I'm against the death penalty, and I'm pro-choice. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, it costs more tax dollars (appeals, etc.) than life imprisonment, and there's a real chance you could kill an innocent person. As for abortion, there are too many unwanted children born who are not loved. They're often abandoned, sent to numerous foster homes, and the cycle begins again. If you hold life sacred, why subject an innocent baby to this life of torment? Mistakes happen -- teenagers rush into sex, adults get careless, contraception may fail. etc. We all know the specious and unreasonable "if you don't want a child, don't have sex" argument," but that doesn't help the millions of unwanted, unloved children out there. Why punish a child for the mistake his mother made?
Anti-death and pro-abortion. And i don't think there is a paradox. Although, as someone mentioned earlier, 'pro-abortion' is very inaccurate. Personally, I'm anti-abortion, but believe they should be legal. They're not the option I like, but I cannot forbid you from one. It's a matter of when life begins. At conception? If so, are 'test-tube' babies 'lives' before they're implanted, and do fertility clinics routinely murder when they discard the embryos that are not implanted? Are miscarriages, even early term miscarriages, which the mother may not even know occurred, deaths? The 'day after pill -- an abortion? Clearly, at some point, the fetus becomes its own 'life', but scientists and doctors disagree when, and I'm not in a position to make an absolute judgement either. I don't fully accept that the separate human life begins at day one. Likely at the end of the first trimester? Limits on late term? Yes. Earlier cut-off? Perhaps. If you could objectively answer the life question, there would be no debate. Arguments about morality, convenience (do women really find the procedure a 'convenience???) blame, spirituality, etc are all valid, but not the primary basis on which laws are made in the Western world. Death penalty? Well, that's clearly killing. Cruel and unusual in my book. Possibly deserved. Likely effective -- The 'one innocent life' argument fails to account for the flipside of 'one innocent life' by the reoffender who would not reoffend if put to death. Moot discussion in my book, because the death penalty is just not something civilized nations do. US is one of the last. I don't condone torture and beatings either, though again, it's likely what some may 'deserve.' So...abortion and death penalty in one post. Taking full advantage of the D&D, aren't we, Manny
I'm not splitting hairs at all. If search was enabled you could read my MacBethian long ass posts on the matter. I am very conflicted on this like I think all thoughtful people should be. If any of you is not conflicted on this, you're heartless and soulless. Other than that, I'm not inclined to repeat my positions here. This abortion argument pops up once a month and I'm not biting every time it does. But the semantics are important and it's no surprise to me that a pro-lifer chose them. Why stop there? Why not pro-baby killing? (I'm against that too, by the way.)
No. The appeal process is basically the same. However, in death penalty cases, every portion of the process takes longer because of the deliberate nature of the process - grand jury, jury selection, trial, appeals, etc. As a result, the trials are invariably longer and they cost more. In addition, death penalty cases do not often have plea bargains. If the DA wants the death penalty (as well as the victim's family), it is less likely that there will be a bargain. However, there are often plea bargains for reduced sentences in non-death penalty cases. Plea bargains either eliminate or drastically reduce trial length.
Hehe..I don't post much in this forum, and this was my first thread, so you will have to cut me some slack! Also, I hope whoever voted option #1 fesses up! All of you make good points and I appreciate the responses as even though I may disagree with your stance, reading your stance on these issues helps me understand the other side. JAG - thanks for the good read, as usual, but one question for you: How would you feel about a "selective" death penalty? One that is only used on the vilest of the vile like your Gacys, Specks, etc?
Can you explain to a novice like myself, giddy, why this poll is imperfect (if you were referring to "an poll" by this poll)?
I am anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment. I do not want to kill babies, and I don't want other people doing it either. I don't want to kill murderers, because what does that make me. I would kill someone who was in the process of attempting to murder someone, just as I would consent to an abortion if the pregnancy was inn the process of killing the mother. To me, the pro-coice but anti-abortion view is crap. If you are against abortions, than you shouldn't want them to be allowed. In my view, that argument has no more merit than saying I am anti-murder but I support others commiting murder as they will. If it was illegal they would do it anyway, but it would be more dangerous and what they really need is compassion and understanding. As for unwanted/unloved children. I don't think they deserve to die. Would you kill war orphans? Many of them are unloved. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. One of these, and the one which all others require to exist, is the right to life.
edited to remove nasty stuff I said about SM which I regretted enough to break my usual policy of leaving stuff I regret posting up in the interest of taking deserved lumps.
I have always thought you were a really swell guy and am a big fan of your work (on the BBS, as I have never been to Houston I have not had the opportunity to catch one of your plays). To each his own.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here, Moniker. My reaction was outsized based on the fact that this is an emotional and personal issue for me and I don't appreciate self-righteous grandstanding about how my deeply considered position is "crap." I've gotten the same vibe from you before and that's why I posted what I did. I'd been getting ready to post in support of your position when I got to the bit about my position being crap. Pissed me off. Sorry.
Really?? Wow... So, it doesn't matter that a fetus is an innocent and is as helpless as anything in this world compared to some monster that gets their kicks by killing people?? Wow again...
Just saw your edit and realize you weren't being sarcastic, so you have my sincere apology for blowing my top. You don't know what people on this board may or may not have been through with regard to abortion, so I'd just really ask you to be a little bit sensitive about it. That's all I'm going to say about it. That and, again, sorry. I really don't hate you at all. I was just mad.
I really shouldn't post in these kinds of threads. Manny: I'd meant to say I had no respect for that position. I don't disrespect you. I'm getting out of this. It's not that I don't have imminently defensible arguments or deeply held opinions on both these topics. (I think my takes are well known to those of you who engage in this thread once a month or so.) It's that I'm not inclined to say things I'll regret and alienate a lot of posters I usually like, whether I agree with them or not. At least any more than I already have. Have a good debate. Bye.
Batman, I understand. Too bad that you feel that you have to exit this thread because I feel that I could learn a lot about the other side on these issues from you.
Typo. I meant to say "a" poll. Polls on a BBS and elsewhere are limiting. As someone stated, no one is really pro-abortion. Everyone realizes it is a grizzly procedure, but some are willing to allow it. Others are not. Even others are willing to allow it under specific, limited circumstance. I didn't mean it as a criticism of you (in fact, I voted the way you did). I was just jabbing at Batman for holding himself above it all-- just vote dammit. We all know the limitations of concise communication...
CC...wow. I understand the passion, but please pull back on the reactionism. We disagree, but I don't get the basis for your borderline hostility. Maybe you're just having a long day... In terms of the issue, I really think my original point stands...Bush supporters claimed, with some justification, that they weren't pro-war...as in being of the mind that war is a positive achievment to be sought after...but merely felt that it was the best option now. I think you and I saw this as semantic, but agreed that they had that right. I see your position on the term as exactly the same...and that in no way reflects my view that you feel that abortion is a positive achievment to be sought any more than I think that refman or Mad Max or tree are hoping for war from now on...well, ref and MM at any rate... Cool?