It should be supported in both principle and practice.
Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.
It should be opposed both in principle and practice.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Why? To serve the greater good, I have no problem with a little collateral damage. Imagine this scenario: a terrorist group is going to release a highly fatal strain of smallpox into the general population. The only way to stop them and kill the strain is to incinerate their hideout, but there may be people not involved in the plot there and they cannot be warned without risking the release of the smallpox. Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with potentially killing a few innocents in order to save what could be millions. It's not an optimal choice, but it's one I'd make any second of the day.Originally Posted by Pinu7
And yet... people die every day. Darn that Declaration for lying to us all!I also cite the line "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the declaration of independence to argue that the founding fathers made life an unalienable right.
And yet, you do exactly the same thing when you say:sn't that also a somewhat baseless reason. I agree that the government should not be executing its citizens.
But what plausible reason would make it "bad" for the government to kill its citizens? It is only based on your own personal credo.
Pot, meet kettle.I will admit, my Pro-Life is based mostly on moral values.
In fact, that's why we don't call it the "death deterrent". It's the DEATH PENALTY, it's a PUNISHMENT for an act so heinous that the criminal no longer deserves to breathe the same air as the rest of us.