NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering if people who are pro-life (against abortions) are also against the death penalty? I personally think that it is contradictory to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but thats jmo.

Yes, I am pro-life and also against the death penalty.

I think it would be possible to put forward a reasonable argument of how one could reasonably be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but being pro-death penalty would seem to contradict the main pro-life belief that no human has the right to take a life, IMO.

No, because god says in the bible "thou shalt not abort babies" but he doesnt say "thou shalt not poison or electrocute traitors and murderers."

No, because god says in the bible "thou shalt not abort babies" but he doesnt say "thou shalt not poison or electrocute traitors and murderers."

lol are you being sarcastic?

I was just wondering if people who are pro-life (against abortions) are also against the death penalty? I personally think that it is contradictory to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but thats jmo.

it's also contradictory to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion...

for the record, i'm against abortion for vanity's/convenience's sake but not in cases where the mother's life is endangered or rape, incest, etc.

i am also against the death penalty .. for logic-based reasons.

i was wondering this all through that Terry Schaivo (SP?) thing. the religious right in the US come out and say "you can't kill a vegetable", while maintaining that murdering (potentially innocent) people for crime, in cold blood, remains ok. to me that's pretty contradictory...


edit: sorry, not quite on topic, but, meh...

Yes, I am pro-life and also against the death penalty.

I think it would be possible to put forward a reasonable argument of how one could reasonably be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but being pro-death penalty would seem to contradict the main pro-life belief that no human has the right to take a life, IMO.

Yes, thats how I see things too.

it's also contradictory to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion...

for the record, i'm against abortion for vanity's/convenience's sake but not in cases where the mother's life is endangered or rape, incest, etc.

i am also against the death penalty .. for logic-based reasons.

I also agree, lol.

No, because god says in the bible "thou shalt not abort babies" but he doesnt say "thou shalt not poison or electrocute traitors and murderers."

Actually, the issue of abortion is hardly mentioned in the bible at all. There is a passage about penalties for a man who strikes a woman, causing her to miscarry her unborn child which can perhaps be used to argue against abortion, however it's meaning is unclear and open to interpretation. Most Christians reach their position on abortion through their understanding of the commandment "You shall not murder" and through respect for human life as being created in the image of God rather than through any specific biblical passage.

Jesus did say "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", which could be taken to imply that it would be hypocritical and wrong for sinners such as ourselves to kill others for their sin, when we are ourselves guilty.

i was wondering this all through that Terry Schaivo (SP?) thing. the religious right in the US come out and say "you can't kill a vegetable", while maintaining that murdering (potentially innocent) people for crime, in cold blood, remains ok. to me that's pretty contradictory...


edit: sorry, not quite on topic, but, meh...

Oh don't worry what you said relates! and once again I agree...geez I am so agreeable!

it's also contradictory to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion...
No, it's not. Pro-choice people usually don't consider abortion to be a form of killing, while the death penalty undoubtedly is.

Pro-choice people usually consider abortion to be a form of killing, while the death penalty undoubtedly is.

i was wondering this all through that Terry Schaivo (SP?) thing. the religious right in the US come out and say "you can't kill a vegetable", while maintaining that murdering (potentially innocent) people for crime, in cold blood, remains ok. to me that's pretty contradictory...


edit: sorry, not quite on topic, but, meh...

it's also okay to murder an innocent human fetus for no other reason than the mother doesn't feel like taking responsibility for not using protection/being careless... instead of giving the kid a chance, she deems fit to kill it. this same person meanwhile wants to save the life of a murderer of 13 people.

i am against the death penalty, but you can't call anti-abortion/pro-DP folks out without calling pro-abortion/anti-DP folks out.

i think we should respect all human life.

all this said, i am not a woman and wouldn't dare tell anyone what to do. this does not preclude me from having an opinion of what they should do, however.

I was just wondering if people who are pro-life (against abortions) are also against the death penalty? I personally think that it is contradictory to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but thats jmo.
I am opposed to abortion, and against the death penality, but not a part of the Pro-Life movement.

i think we should respect all human life.

