Which is more morally defensible, a one-life or a multiple-lives scheme?
612948
I agree with the multiple lives scheme.  It makes more sense and even Christianity could fit into this scheme if people opened their minds.  According to the Bible from what I know the Devil was cast out of heaven and given dominion on Earth, making Earth Hell.  If you die without meeting the requirements of going to Heaven, you go to Hell or Earth, living life again.  It makes sense to me.
803204
Why can I have just one person? There is the father of my Granddaughter who has beat my daughter, threatened to kill her, no child support or involvement with the child. He also threatened to kill her friends, husband, me and pushes drugs.\n\n Second, he has an identacial twin who has done the same, have to make sure to get the right one.\n\n Third their father who has also made threats to my daughter, her husband and myself.\n\n  If allowed 3, that would make everyones life so much easier after I'm gone. After 8 years in the military I could do it, Lord knows "took" people a lot better than those 3.
324696
Blingme - Her question was stated correctly. She is essentially trying to determine why states allow abortion if it is illegal to kill a human being. And if a state charges a murderer with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman, what is the exact definition of life. \n\n1) Either a baby is alive and the two murders is correct. In this case, abortion should be illegal; or,\n\n2) A baby is not alive and only one murder should be charged. In this case, abortion would be okay.\n\nShe is pointing out a convenient catch-22 in the abortion debate.\n\nEDIT: bree123 - I do not believe she is calling out the hypocrisy of the double homicide law. She is calling out the hypocrisy of abortion.\n\nAnd citing the ACLU does NOT make me put a lot of trust in your judgment. It is a little like me citing all the evidence the National Right to Life cites proving that life starts at conception. You aren't going to buy that. Any evidence cited should be from a) a disinterested party, or b) a source that gives BOTH sides of the argument - like my initial assessment of her statement above.\n\nSource(s): Debate 101.
194509
Hmm...it's an interesting definition. I would say it's true for the most part. Not all people find it appealing unfortunately. I don't really like this defintion. It just doesn't add up. I wouldn't try to define life. Just live, then make your own defintion, but I don't think there's anyway to someup someone's life in 15 words.
457604
All but one. The Bible says there is one unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They affect us differently on earth, but in the end, the wages of any sin is death to those who do not repent and accept Christ as their savior.
874710
Well. I'm pro-choice and pro death penalty.  I agree fully with the inconsistency posed in your question. I feel the same way about those who are pro choice and anti death penalty.  There's no arguing that a multiple murder has less a right to life than a child.\n   My only point I want to make is that it works both ways.
549323
From the way the question is worded, I would have to say that person A seems to be the better person since he has learned will power.  This isn't something easily done.  It at least shows that he's intelligent.  Person B sounds like Forrest Gump.\n\nIf you're asking which person has the higher moral value...well, you'll never know which of the two is better in that context until person B has an evil thought.  It is then, and only then, will you know if person B has the will power not to act on his evil thought.  However, if your hypothetical person B can never get an evil thought, then person B is the better one since he's all good.
435811
Advantage - if prosecutors purposefully or accidentally made a mistake, they can release the guy from jail.  They can't, however, un-dead him.\n\nAdvantage - Imposing a life sentence is cheaper (even counting the cost of incarceration) than imposing the death sentence.\n\nAdvantage - If you don't execute the person, you don't have to turn someone on the state payroll into a murderer.\n\nAdvantage - Life inmates can work.  Death row inmates are not allowed to work.
106320
If someone took anothers persons life why shouldnt they be subject to get there life taken away from them....I believe in human rights but dont you think their victims suffered cruel and unusual punishment for doing nothing wrong....I think its a very just thing and then they get to meet their maker ( who ever it is depending on the religion) and get judged for their crime of taking anothers life...I think that some of the methods are cruel like electricution...but to inject someone full of chemicals and allow them to die is a more peaceful way to go considering what they did to their victims.
