not True abortion - killing of a life that is innocent Death Penalty - killing of a life convicted of wrong doing To be Pro - abortion , killing a life for no other reason that it was created at an inconvient time. . . but to then turn around as say . . . .a life that has been seen as a threat to other life. . .deserves to live. .. is imo hypocritical at best Why is one life more than another. . . esp when the one life is convicted of a extreme wrong doing? Rocket River
interesting. . you perfer a 100% effective killing of a child rather than cause the mother any inconvience or hassle Are you Pro-Legalizing Drugs as well? I'm curious because you explaination seems similar. Rocket River
That was well-said, River. I have found many times that I have a tough time relaying my ideas or thoughts on this board, but find others saying it better than I ever could have said it myself. And this is one of the best examples of that. Thanks.
I voted already, against both. About 6 years ago I was in the 'pro-death' crowd. After thinking and arguing with pro-life and pro-choice people, I changed my stance. So I was pro-life and pro-death penalty for a few years. In a sociology class I began to write an extensive paper defending the death penalty. In that process I realized a lot of errors in my thought processes and facts. So now I am anti-death penalty and pro-life, and haven't found anyone that comes close to making me change my mind again.
To me the death penalty situation is extremely clear cut. As a citizen of the United States, you must abide by the laws that are in place. Failure to do so will result in a trial and subsequent sentence. In many states we have laws that condemn a murderer to a sentence of execution. You commit the specified crime and you will receive the specified sentence. The decision is yours. If you decide to commit the crime, a jury will decide your fate. Very simple. The death penalty debate has absolutely nothing to do with what is ethical or moral. It has to do entirely with enforcing the laws. If you have a problem with the law, then talk to your congressman, not to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The abortion situation is much less clear cut. While laws are in place that allow for certain types of abortions, the decision making process is much different. The person (child) receiving the 'punishment' is not capable of choosing their fate and is certainly not guilty of a heinous offence. A jury is not in charge of making the final decision, instead an emotional, pregnant woman is. The emotions involved in the abortion decision often complicate the situation and lead to regrettable decisions.
I don't get your argument here...It's the law because it's the law? And...? Abortion is the law as well, yet you are not opposed to arguing it, based on your own interpretation of what is right vs. what is legal...why does that distinction not apply to capital punishment? There have been countless laws we no longer consider right, and have done away with as, hopefully, we will do with excecution.
Here’s a question to those who support Capital Punishment. While I fully share your repulsion at the crimes the very worst commit, and have very little compassion for them as individuals, I believe capital punishment remains an inhumane and barbaric way of treating offenders. Here’s a list of countries that retain the death penalty: AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE The US, China and Iran accounted for 80% of executions in 2002. Does it concern you that the US is in such company?? You’ll notice the absence of other ‘western’ progressive countries on that list. So…you all mocked a poster who suggested chopping off the hands of drug offenders, yet support the death penalty. Are you still comfortable with it?
if our legal system weren't so imperfect, i'd be for the death penalty. but ultimately it's nothing more than the creation of our own imperfections...as such, we get it wrong sometimes. and when getting it wrong involves taking the life of an innocent man, it's time to scrap the system.
Okay...done. Still don't get it. You use the law as an absolute for one argument, and try to parcel it out for the other, based on what you construe to be a division in the decision making process. But, if you're first point stands, and that's the one I disagree with, then the law is not there to be interpreted, but to be followed, and as such an individual's relationship to it is not decide it, but to follow. The fact that an individual makes a decision vs. a jury meting out justice is, according to the law, opposite ends of the process. A person choosing to have an abortion is, by legal definition, not comitting a crime..by the same definition, a fetus is not a person, and as such there is no 'punishment' which should be in the hands of a jury, merely a woman comitting a legal act with her own body. T_J...I am against abortion, as I do not agree that the law, as it stands, is accurate, moral, or ethical. But I also don't think that you can use the argument you used to distinguish between capital punishment and abortion. On the one hand you say the law is final, but on the other you interpret the law, avoid legal distincion of a fetus as a non-human, and from there build your argument. It doesn't hold water.
So it is OK for an unemotional, pregnant woman to have an abortion. Emotional investors play havoc with the markets. Maybe we should not let them make investment decisions?