.

me too :)

I'm opposite, anti-life and pro-death penalty.

it's also okay to murder an innocent human fetus for no other reason than the mother doesn't feel like taking responsibility for not using protection/being careless... instead of giving the kid a chance, she deems fit to kill it. this same person meanwhile wants to save the life of a murderer of 13 people.

i am against the death penalty, but you can't call anti-abortion/pro-DP folks out without calling pro-abortion/anti-DP folks out.

i think we should respect all human life.

all this said, i am not a woman and wouldn't dare tell anyone what to do. this does not preclude me from having an opinion of what they should do, however.
wow now this is a post i can relate to... more than most :)
agreed - a respect for all human life is absolutley necessary, and i stand by that. unfortunatley, when does a foetus become 'human'? is it always human from the moment of conception? i say abortion should not be allowed from when the foetus becomes self-aware and concious - i think that happens around 19 weeks (from what i remember of a recent TV show about the development of the foetus).
however, like you, i don't like telling people what to do - i feel its not my place and i have no authority - but hold strong views on what should be done. its reaaaaly annoying :p

I'm opposite, anti-life and pro-death penalty.
Anti-life? wow... such a time-consuming philosophy, going around killing everything you see move. :sniper:

wow now this is a post i can relate to... more than most :)
agreed - a respect for all human life is absolutley necessary, and i stand by that. unfortunatley, when does a foetus become 'human'? is it always human from the moment of conception? i say abortion should not be allowed from when the foetus becomes self-aware and concious - i think that happens around 19 weeks (from what i remember of a recent TV show about the development of the foetus).
however, like you, i don't like telling people what to do - i feel its not my place and i have no authority - but hold strong views on what should be done. its reaaaaly annoying :p

yah, i don't know. it is human, no matter what stage it's in... but that can be debated till the cows come home.

if we began as tiny saplings or something, that might be easier. hehe

another thing to consider is no matter how against abortion you are, if anti-abortion laws are passed there will still be abortions taking place.... the not-so-safe kind.

yah, i don't know. it is human, no matter what stage it's in... but that can be debated till the cows come home.

if we began as tiny saplings or something, that might be easier. hehe

another thing to consider is no matter how against abortion you are, if anti-abortion laws are passed there will still be abortions taking place.... the not-so-safe kind.
now there's a reason, if ever there was one, to legalise something just for the safety of those involved. i would rather see abortions taking place frequently than even a few newborn babies dying in pain after suffering a shoddy illegal abortion procedure. i think - i haven't given this issue that much thought tbh :)

I read recently that the bible says religion is OK up until the 13th week. (daily mail article)

Also in the 1960 abortion (basically a D&C) had a lower mortality rate for the woman than tooth extraction.

So, women dieing from illegal abortions or women not dieing from legal abortions.

Who do you care more about? a feotus under 12 weeks old or a grown woman?

My stance is that abortion is wrong, but I am for the death penalty. If God wants to take that unborn child, then so be it but it is not my right to do so. I do believe that most Christians come to this conclusion based on their thought that it is murder but I have a slightly different aspect (as well as thinking it is murder). Psalms 139:14-16 talks about how God knit us in our mother's womb. He made us and knew us before we were even born. An unborn child has not made any decision in their life yet that has made them guilty of a crime, so we do not have that right to take their lives.
As for the death penalty, I believe that it is only okay if someone has knowingly committed murder and has not shown any remorse for such. It has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In the old testament God gave permission to the religious leaders to enforce certain laws with punishments (one being the 'death penalty'). For those of you Christians out there that may tell me that we don't live by the old law I say to you that you don't totally understand what that means. We cannot totally throw out the laws and teachings of the old testament. Otherwise do not murder, do not commit adultry, do not steal, etc.... would not apply to us now, would they? Anyway, I know I am rambling on but I hope you can understand my point. The death penalty is not murder it is punishment for a crime.

another thing to consider is no matter how against abortion you are, if anti-abortion laws are passed there will still be abortions taking place.... the not-so-safe kind.

Oh, come on. Using this as a reason to allow abortion is like saying, "Hey, even if we make killing your neighbor illegal, there will still be people doing it."

Just because someone is going to do it anyways doesn't make it right or tolerable.

The Optic

Just because someone is going to do it anyways doesn't make it right or tolerable.

Bit like biggots then :rolleyes:

I refuse to take the Pro-Life or Pro-Choice stance.