340189
Each player has 3 lives. They each select a double by throwing at the board with their 'wrong' hand. Every time an opponent hits somebody elses double that person loses a life. Play continues until only one player is left alive. A variant is to play "blind killer" whereby nobody knows which double the other players have and they throw at any double. When 1 is hit which belongs to a player that player is eliminated. 1 life each makes for a quick and fair game where nobody can be accused of "ganging up" on 1 player
1031016
That's an interesting question. If a woman who has had multiple abortions would decide to take her own life, I think that there would be one less immoral, irresponsible, 'going-nowhere' person in the world. But then again, I do believe that it's not God's will for anyone to perish in their sins. There is still hope for that immoral, irresponsible woman who is going nowhere in her life but into bed with men and into abortion clinics when she gets pregnant. God still loves her nontheless and there is still hope for that woman.
431585
Murder is heinous, and unless you are doing so in self defense it is against every one of our basic tenets is this country.\n\nThe thought that it is acceptable under any other circumstance is just another erosion of our society, that Satan is using to bring us down to his level.  Abortion, the death penalty, battered wife syndrome.  All deceptions of the fact that life taken is murder.  There is a more excellent way to achieve the same results for all of the above issues.  Birth control, adoption, life imprisonment or restitution, education and domestic abuse awareness and programs and housing.  \n\nMurder starts way back at a lack of control, and hatred.  We need to look at those things before the are taken to the level of murder.  There are actual steps, levels of self deception in a way, that lead to murder.\n\nThinking that an eye for an eye, will somehow ease the pain of those left behind.  Thinking that you may pay with your life, has yet to be effective in controlling capital crimes.  Thinking an abortion solves the issues, usually it only starts more issues.  I am in agreement, murder is wrong.\n\nIf you do not want to debate science in the faith and religious aspects of those, then do not enter this category.  It amazes me everyday, that ppl do not see God in science, as He created everything.  There are many things in this universe that can not be explained in evolutionary terms, many!  Denying that science can't answer all the questions, is just wrong.  Faith based individuals say that of course we can't answer all the questions, that is how God set things up so we have to look to Him for the real answers.\n\nBy the way, best question you have ever asked Mr Darwin.
106800
They are being hypocrites,an individual sentence to death is because he commited a henious crime or crimes and he was allowed many chances to show remorse,an abortion is the death of a child that never harm anyone or even given a chance at life
463140
I too believe that life without parole should be the maximum sentence for any crime.  In a world where the law and conviction system is full of inaccuracies it is too much of a risk to sentence someone to death-EVEN with a confession there is always the chance that they are innocent or did not play as big a part in a murder as they claim to have done.  Its AMAZING the amount of false confessions people will make under pressure-particularly those with a learning difficulty.  Also, the people who are actively involved in the execution of prisoners are surely then also commiting murder and they will have been involved in the deaths of many more people than the inmates they are executing-does that then mean that they deserve to die for choosing a career that involves the killing of others? \nThe death penalty is in no way a deterrent (this is a statistical fact) to murder either and is purely a 'revenge' punishment.  \nIt is not up to anyone to take the life of another and after all who decides who lives and who dies for murder?  Some murder/rapists get life, and another one time murderer could get death. It is a decision that NO-ONE should be allowed to make and it is ALL about Governments having the ultimate control-Death Row Inmates can be put on SUICIDE WATCH if they are deemed 'at risk'.  By all means give them life in prison with a little less of the luxuries they currently receive, but we cannot choose and ponder over who lives and who dies.
996863
There are several states that allow for civil committments, but often the requirements for the person to qualify are higher than you might think.  In other words, it is not just anyoen but the "one time offender".\n\nPersonally, I think they both play a role in protecting society because often times those one time offenders are actually more than that, they were just only caught the one time.  I do however think that the public registries should have a scale to determine who is posted so that more violent offenders are desribed as such.\n\nThe cost of civil committments, both in the court system - because very few AGREE to it - and the cost of the committment make the registry the most practical in my book.
968054
Go for it.....ONE LIFE LIVE IT.
377712
Very funny, If one personality commits suicide, is it suicide, multiple murder, or genocide?  \nSeriously though, there have been court cases that have allowed people with Dissociative Identity Disorder to testify separately.  \nIn Wisconsin vs. Mark A. Peterson, a man engaged in consensual sex with a girl, but one of her alters emerged during it and screamed rape.    During the trial six separate identities emerged including that of a dog and each had to be sworn in separately.  He was later in fact later convicted, but only because there was a part of the law that forbade knowingly involving oneself with anyone known to have a mental illness.  \nAlso look up the case of Juanita Maxwell.