty re-emerged in 1976 under different guidelines accepted by SCOTUS). Anyway, Jones was a fugitive for two years, and during that period murdered another person. Jones is one of many who found a way out of prison after his death sentence - then life without parole sentence.


Also, convicted murderers serving life without parole, do not remain in isolation like their brethern on death row. With that, regular acts of murder are committed within the prison walls that feature the lifelong murderers in general population. And the potential means of escape are far greater in general population than in isolation.


Yeah, you can point out instances here and there where it doesn't work, that is, that life in prison without parole gets skirted.

There are also times when execution kills the wrong man.

So, in essence, little in this earth is perfect, and we will be able to find exceptions in nearly everything.

[Iron Jaw]

Yeah, you can point out instances here and there where it doesn't work, that is, that life in prison without parole gets skirted.

There are also times when execution kills the wrong man.

So, in essence, little in this earth is perfect, and we will be able to find exceptions in nearly everything.

Yes - things can go wrong, that's for sure. But one thing is certain - a person who is executed will never kill again.

Too many people in our nation (and others around the world) have no problems executing the most innocent of the innocent (legally) - referring to the bloody ritual of abortion - but protest en masse when some worthless piece of mierda like Richard Ramirez or the now deceased Richard Speck are facing execution.

It seems, most of those who call themselves "pro-choice" are for the execution of the innocent but opposed to the execution of the guilty. Then, those who call themselves "pro life" are for the execution of the guilty but opposed to the execution of the innocent.

The pro-pro, anti-anti people are more of a rarity.

Thus, I do not call myself pro life, as I am supportive of capital punishment for the guilty. Thus, I prefer to use the term, anti-abortion.

Anyway, that's my take on things.

[Hotpapa666]

Yes - things can go wrong, that's for sure. But one thing is certain - a person who is executed will never kill again.

Too many people in our nation (and others around the world) have no problems executing the most innocent of the innocent (legally) - referring to the bloody ritual of abortion - but protest en masse when some worthless piece of mierda like Richard Ramirez or the now deceased Richard Speck are facing execution.

It seems, most of those who call themselves "pro-choice" are for the execution of the innocent but opposed to the execution of the guilty. Then, those who call themselves "pro life" are for the execution of the guilty but opposed to the execution of the innocent.

The pro-pro, anti-anti people are more of a rarity.

Thus, I do not call myself pro life, as I am supportive of capital punishment for the guilty. Thus, I prefer to use the term, anti-abortion.

Anyway, that's my take on things.

Abortion has nothing to do with capital punishment. Clouding a discussion about Capital Punishment with talk about abortion does nothing to advance the discussion. Abort is a medical issue, according to Supreme Court, the highest authority in our country, a country of laws. Capital Punishment is a legal issue, they have nothing in common.

[LSU]

It seems, most of those who call themselves "pro-choice" are for the execution of the innocent but opposed to the execution of the guilty. Then, those who call themselves "pro life" are for the execution of the guilty but opposed to the execution of the innocent.



Viability is life. At least IMO. So, if it's not viable, it's not alive...at least not as a separate entity from the mother.

[Iron Jaw]

Abortion has nothing to do with capital punishment. Clouding a discussion about Capital Punishment with talk about abortion does nothing to advance the discussion. Abort is a medical issue, according to Supreme Court, the highest authority in our country, a country of laws. Capital Punishment is a legal issue, they have nothing in common.

Many people believe that a human fetus is a human life and a heck of a lot more meaningful than a medical issue alone. The U.S. Supreme Court made abortion a legal issue when they overturned the decisions made by the American political system in 1973 and it's been a legal issue ever since. When states have tried to pass laws limiting abortion, the SCOTUS and lower courts have stepped in and squashed the will of the voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a group of humans individually selected by a president based upon their political views (yeah - supposedly their legal expertise). The U.S. Supreme Courts, had a different group of humans prior to the Roe V. Wade decision in 1973 that did not overturn the laws regarding illegal abortion in prior legal challenges to the law. And the current U.S. Supreme Court may well overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Does that mean that the present day court would be right and the court in 1973 was wrong? Or the courts that preceeded the 1973 courts were also right or wrong? Of course not. It means the court in 1973 was engaged in judicial legislation of an issue better decided by voters and politicians, as many of the voters and politicians believe the human fetus is a living being. And one can find medical professionals who also believe this.