I have met too many people that don't look at what the situation is on the Pro-Life side and I have met WAY, WAY too many people on the Pro-Choice side that just don't want to take responsability for their choices.

Now that said, I think a lot of people use their heads. I personally prefer to say that I am Pro-Responsability. I don't think using abortion as a means of birth control is right from any particular time so discussion over when it becomes a life is just silly. I also haven't known anyone that was ever raped(that I know of) so I haven't taken the time to think over that area.

In my perception the real conflict between the two is Lifer's want to argue over that its alive and Choicers want to proclaim the sanctity of choice. Neither side wants to look at the real issue. What is the person doing to take responsability for their actions.

Now I know some would say that having an abortion would be the responsible thing to do in there situation. It may partially be but what is the most responsible thing to do.

Does this make sense or am I way off base?

The Optic

Surprisingly, I am actually pro-life, and pro-DP. Essentially, I believe that a person sentenced to the DP HAS done something very, very wrong, thus should be punished accordingly. In cases like this, I say "An eye for an eye". An unborn baby has done no crime other than having parents that cannot take responsibility for their actions. I cannot possibly think of a justification to kill the baby.

1. does someone removing an ovary or testicle commit mass murder? this is the logical terminus of the "when does life begin" question. Arguing this issue ontologically is futile and its deployment is a deliberate misdirection by the fascist religionists among us.

2. regardless of what our arrogant asses think, the anthropological record demostrates that (past, present, near and far) without the rubber and the IUD women control family size by other means. What would the stuffy false puritans say to the good Christian European habit of infanticide? (they typically drowned unviable or un-feed-able newborns when herbal treatments failed)

3. Having a child is an economic decision, whereas wanting to fuck is hardwired in human beings. Shaming the poor or optionless for having sex is something you can shove directly up your ass, Mr./Mrs. False Puritan.

People frame this like it's some tragedy of modern life....there is nothing new about it except the religious dollars, the religious self-congratulation and the technology.

Jesus did say "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", which could be taken to imply that it would be hypocritical and wrong for sinners such as ourselves to kill others for their sin, when we are ourselves guilty.
Wasn't that in reference to a prostitute they were going to literally stone to death? I don't quite remember any accounts of him intervening on behalf of murderers in the same manner. I could be wrong since I really don't give a shit either way, but I don't think I am. I'm extremely pro death penalty, but only when guilt is assured, which means DNA and/or Video evidence and preferably a confession of guilt. That means most current death penalty cases would be shifted to life without parole. As for abortion, it should be legal up to about the 5th, possibly 6th month but every attempt should be made to eradicate the need for it. Which means available abortificants and morning after pills, w/o any sort of perscription.

3. Having a child is an economic decision, whereas wanting to fuck is hardwired in human beings. Shaming the poor or optionless for having sex is something you can shove directly up your ass, Mr./Mrs. False Puritan.

People frame this like it's some tragedy of modern life....there is nothing new about it except the religious dollars, the religious self-congratulation and the technology.

Uh having a child is not an economical descision. Wanting one and choosing to have sex for that purpose is an economical descision.

Having a child is a result of having sex at the right (or wrong depending on your perspective) time. Getting pregnant doesn't just affect the poor, try the whole human race.

Take religion out of it man since that offends you so. This discussion is pointless unless you beleive in right and wrong. Religion does help propogate what right and wrong are but don't confuse the existance of right and wrong with religion.

The Optic

I also agree, lol.
would everyone please stop agreeing and argue with eachother

would everyone please stop agreeing and argue with eachother

LOL! Sorry, I am naturally a non-confrontational person ;)

Umm, isn't it obvious? An unborn child is innocent. A vicious criminal is not. Simple. I'm not saying you can't disagree, but I can't comprehend how you can't seem to understand what we believe.

Umm, isn't it obvious? An unborn child is innocent. A vicious criminal is not. Simple. I'm not saying you can't disagree, but I can't comprehend how you can't seem to understand what we believe.

Oh, I do understand what you believe, I never said I didn't. See I think that no human should choose whether somebody will live or die. Therefore, with that thought in mind, I cannot be against abortions and for the death penalty because that would make me a hypocrite.