OK, now we're talking purely hypothetical May as well ask if it's ok for a pregnant man to make these decisions.
The standard conservative stance is anit-abortion but pro-capital punishment. The standard liberal stance is the opposite of the conservative stance. (And there are those in between.) Both stances seem to be contradictory on the surface for each opposes death on one issue and allow it on another. But they are not so contradictory if you consider how the two sides approach social issues such as these. The conservative sees social issues through the lens of Justice. Justice, in the most concise form, means that people should be held responsible for acts they do with free will. So when conservatives argue for death penalty, they talk about justice. Clear enough. When they argue against abortion, they point out the innocence of the fetus and point to the responsibility of the mother (and the father, but not nearly enough!) not to get rid of the "inconvenient" pregnancy. The liberal sees social issues through the lens of Pathology. People who did wrong things need to be healed, not punished. Capital punishment obviously doesn't heal the person. Hence, most liberals are against it. They often talk about "redemption." On the abortion issue, the woman who gets an unwanted pregnancy is a "patient" and thus her problem is medical, not ethical. Outlawing abortion will lead to back alley rusty hanger abortions, and that's repugnant from the medical point of view. Some liberals also approaches these issues through the lens of Right. They believe the highest and foremost principle is the rights of each individual. Hence there is the rights of the convicts, and there is the rights of the pregnant woman. Conservatives, on the other hands, put more emphasis on the responsibilities rather than the rights of individuals. Just my 2 oversimplified cents.
bigger Paradox: Why is Abortion a choice. .. but if a man kicks a 3 month pregnant women in the stomach and kills the baby . .that is murder If it isn't a baby for abortion arguments. .. why is it one for murder While Scott Peterson, 30, has been charged with two counts of murder in the killings of his wife and unborn son, no arrest has been made in the Hernandez case. Peterson has pleaded innocent. Why two counts and not one? Rocket River
Problem with the pathology argument - Rusty Hangers is repugnant . . but dead babies isn't? just because u sanitize something. .. does not make it right Problem with the rights argument. . is liberal [so called] Is they deciding whose rights are more import and that One person's inconvience is more important than another's life Funny thing. - People kewl with killing the baby brought on by rape. . . .because he reminds the woman of the ordeal . . but they will let the rapist out in 3-5 to come and knock on her door for a cup of coffeee. Rocket River Potential life is still greater than inconvienence.
What you describe is simply that as long as a criminal statute is in place, you have to be aware of the possibility of being sentenced on the basis of having violated it and of receiving the sanction that the statute prescribes. In your last sentence, you say "if you have a problem with the law, talk to your congressman". I think the thread starter implied that question - do you support the fact that the law that allows the death penalty exists. So your answer is a bit besides the point of this thread since it did not answer that question, but just stated "the law exists, so you could be sentenced under it" and then you go on to say that because that is the case, the whole debate has nothing to do with ethics or morality. The sentence "the death penalty debate has absolutely nothing to do with what is ethical or moral" is wrong because you misunderstand what the debate is, imho. If the debate is whether the law that allows the death penalty should be abolished, aspects of ethics and morality will most certainly have to be considered. Also, the logic of saying "if it is only about enforcing the laws, it has nothing to do with ethics or morality" is flawed. There can obviously be cases where one would question the enforcement of existing laws from an ethical standpoint. Someone else gave the example of the Sharia, where hands can be chopped off for theft. That is an existing law. You know that if you do that in one of the countries where that rule of law is in force, it can happen to you. Do I question the enforcement of that law from an ethical standpoint? Yes. There are more extreme examples, like formally flawless laws during the Nazi rule of Germany about the treatment of Jews, etc. - they were existing laws at the time, so their enforcement could not be questioned from an ethical or moral standpoint?
I'm against both. I have to ask, so many people who are pro death penalty talk all the live long day about how certain monster's deserve to die, but doesn't it ever bother those people that a potentially innocent person could be executed and plenty already have been in the course of human history? One innocent death is one too many. If the pro lifers are trying to protect innocent unborn children, why don't they also worry of potentially innocent people who are headed for execution. I mean, with all the crap coming out about our own crime lab, you think some people would to a double take.