Speaking of legal issues, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the rights of the states (and the federal government) to utilize capital punishment. In 1972, a different U.S. Supreme Court overturned all cases of people on death row and the decision to use capital punishment was sent back to the states with different guidelines. Of course, all people who were on death row at the time were sent to general population and re-sentenced to life imprisonment (Including the likes of Richard Speck and Charles Manson). Sometimes the court has one opinion. Another time the court has a different opinion. It depends upon the individuals on the court and their personal and political views. The SCOTUS is very political whether they claim to be or not. Perhaps, since various courts have practiced what I consider as judicial legislation, the SCOTUS justices should be in an elected position.

[Hotpapa666]

Many people believe that a human fetus is a human life and a heck of a lot more meaningful than a medical issue alone. The U.S. Supreme Court made abortion a legal issue when they overturned the decisions made by the American political system in 1973 and it's been a legal issue ever since. When states have tried to pass laws limiting abortion, the SCOTUS and lower courts have stepped in and squashed the will of the voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a group of humans individually selected by a president based upon their political views (yeah - supposedly their legal expertise). The U.S. Supreme Courts, had a different group of humans prior to the Roe V. Wade decision in 1973 that did not overturn the laws regarding illegal abortion in prior legal challenges to the law. And the current U.S. Supreme Court may well overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Does that mean that the present day court would be right and the court in 1973 was wrong? Or the courts that preceeded the 1973 courts were also right or wrong? Of course not. It means the court in 1973 was engaged in judicial legislation of an issue better decided by voters and politicians, as many of the voters and politicians believe the human fetus is a living being. And one can find medical professionals who also believe this.

Speaking of legal issues, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the rights of the states (and the federal government) to utilize capital punishment. In 1972, a different U.S. Supreme Court overturned all cases of people on death row and the decision to use capital punishment was sent back to the states with different guidelines. Of course, all people who were on death row at the time were sent to general population and re-sentenced to life imprisonment (Including the likes of Richard Speck and Charles Manson). Sometimes the court has one opinion. Another time the court has a different opinion. It depends upon the individuals on the court and their personal and political views. The SCOTUS is very political whether they claim to be or not. Perhaps, since various courts have practiced what I consider as judicial legislation, the SCOTUS justices should be in an elected position.

As I sit down here with my first beer of the evening I will sit down and attempt to rip you a new one.

Kidding...

On the fetus is alive issue, is it alive, yes. Is it viable, at a certain time it becomes viable and it is illegal to abort the fetus in all but very rare cases. I assume the thinking on that is that it is a viable human life and the only reason it would be ok to abort it is a matter of locations; inside the uterus is ok, outside it isn't. This arguement doesn't sit well with lawmakers, so they say no abortition after a certain point. When the vast majority of abortions occur is in the first tri-mester (that's what my doctor wife tells me) and the fetus isn't viable to live, it's not very far along in it's developement and it's ok to abort that fetus because it wouldn't be alive if it were outside of the uterus and removing it from the uterus is stopping the development of the fetus thus ending it's chance to be viable.

I happen to think abortion is fine, esspecially in the 1st trimester, after that I don't like it. The baby starts to look like a baby and that doesn't sit well with me. I don't make any moral judgements because I don't think morality really exists. I love the morning after pill and I wish it were available over the counter.

What the Supremes did in Roe v. Wade was to say no, this isn't a legal issue, the government doesn't have the legal right to say what a person can do medically in this case and they made it a medical issue. The actual issue is one of privacy, which is why in confermation hearings for SC Justices we hear allot of questions on medical privacy. They put abortions in the same catagory as cancer treatment and said it is a private issue between a woman and her doctor. Medical privacy is a huge issue in America.

Did the Supremes do the right thing. Leagally I think they did. I think medical procedures should be private and aren't the business of the government. The counter arguements tend to be moral ones I don't like moral arguments. They are slippery, you can't a hold on them and without a notorized letter from a diety we aren't going to have a diffinative answer on how that diety feels on the subject and even then, that diety may change his mind.

[pnkpanther]

i dont think any other industralized country still has the death penalty save US, states that have the death penalty have higher murder rates as well.

execution isnt reversable

so if a women is raped, inpregenated, she should have to bring the child to term?

[pnkpanther]

to me it boils down to a moral issue

and do you want to make the moral choice or do you want your government making it for you?

conservatives are all about government staying out of our perosnal lives, until it's about dictating their belief's.