>No, it's not. Pro-choice people usually don't consider abortion to be a form >of killing, while the death penalty undoubtedly is.

>Pro-choice people usually consider abortion to be a form of killing, while the >death penalty undoubtedly is.

I'm going to assume that the writer meant "pro-life" in the second sentence...
And I agree, these are the usual interpretations (see all the threads ad nauseum about when a fetus becomes "human" or "a person")


However, I am pro-choice and I definitely consider abortion the ending of a human life. I have also come to the conclusion that no being has the right to force another being to serve up his or her body for them, even an "innocent fetus".

Hey, see that guy over there? His name's Bob. You don't know him but for the next nine months you are going to have to physically connect up to him to keep him alive. You are going to be forced to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of that guy. Sure, it will make you sick every morning for three months, may give you long-term health problems, and there's even a small chance that it will kill you, but we feel that these are small inconveniences to you in light that he will die if you don't help him.

What's that you say? You'd like choose whether or not to do this? Sorry... we caught you having sex last week out of marriage so you're obviously a bad person. Unless you're a man, of course, in which case I'm sure that we can figure out some way that you only have to pay out some cash and not be forced to use your body to support Bob.

And we have even determined that something you did resulted in Bob being born (you sold that condom that failed to his parents; we don't care that you didn't know), so you have to take responsibility for him (cash payments by men still accepted).

You start tomorrow. Your life is not yours.

To bring this back into thread:

I would wholly support the death penalty provided there is absolutely no possibility that the person is innocent, that their confession was forced, etc... Allthough I am not religious, I believe that the bible does have a number of sound moral teachings. Including that bit about "He without sin casting the first stone..."

it's also contradictory to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion...



Not really - the crux of the death penalty argument is it's the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes, while in the case of abortion, the fetus hasn't had a chance to commit a crime yet.

Personally, I don't have the requisite equipment to be qualified to hold an opinion on the abortion issue, and every time I'm about ready to stand by principal and completely condemn the death penalty, someone like Richard Allen Davis or Scott Peterson comes along.

another thing to consider is no matter how against abortion you are, if anti-abortion laws are passed there will still be abortions taking place.... the not-so-safe kind.

If we outlaw abortions, then only the outlaws will... have... abortions?

Personally, I am against the death penalty. Not for any of the aforementioned reasons. It doesn't bother me so much that they might be innocent. I don't particularly care that the Bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "May he who is without sin cast the first stone." And you know what? Some people need to find a place to cram that "sanctity of life" stuff. Sometimes, to be frank, it's okay for another person to decide it's somebody else's time to die (such as coma victims and vegetables and the terminally ill).

I am against the death penalty for one simple reason:

Sadism.

If there is a man who has murdered 65 kids and ate the corpses in front of the childrens' parents, all while beating a kitten with a wire clothes hanger, he doesn't deserve to die. No. He deserves to LIVE. You know why? Because we can't punish the dude if he's dead. If he goes to the electric chair, or enters the gas chamber, or gets the lethal injection, he gets what thousands of people pray for daily- a quick, painless end, an easy slip into the Big Sleep that is death. If he's dead, it's over, he's escaped. A dead man can't feel pain. He won't mind being beaten or lashed. He won't mind not being fed, or not seeing the sky. He won't mind when 18 very large, smelly men sodomize him. Because he can't mind- he's too busy being deceased.

I was just wondering if people who are pro-life (against abortions) are also against the death penalty? I personally think that it is contradictory to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but thats jmo.

Yup. pro life and against the death penalty here.

I am pro-life and pro-torture for criminals.

If said criminal rapes someone, then he should have barb wire shoved down his well you can get the picture I am sure, repeatedly over the course of 20 years or more, In the case of of a woman then it should be a stick with nails and other sharp objects anything that causes sever pain. If s/he dies great one less sicko in the world.

If said criminal killed someone with a knife, then said criminal should be cut and hung upside down while salt and iodine are poured in the wounds over the course of 20 years. If it was done with a gun, then said criminal should have all joints shot out one by one and let heal and repeated for 20 years. If they die great one less sicko in the world

In my system of Government, Criminals would be treated as the scum they are and void of any rights period. Their only right upon comitting a crime would be to be utterly humilated and punished time and time again.

