posted
Is there anyone here that is actually PRO-Abortion but is also Anti-Death Penalty and how do you justify being for one and against the other?
Curious because it seems quite an indefensible position when you take an innocent unborn baby (fetus) and end it's life, but take a convicted murderer and say he has the right to live (and vote if you are a Michael Moore fanboi).
It just doesn't appear to have any apeasement.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The two are unrelated. The majority of people who favor abortion rights think that at least first-trimester abortion is not the taking of human life. Therefore, to them, there's no comparison to the taking of a human life by the state.
posted
Additionally, there are a fair number of people who oppose the death penalty solely for financial reasons; it costs the state more money to execute a criminal than to keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is asking for trouble. You might as well go cruising Kansas in a pink Hyundai and waving a banner saying "The Lord loves me 'cos I'm gay."
That said, I do support abortion, and am ambivalent about the death penalty. And the reason is essentially as Dagonee suggested.
In a desperate attempt to derail this from becoming another abortion thread, I shall now outline why I am against a death penalty. In fact, I do not see any point to permitting a murderer or rapist to live. But that's theory. In actual practice, innocents are going to get killed; this occurs in every state with the death penalty, the US nowise excepted. The thing about locking people up is that you can change your mind; and the way the appeals process is carried on here in the US, I suspect it's not much more expensive, if at all. The likes of China, admittedly, have a much cheaper appeals process.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude = troll. It's really that simple. Either that, or this guy's coming from the Free Republic site and has never had to speak with people capable of stringing together words into sentences.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Easily, at least from the perspective of someone who thinks that an unborn child is a fully human person from the moment of conception (or implantation, even).
Once that proposition is accepted, then an unborn child occupies the same moral plane as any other human. In general we consider it wrong to kill other humans, absent special circumstances.
Some people consider the commission of a henious crime sufficient special circumstances to justify the taking of life, just like some people consider self-defense to be sufficient special circumstances.
posted
So killing a fetus would be just fine if you could first prove that it had committed a sufficiently heinous crime. Yeah, I could buy that line of reasoning.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee -- I wasn't asking for *your* justification (or mine). I was asking for *his* justification.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So most of the people, (Minus Dagonee who took the time to respond in an intelligent way) choose not to answer. Or hide by answering with a question. Keep hiding.
To those that did. Thanks.
So when does life begin then? What determines a Human Being? A distinct heartbeat? A different Bloodtype from it's mother? It's ability to WHAT?
In my opinion, I am anti-Abortion for the Scientific Reasons that determine what is "Human" and what is not. DNA, Heartbeat, etc. So from the time those things are determined, it's a Human being who happens to be in it's mother.
I'm against killing it as much as I am against any conjoined twin taking it upon themselves to blow away their twin who is capable of living a full life and saying "It's attached to me, it's my body, I have a right to terminte it's life"
How could that be MURDER and killing of a baby attached by an Umbilical cord as OK?
From a religious standpoint I would prefer that from conception nothing was killed, but that's not my call.
For Death Row it depends on the circumstance. I do NOT believe that a person who has been convicted of a crime should be able to be supported and have rights to TV, etc.
They should have mandatory isolation with no human contact.
Unfortunately due to the ACLU, they get a free ride till they die, which is wrong.
Also they are allowed to continue having an effect on society.
A la Charles Manson. That guy should have been put to death.
A la Timothy McVeigh. He was justly put to death.
Timothy McVeigh can no longer affect society with his views. He is no longer an active participant.
The taking of one life is a serious offense. The Purposeful taking of multiple lives with no remorse is not something that should be rewarded with a free meal, bed, TV and pornos.
If the ACLU didn't fight for these people to be treated so highly, perhaps Life Imprisonment would be a just reward. The fact that most inmates GAIN a few notches on the social ladder for killing someone is not something I endorse.
There is a huge difference between a Baby who did nothing more than be created and a Man/Woman who using their freedom, chose to murder and being given a right to live by choosing wrong.
Perhaps some here believe an unborn child deserves less of a right than a man who has murdered others.
I find a problem with that myself.
