abortion question

Didn't mean to imply anyone was hardline either way. I wouldn't post here if I didn't think people thought for themselves.

 

Totally agree with you. With the exception of self-defense, I don't see any valid reason for taking life in one case and not in another. Plus it's hella cheaper to keep convicts in prison for life than to execute them. Politics as usual.

 

I only hope I never have to face the issue of abortion. I would not want my girlfriend/wife to ever have to have one. And I don't think she would ever feel it an option either.

But - outside of what she and I must face - it isn't for me to judge.

Whatever religion, whatever God, whatever moral standard you live by, I personally believe in simply doing what a person feels is right. Each woman/mother faces her own crisis, her own decision, her own moral conflict and her own repercussions, however they may weigh on her shoulders. I won't be arrogant and/or foolish enough to pretend to have all the answeres.

When does life begin? We all think we know, but none of us have that kind of true knowledge of life. Might as well ask the meaning of it, or what lies beyond the range of our own solar system. I just don't know. So I don't even try. It's pointless to do otherwise. It isn't for me to judge, and I'm not going to decide for someone else if. I will not.....until it becomes an issue for me

 

<b>haven</b>: "Great to know that Jeff's wrong! Funny how he's so much more persuasive on the issue. Also odd that he seems more far compassionate than you, since he's a baby-killer.

Hell, if I started a poll right now, that asked:

"Who's a more compassionate person, and posts in a way more consistent with the teachings of Jesus," I'm willing to bet you almost anything Jeff would beat you."

<b>giddyup</b>: haven, you just called Jeff a baby-killer. I did not do that; you did!

He's persuasive because you already agree with him. Your idea of compassion is someone who agrees with you. Am I surprised?

I know that Jeff is an all-around nice guy. I think I would like him if I met him. I think if he (and even you) met me, we would all just get along.

I would not be in your face like I am here if we were in person.

This board is not about personality though, it's about issues. If I have to be the bad cop for my side of the argument, I'll be it. I'm more interested in cutting through the cr*p than winning anyone's approval.

I'm not a very good politician.

One other thing: Jesus is a very mis-understood man. We tend to think of him as some hippie. I think he was far more complex than that. He probably wouldn't post like either Jeff or me!


<b>Jeff</b>: If I trounced on yuor feelings I am sorry. This debate stirs me up like no other. You did link your lack of concern about abortion with your belief in re-incarnation. I'm sorry but do you know how callous that sounds to someone coming from my position? The irony is that, as nice a guy as you are, you don't think it callous at all. How am I supposed to handle that in a public debate-- which is what this is.

 

How in the hell is it cheaper to keep a convict for the rest of his life than it is to execute him? I've heard this many times.

We keep him until we kill him, then we kill him and we don't have to keep him anymore.

Are appeals really that expensive? Is lethal injection done with liquid gold? What gives?

Anyone with an answer, please respond.

 

I don't think I have a lack of concern. I just think I have a different opinion. I'm sure it does sound callous to you but that is a very subjective attitude to have.

I said that I would not want someone close to me (my wife, for example) to have an abortion because I know of the options and I have the opportunity to choose, but I also do not feel that it is appropriate for me to choose for someone else.

That may seem callous to you, but you are basing that on the belief that you are right and that abortion is murder. I think killing animals for food is wrong but I'm not asking you to give it up. I have no more right to judge your decision in that regard than you do to judge me in mine.

Callous or not, it is my belief. You don't have to like it but my beliefs, just like yours, are not up for debate.

 

Ironically, I've often wondered that myself. I did some looking and, apparently, the costs associated with trying a death penalty case are extremely high for the state. Here are a few stats:

<i>The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993.) On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty.

(The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf )

The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total in incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).</i>

 

I doubt that Jeff is worried about his feelings; you ridiculed his beliefs (and over 1 billion other humans who believe in the 'great Reincarnation Ride of the Universe'). That is reprehensible.

 

Thanks for posting that stuff Jeff.

So giddyup, are you now as a Republican going to rail against the death penalty so we'll stop wasting all that tax payer money?

 

You don't have to like it but my beliefs, just like yours, are not up for debate.