[ryr8828]

to me it boils down to a moral issue

and do you want to make the moral choice or do you want your government making it for you?

conservatives are all about government staying out of our perosnal lives, until it's about dictating their belief's.

So you think that government should stay out of murder and let us handle it ourselves?

[Vegas]

As I sit down here with my first beer of the evening I will sit down and attempt to rip you a new one.

Kidding...

On the fetus is alive issue, is it alive, yes. Is it viable, at a certain time it becomes viable and it is illegal to abort the fetus in all but very rare cases. I assume the thinking on that is that it is a viable human life and the only reason it would be ok to abort it is a matter of locations; inside the uterus is ok, outside it isn't. This arguement doesn't sit well with lawmakers, so they say no abortition after a certain point. When the vast majority of abortions occur is in the first tri-mester (that's what my doctor wife tells me) and the fetus isn't viable to live, it's not very far along in it's developement and it's ok to abort that fetus because it wouldn't be alive if it were outside of the uterus and removing it from the uterus is stopping the development of the fetus thus ending it's chance to be viable.

I happen to think abortion is fine, esspecially in the 1st trimester, after that I don't like it. The baby starts to look like a baby and that doesn't sit well with me. I don't make any moral judgements because I don't think morality really exists. I love the morning after pill and I wish it were available over the counter.

What the Supremes did in Roe v. Wade was to say no, this isn't a legal issue, the government doesn't have the legal right to say what a person can do medically in this case and they made it a medical issue. The actual issue is one of privacy, which is why in confermation hearings for SC Justices we hear allot of questions on medical privacy. They put abortions in the same catagory as cancer treatment and said it is a private issue between a woman and her doctor. Medical privacy is a huge issue in America.

Did the Supremes do the right thing. Leagally I think they did. I think medical procedures should be private and aren't the business of the government. The counter arguements tend to be moral ones I don't like moral arguments. They are slippery, you can't a hold on them and without a notorized letter from a diety we aren't going to have a diffinative answer on how that diety feels on the subject and even then, that diety may change his mind.

So is a 3 month old baby "viable" in your definition? If it's not "viable" then its mother should be able to throw it in a dumpster legally if she doesn't want it?

[pnkpanther]

So you think that government should stay out of murder and let us handle it ourselves?

over simplification of things....


should a rape victim have to carry a baby to term?

[Iron Jaw]

i dont think any other industralized country still has the death penalty save US, states that have the death penalty have higher murder rates as well.

execution isnt reversable

so if a women is raped, inpregenated, she should have to bring the child to term?

Actually, other countries that do not have the death penalty have higher murder rates than the U.S. ever had.

Some countries, like Mexico, do not have "official" capital punishment but they do have "street" capitial punishment - and on a regular basis.

I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent. Perhaps, if the executions took place within a faster time period it would be. Or it was more brutal as executions once were, such as public hanging......or Roman crucifixion. But no, it's not a deterrent. It's a punishment - and one thing is certain.....the person who is executed will never commit another crime.

[pnkpanther]

Actually, other countries that do not have the death penalty have higher murder rates than the U.S. ever had.

Some countries, like Mexico, do not have "official" capital punishment but they do have "street" capitial punishment - and on a regular basis.

I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent. Perhaps, if the executions took place within a faster time period it would be. Or it was more brutal as executions once were, such as public hanging......or Roman crucifixion. But no, it's not a deterrent. It's a punishment - and one thing is certain.....the person who is executed will never commit another crime.

mexico doesnt fall in industralized category (does it?)
i'm well aware of street justice, my step dad served in the navy and while stationed in argentina one of his buddies was mugged, the police found him, asked "is this the guy" they said yes, the police turned and shot him. (the criminal, not my step dad)

You do know innocent people have been executed? and our legal system is set up better a 100 guilty go free then a one innocent person put in jail.

It's barbaric, and quite frankly, most inmates suffer more by life in prison.

there are few cases i agree with it, but rarely if ever.

i also dont like abortion, but i can see it in a few cases, and ultimatley i feel it's up to individual to decide.

[Iron Jaw]

mexico doesnt fall in industralized category (does it?)
.

Mexico is a poor nation compared to the U.S., Germany, Japan, Canada, etc., but a mega rich nation when compared to the likes of the Phillipine Islands, 90 percent of the African nations, SE Asian nations, Central American and a high percentage of South American nations. I guess the old saying of "count your blessings because there's always somebody who has it worse," is quite correct.