Thanks for your replies.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is every moron who walks through the door Cedrios? There are a lot of other internet mimbos who float around these days.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you are thinking about your reply, allow me to take this opportunity to remind you that the ACLU is not the only organization on the planet that is against the death penalty and for humane treatment of prisoners. While I, as something around a liberal, appreciate the thought, don't forget that many religious organizations take these ideas seriously, too.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, you have yet to present a single idea not thoroughly combed over on this forum many times. Your insistence upon not doing a simple search for such threads shows that you either don't care and are trolling, or you're too lazy and stupid to do a simple forum search.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be honest, you have yet to present a single idea not thoroughly combed over on this forum many times. Your insistence upon not doing a simple search for such threads shows that you either don't care and are trolling, or you're too lazy and stupid to do a simple forum search.
Jebus save them! They don't know how to answer a simple thread.
posted
CStroman - the thing is, you arrived on the forum and started a thread with loaded language, on two (possibly three) very touchy subjects, subjects that have been argued very well and at length quite a few times here. Your bias was apparent in your question, you exhibited no respect for anyone who might disagree, you didn't check to see what had already been said on this subject, and so far you haven't responded to the replies other than to thank people for them.
That spells troll, whether you intended it to or not.
I urge you, with respect, to search for "abortion" and "death penalty" on Hatrack and spend a week or so reading up on the many excellent arguments made from all sides of the issues, arguments that, for the most part, were made by people who actually listened to what was being said. Then come back and ask your question again.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually it's yours. You opened the bag, take the cat out.
Um, it's not my idea to put people in total isolation.
Are you going to elaborate on and defend your idea, or are you really expecting me to do it for you? You want people to take you and your posts seriously, the first step is to show that you have some idea of what you're talking about, to answer people's questions about your ideas.
YOU advocated the idea, YOU need to explain exactly what it is you are advocating.
Let me also say that the isolation part of your argument is difficult for me to parse. Are you advocating total isolation for just those who murder, those who commit multiple murders, or all criminals? When I first read your post, it seemed like you were saying all criminals, but now I'm not sure.
If you refuse to answer my questions, and try to get me to make your case for you, then I'm just going to assume that you can't answer those questions, and that your argument rests on pure emotion, rather than ideas, and that there is, therefore, nothing to discuss.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, the subjects presented here are topics of debate on issues that are current and for which OSC has stated his opinion on.
I just finished reading Ender's Game about a Month Ago.
I knew who OSC was before then, but hadn't read up on his views until reacently.
There is an election 30 some odd days from now.
My subject is VALID today and is about issues that are out there TODAY.
That said, I will state it again.
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then please excersize your free right to NOT POST.
If you don't like My opinions on the matter, then feel free to do so.
But even insinuating that someone has a right to post something or not because it 'gels' with certain trains of thought or not is not a worthy argument.
I'll state this again.
If you don't want to participate in this thread..
Then don't.
If all you want to do is come on the thread and make accusations and act like a turd, then choose a different thread to read.
My posts on the topic share my Point of View OF THE TOPIC and are appropriate.
90% of the posts by others are not.
So again, to make it clear, again!
If you don't like the thread, then DON'T POST!
One last time.
If you Don't Like the POSTS then DON'T POST!.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, the moment you stop projecting positions on your perceived opposition in your opening posts, the sooner we'll answer you in a respectful way.
If you are going to barge into this community and disrespect a portion of it, don't be surprised if we don't exactly roll the red carpet out for you.
However, extend a little respect, and you'd be surprised at how accomodating and engaging people can be on this board.
posted
Let me SEE if I can MAKE this clear to YOU.
You are being RUDE. You are also showing NO RESPECT for other people's beliefs and opinions.
You've made no attempt to demonstrate any understanding of anyone's opinions but your OWN. You also seem to think everyone who disagrees with you is a LIBERAL, and you have consistently stated your CONCLUSIONS as if they were starting propositions.
posted
I'll put it more bluntly, Chad: you've said that you don't care what any of us have to say. So why should we engage in conversation with you? What merit is there in "discussing" something with someone who has actually admitted to not listening?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anyone here that is actually PRO-Abortion
Not that I know of. There are many people here that are pro-choice, who support a woman's right to choose, but I know of no one on this forum that is pleased when someone has an abortion. There are more than a few here -- I'm one of them -- who consider themselves pro-choice but would like to see more restrictions on abortion availability.
but is also Anti-Death Penalty and how do you justify being for one and against the other?
