Your dissembling my argument is right on point and a good chalange to my premise, however, when one side of an arguement is in itself, a fully formed and complete compromise there is nothing left for the parties to discuss.

The Freedom of Choice vs. Anti-Abortion is this kind of dissagreement whereas, to what compromise are we discussing with regard to, Anti-Rape vs. Freedom of Choice? I suppose one does have the right of choice to be raped but, then that wouldn't be rape then, would it? Therefore, Freedom of Choice to be Raped contains no inherant compromise.

Not at all. I think the medical industry should be regulated as it already is. Abortion is a medical proceedure and should be no more outside the physician/patient relationship than any-other medical proceedure.

We do. We elect our representatives and argue our positions as participants in civil society and muddle through like we always have.

Religious arguments fall on deaf ears with this atheist.

Given that Mr Geater is an atheist, I very much doubt that you will get much resistance from him against that contention. That said, I rather wonder what it means to speak of "religion writing the rules." Given that any rule that you write is necessarily going to conform to some religion (given that there are so many religions out there with so many different views on so many different subjects), it is impossible to avoid the business of favoring one religion's views over another. If this constitutes a threat to the "separation of Church and State" then said separation never really stood a chance in the first place.

I'm not so sure about that. I served on a jury involving a man accused of raping a 4 year old. His alibi was an appointment book for the year of the rape that was written all in the same ink with not one wrinkled page or crossed out entry. It was pristine and the handwriting was consistent throughout the year. That was his alibi!!! The prosecution had medical evidence, the testimony of the child, everything. Every juror thought he was guilty but I was the only one who voted to convict!!!

Why? They were upset that there were no anatomical dolls and television had led them to expect that sort of testimony. Secondly, they thought no one should ever be convicted on the testimony of a child. Thirdly, there were no witnesses!!! Yeah, like rape happens on center field. Fourth, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, they didn't like the prosecutor's east coast accent and his lapels were too narrow.

Maybe they were atypical, but I wonder. They seemed typical folks to me....and they were all in favor of freeing and did free a child rapist - someone they had no doubt was guilty.

Well, according to the MAJORITY of the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment - in that such punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

"Kennedy's opinion cited "independent judgment" as well as a range of empirical data to demonstrate a solid national consensus against executing child rapists -- including the fact that only six states have laws allowing it, much lower than the number of states that allowed execution of the mentally retarded and juveniles.

The difficulty of prosecuting child rape cases, with the possibility of coerced or imagined testimony, was also a factor, as well as the fact that if Louisiana's law was upheld, as many as 5,000 defendants -- convicted child rapists -- would be exposed to the death penalty each year."

Moreover, even with the death penalty as it is - an alarming number of people on death row have been found innocent. Adding child rape to capital offenses would expose and additional 5000 people a year to the death penalty - just in Louisiana.

I guess I should clarify. According to the MAJORITY of the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional to extend the death penalty to anyone found guilty of crimes against individuals that do not involve killing someone.

However, for crimes against the STATE, treason, etc. a person need not kill someone to get the death penalty.

This is not new law. The new innovation is the folks trying to kill more people, not the other way around.

Additionally, only 6 states have passed laws to execute child rapists, something the majority judges citing as a national consesus against such executions.

Moreover, when 1/3 of the people in Guatanoamo are guilty of nothing whatsoever, 15-20% of the people in prison are wrongfully convicted and with a man released last month after serving over a YEAR in prison after his case was DISMISSED thanks to record keeping errors, do you really want to increase the number of irreparable convictions?

Sure, they say no innocent man has ever been executed, though that's only because their execution has prevented the overturning of their sentences. The man in FL executed a few years ago - his also wrongfully convicted parter has been found innocent, her sentence overturned and released. The real murderer has been caught and convicted. But the man who was executed wrongfully remains guilty on the books because his death made his appeal moot. Brilliantly self-reinforcing way to maintain a fiction of infallibility.