Mexico is industrialized - nothing like the U.S. or Japan, but the nation does have industry and a tremedous supply of natural resources - the employers just won't pay the workers what they're worth. Low pay for the blue collar type, no bennies - a working man in Mexico can't even get a loan to buy a car or a house. To succeed in Mexico one has to have a trade, profession (doctors, dentists) or own a company that makes money off the backs of cheap labor (unfortunately, that trend has also been returning to the United States, long after the unionization movements broke the backs of the sweat shops - in 1959 for instance, approximately 62 percent of all workers in California were union - currently, the total is under 10 percent - ironically, the prime cheap labor force comes from the illegal alien and resident alien populations - funny thing is, when workers in Mexico attempt to organize and fight their employers, the Mexican employers fire them and hire illegal aliens from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc.).

[LSU]

So is a 3 month old baby "viable" in your definition? If it's not "viable" then its mother should be able to throw it in a dumpster legally if she doesn't want it?


It is able to live outside the mother. Now, if you want to talk about survival that's a different story. A non-viable fetus would not be able to live outside the mother for any appreciable amount of time.

Apples oranges is what you've spoken above.

[IBC]

Yes - things can go wrong, that's for sure. But one thing is certain - a person who is executed will never kill again.

We can stop murder today! Just kill everyone!

[Iron Jaw]

over simplification of things....


should a rape victim have to carry a baby to term?

Most anti-abortion types, including myself, would not force a rape victim to carry the child of someone who raped her. Though this statemen is always used by the pro-choice types, what really, are the odds of conception via rape? I mean, the wife and I must have went at it hundreds of times (we still do:D :p ) before our first child was conceived. I would suggest that it can happen but I would also suggest that it would be rare.

Naturally, one of the pitfalls of making abortions illegal with an exception for rape, would probably be an increase in claims of conception through rape. Really, how could anyone prove otherwise. Police reports? A rape victim doesn't have to report the crime (and we know that a majority of rape victims indeed do not report the crime). Thus, the doctors would have to take the patient at word.

[IBC]

Actually, other countries that do not have the death penalty have higher murder rates than the U.S. ever had.



Can you please cite a stat like that? I believe it isn't true. I also think you shouldn't put the burden of proof on others when you make a statement.

[IBC]

Most anti-abortion types, including myself, would not force a rape victim to carry the child of someone who raped her. Though this statemen is always used by the pro-choice types, what really, are the odds of conception via rape? I mean, the wife and I must have went at it hundreds of times (we still do:D :p ) before our first child was conceived. I would suggest that it can happen but I would also suggest that it would be rare.


Are you serious? Because of your anecdotal evidence you discount an entire argument? Again, if you want to make a statement like that the burden of proof is on you to support, not me to disprove it. Until you support that somehow I choose to believe it as not true.

[pnkpanther]

Most anti-abortion types, including myself, would not force a rape victim to carry the child of someone who raped her. Though this statemen is always used by the pro-choice types, what really, are the odds of conception via rape? I mean, the wife and I must have went at it hundreds of times (we still do:D :p ) before our first child was conceived. I would suggest that it can happen but I would also suggest that it would be rare.

Naturally, one of the pitfalls of making abortions illegal with an exception for rape, would probably be an increase in claims of conception through rape. Really, how could anyone prove otherwise. Police reports? A rape victim doesn't have to report the crime (and we know that a majority of rape victims indeed do not report the crime). Thus, the doctors would have to take the patient at word.


I dont know the break down, but no, most people getting an abortion are not rape victims, many are unprepared teenage girls, it's also a lot higher in ethnic groups, and inversely related to income.

i dont like it, but thats my choice.

[LSU]

Most anti-abortion types, including myself, would not force a rape victim to carry the child of someone who raped her. Though this statemen is always used by the pro-choice types, what really, are the odds of conception via rape? I mean, the wife and I must have went at it hundreds of times (we still do:D :p ) before our first child was conceived. I would suggest that it can happen but I would also suggest that it would be rare.

Naturally, one of the pitfalls of making abortions illegal with an exception for rape, would probably be an increase in claims of conception through rape. Really, how could anyone prove otherwise. Police reports? A rape victim doesn't have to report the crime (and we know that a majority of rape victims indeed do not report the crime). Thus, the doctors would have to take the patient at word.



Some are more fertile than others.

[Vegas]

It is able to live outside the mother. Now, if you want to talk about survival that's a different story. A non-viable fetus would not be able to live outside the mother for any appreciable amount of time.

Apples oranges is what you've spoken above.