Isn't that the definition of closed-mindedness?

 

And how many unborn children must die? That is what is reprehensible. I was disrespectful and I have apologized for that here and by e-mail but that doesn't change my attitude toward the consequence of the belief and its practical implications.

 

Yes, thanks Jeff.

treeman, you have identified a conundrum here. Can we throw in a little legal reform along the way.

Anyone heard of Judge Roy Bean?!

 

Let me know when you figure out how NOT to have a subjective attitude! Objective attitudes are for robots, aren't they?

You are probably the least callous guy on this board, however!

 

You may be correct, Jeff may be the least callous of us. Unfortunately, its obvious that your intent was to malign the rest of us.

I have sent fairly substantial amounts to support:
1) A local home for babies with AIDS
2) Families of slain Central Texas Police officers
3) Families of the NYFD
4) Families of the NYPD
5) The 911 Fund
6) Activities for teens after school
7) Salvation Army
8) Local food bank
9)etc.

Don't you d*mn imply that we're all callous because we don't believe that life begins when you do and that women have no rights.

How thick-headed can you be?

 

If you meant to imply that I am closed minded because I don't want someone debating my beliefs, then you would be off track.

What bothered me wasn't that someone disagreed with what I believed but that my beliefs were used as a way to explain how I am wrong as if my beliefs have less merit than the beliefs of others.

That would be like me discussing abortion and saying, "If you believe in Jesus, you can't really have an opinion on abortion because you will always be wrong."

giddyup and I are fine. He was very polite both here and via email and I understand how he feels. I respect his argument and his opinion. I just don't agree with him.

As for my beliefs, I said they weren't up for debate because of the dissmissive nature in which they were used. One poster on this board and I have been carrying on an email discussion about beliefs and spirituality for over a month now. We don't agree about everything, but we are open to the discussion. I just felt like it wasn't really being discussed here, just derided as a way to strengthen the argument against abortion and that just isn't really a debate about abortion any longer.

 

I don't know where in the heck you got that first conclusion. I had not intention to malign anyone.. other than criticizing Jeff's position on abortion and his linkage of that with his belief in reincarnation. If he is wrong about reincarnation, he just deprived those little ones of their ONLY SHOT at a life.

I cited Jeff because my comment was about him and it particularly irked him.

My hat size is only 7 and 1/4. My IQ is sufficient so don't think I'm abnormally thick-skulled... just firm in my beliefs.

When did I say that women have no rights? I am only saying that it is callous to overlook the rights of the unborn child unless there is a life-and-death issue at hand-- not just a compromise in lifestyle or some other change of plans in the offing due to an unplanned pregnancy.

I only care about what you think about when life begins when you use it for license to exterminate unborn children. Is that really so unreasonable? Ask any unborn baby.

 

I'm trying to stay out of this thread as much as possible, but I did want to comment on your charge of inconsistency on the Christian part. I can't speak for other Christian denominations, but I can comment for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is consistent in its stand against both abortion and the death penalty, as they are both considered to be the unnatural taking of life, which is sacred.

However, you will find many Christians, and some Catholics as well, who do not ascribe to this standard and consistency. I used to be for the death penalty as well, but when I took a long look at the situation, I realized that I was wrong in that stand, and that all human life is sacred, regardless.

 

Jeff, I don't think I was debating the merits of any belief;I was attempting to address the consequences of that belief. You can believe whatever you want and live your life out as you wish.

My concern is that if your belief system is not true, then your lack of concern about abortion <b>because of your belief system</b> has just deprived a child of its only chance at life-- which is my point of view.

Your position is consistent with your worldview. I respect your outlook so far as it concerns you. My deep regret begins when it starts to jeaporize the life of another.... say an unborn child.

I would be just as aligned against any point of view that supports abortion rights on demand.

 

Nature does that all of the time, as I already mentioned earlier. All sorts of decks seemed to be stacked against us, it is really disturbing.

Incidentally, Jeff's belief gets unintentional support from science (at least his beliefe in birth and life being already laid out). Fourth dimensional time and parallel universe theory suggest similar things in nature. Just a little useless trivia. Please continue.