Answered quite well by Dagonee. They're not really comparable.
Curious because it seems quite an indefensible position when you take an innocent unborn baby (fetus) and end it's life, but take a convicted murderer and say he has the right to live (and vote if you are a Michael Moore fanboi).
So you've already set the definition of a fetus as a person and then asked us to justify killing it? The point at which a fetus should be considered a person is the very heart of the abortion argument. Since that is unresolved, answering your question the way you worded it is kinda tough. I believe the rights of a fetus must be weighed with the rights of the mother, with the mother having more say in the beginning and rights weighing more heavily towards the fetus as it approaches viability.
It just doesn't appear to have any apeasement.
Not sure what you mean here. Appeasement? For whom?
So when does life begin then? What determines a Human Being? A distinct heartbeat? A different Bloodtype from it's mother? It's ability to WHAT?
In my opinion, its brain wave state. Before that it is an unthinking clump of cells.
I'm open to the idea of harsher punishment for convicted criminals, but against the death penalty for the simple reason that the justice system is fallible and innocent people could be killed. Have been, in fact.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. It's what the topic was about.
quote: In my opinion, its brain wave state. Before that it is an unthinking clump of cells.
So should a consensus be taken of varying fetuses to see at what stage they have brain activity?
If it is found that they are "thinking" or "dreaming" at a certain stage, should abortions be illegal past that point except in instances where the mother's life is in jeopardy?
quote:I'm open to the idea of harsher punishment for convicted criminals, but against the death penalty for the simple reason that the justice system is fallible and innocent people could be killed. Have been, in fact.
I see the reason for this argument and it is something that makes me cringe, but I also see parallels between this and war as well.
In WWII many civillians died unintentionally (in Iraq today thousands have died as well). Although you try your best to prevent it, in winning a war it is almost impossible to do.
But I also think that there are some people that do not deserve the right BECAUSE of their actions and choices, to influence the human race further.
Not for "revenge" but for this person forfeited their rights by their choices.
As long as those people are protected to continue spreading their message and detrimentally affecting the human race.
Why should they be allowed to live?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to repect other's beliefs, but they have to have NONE for mine?
Because if you re-read ANY of the responses, you would see just how rude the majority of you have been.
I've read them all. On the very first page of your posts I saw, you said, "If you have a problem with that fact. Then you have a problem recognizing FACTS in general."
quote: As long as those people are protected to continue spreading their message and detrimentally affecting the human race.
Why should they be allowed to live?
I am confused again. Are you for the death penalty for murderers, or isolation? Further, when you talk about murderers, do you mean anyone who murders someone else for any reason?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only instances in which I would favor the death penalty are those in which the guilt of the convicted is absolutely unassailable. Video or conclusive DNA evidence, and then only in truly heinous cases. Personally I'd rather see them put to work somewhere useful. Timothy McVie should never have been given the chance to be a martyr.
Brain waves begin in a fetus around six weeks. At about 24 weeks the fetus is capable of feeling pain, the most rudimentary form of "awareness" there is. This is also about the same time the fetus is considered viable. At 26 weeks, higher brain functions can be detected. Abortions without overwhelming medical necessity are currently available in the first trimester, before the 24 week point.
[ September 20, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
You will find that threads you start here will often stray from their intended course. People here don't like to follow orders much. You'll also find that there are intelligent people with all sorts of different perspectives and positions, so you may have to be a little more careful with your arguments than you're used to. If you make a mistake, even a little one, chances are you will be called on it. But it's ok, cause we all make mistakes, get pissed off, are nasty, are butts of jokes, etc., but somehow we usually manage to talk to each other afterwards.
Oh, and I'd give you a response to your question, but I'm tired and I have to get up early tomorrow. Sorry 'bout that.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
If you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S." But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S," scalawag!
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Keep hiding.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
That was precious, KoM!![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Welcome to Hatrack.