A newborn baby is completely dependent. Is it really any more viable than the fetus that is completely dependent?

[LSU]

A newborn baby is completely dependent. Is it really any more viable than the fetus that is completely dependent?


IMO, yes, it's a huge difference. Other than perhaps a machine, the maternal being is the only one that can nurture a non-viable fetus. Once born, the baby is independent of the mother in terms of the mother being the only thing that it requires to live. Now, for sure, it needs someone to feed it, but it is not solely the mother.

Viability is the ability to breathe, pump blood, digest, etc on its own. Not the ability to acquire food and such...that's a product of evolution or creation, however you view it, that mammals (and people) nurture their young after birth. But that baby has the ability to obtain oxygen, pump blood, and convert food to energy on its own.

And until that point, IMO, it is not viable and is not a separate entity from the mother.

I mention machines above...there are modern medical advancements that allow a previously non-viable baby to survive...breathing machines, incubators, etc. But those do not make the baby viable, they support it until it is viable.

[LSU]

with that, I have to go feed my dependency for a little bit.

[Iron Jaw]

Can you please cite a stat like that? I believe it isn't true. I also think you shouldn't put the burden of proof on others when you make a statement.

The number one murder rate in the entire world is in Columbia. Columbia doesn't have a death penalty. Neither does the country that ranks #2, which is South Africa. The 3rd (Jamaica) and 4th (Venezuela) highest murder rates are also in countries that have abolished capital punisment. Russia, which ranks 5th, has a death penalty that is limited in scope and has not been used for 10 years.

The United States, which averages 16-18 thousand murders per annum, ranks 24th on the Worldwide list.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&int=-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

[IBC]

The number one murder rate in the entire world is in Columbia. Columbia doesn't have a death penalty. Neither does the country that ranks #2, which is South Africa. The 3rd (Jamaica) and 4th (Venezuela) highest murder rates are also in countries that have abolished capital punisment. Russia, which ranks 5th, has a death penalty that is limited in scope and has not been used for 10 years.

The United States, which averhttp://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&int=-1age 16-18 thousand murders per annum, ranks 24th on the Worldwide list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

I thought we were talking about industrialized nations.

[IBC]

Nine countries that have executed juvenile offenders since 1990 include China, D.R. Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the U.S. and Yemen.

That is some good company

[IBC]

Here is the list. What countries ahead of us are comparables?

#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
#62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people

[IBC]

Also from your article:

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and the U.S. are the only fully developed and democratic countries that have retained the death penalty.

[Iron Jaw]

I thought we were talking about industrialized nations.


South Africa is highly industrialized and has very modern cities. Though the leadership and economy has changed in the post-apartheid era, South Africa has always been the most modern of the African nations. The first heart transplant was done by a South African surgeon in 1967 (Christiaan Barnard). South Africa has had nuclear power plants for years and is the leader in nuclear power plant design (they've also had the bomb for a long time but that's for another post). Columbia is industrialized. As is Venezuela. As is Russia. As is Poland and Bulgaria. As is the Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania. Industrialized means they have industry and modern convienences.

[Vegas]

I thought we were talking about industrialized nations.

IBC, have you done any international travel?

[pnkpanther]

South Africa is highly industrialized and has very modern cities. Though the leadership and economy has changed in the post-apartheid era, South Africa has always been the most modern of the African nations. The first heart transplant was done by a South African surgeon in 1967 (Christiaan Barnard). South Africa has had nuclear power plants for years and is the leader in nuclear power plant design (they've also had the bomb for a long time but that's for another post). Columbia is industrialized. As is Venezuela. As is Russia. As is Poland and Bulgaria. As is the Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania. Industrialized means they have industry and modern convienences.

And countries you mention arent typically considered part of the industralized world, also their climates are much different, and varying rate i wouldnt attribute to Death Penalty or not.

Compare state by state within US...

[pnkpanther]

IBC, have you done any international travel?

because traveling makes you know difference between poor/rich areas? Many popular tourist spots (Jamaica) are impoverished countries and dirt poor, but you wouldnt know it.

[Hotpapa666]

So is a 3 month old baby "viable" in your definition? If it's not "viable" then its mother should be able to throw it in a dumpster legally if she doesn't want it?

Nowhere did I say that, nowhere did I imply that, nowhere did hint at a 3 mo. old baby being legally throwable into the trash. So no, it's not ok. A 3 Mo. old baby is viable to live outside of it's mother's uterus.