Oh and I am not actually a religous person, I find most religions void of actual truth much like liberal politicians.

the ramblings of a tired mind are a wasteful thing. To tired to really care about this thread or spelling mistakes :P

Bit like biggots then

Crazed feminists too?

>No, it's not. Pro-choice people usually don't consider abortion to be a form >of killing, while the death penalty undoubtedly is.

>Pro-choice people usually consider abortion to be a form of killing, while the >death penalty undoubtedly is.

I'm going to assume that the writer meant "pro-life" in the second sentence...
And I agree, these are the usual interpretations (see all the threads ad nauseum about when a fetus becomes "human" or "a person")


However, I am pro-choice and I definitely consider abortion the ending of a human life. I have also come to the conclusion that no being has the right to force another being to serve up his or her body for them, even an "innocent fetus".

Hey, see that guy over there? His name's Bob. You don't know him but for the next nine months you are going to have to physically connect up to him to keep him alive. You are going to be forced to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of that guy. Sure, it will make you sick every morning for three months, may give you long-term health problems, and there's even a small chance that it will kill you, but we feel that these are small inconveniences to you in light that he will die if you don't help him.

What's that you say? You'd like choose whether or not to do this? Sorry... we caught you having sex last week out of marriage so you're obviously a bad person. Unless you're a man, of course, in which case I'm sure that we can figure out some way that you only have to pay out some cash and not be forced to use your body to support Bob.

And we have even determined that something you did resulted in Bob being born (you sold that condom that failed to his parents; we don't care that you didn't know), so you have to take responsibility for him (cash payments by men still accepted).

You start tomorrow. Your life is not yours.

To bring this back into thread:

I would wholly support the death penalty provided there is absolutely no possibility that the person is innocent, that their confession was forced, etc... Allthough I am not religious, I believe that the bible does have a number of sound moral teachings. Including that bit about "He without sin casting the first stone..."

I am getting so sick and tired of that analogy. It's so piss poor it isn't funny. It should go a little more like this...

Hey, see that guy over there? His name's Bob. You don't know him but you did enter into the raffle to have some pleasurable sex, however you won the door prize, which you were fully aware of, of putting him in a hospital bed and for the next nine months you are going to have to physically connect up to him to keep him alive. You are going to be forced to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of that guy. Sure, it will make you sick every morning for three months, may give you long-term health problems...etc

I think that to kill a baby is definatly wrong. It is stupid to say it aint human till it leaves the mother(Ive heard that before). Of course it is human. Personally I think abortion should be outlawed. It is wrong no matter what the reason.

Although I think abortion is wrong, in some cases I think it necessary for the death penalty to be carried out, but it should be more definite if the people really deserve it.

Oh, I do understand what you believe, I never said I didn't. See I think that no human should choose whether somebody will live or die. Therefore, with that thought in mind, I cannot be against abortions and for the death penalty because that would make me a hypocrite.
Ah. I see. While I respect that view, I believe the life of innocents is valuable, but the life of the guilty is worthless. Someone's choices determine their value.

Yes, I'm pro-life and also against the death penalty.

I am pro-life and pro-torture for criminals.

If said criminal rapes someone, then he should have barb wire shoved down his well you can get the picture I am sure, repeatedly over the course of 20 years or more, In the case of of a woman then it should be a stick with nails and other sharp objects anything that causes sever pain. If s/he dies great one less sicko in the world.

If said criminal killed someone with a knife, then said criminal should be cut and hung upside down while salt and iodine are poured in the wounds over the course of 20 years. If it was done with a gun, then said criminal should have all joints shot out one by one and let heal and repeated for 20 years. If they die great one less sicko in the world

I think you've read one too many books on the Spanish Inquisition, my friend. They came up with the most original torture devices in human history, you know. Made Jesus's crucifixion look swift and painless...

i think that people that are pro-abortion and anti-war seriously contradict themselves.

its like "Im pro killing babies, but anti killing iraqis"

I'm pro-death... that movement will never fail, since everyone dies.

I don't consider death a penalty, I mean... you just die a bit earlier than normal, that's all, but ultimately it's the same. You're dead. I'm basically against death penalty, but there are a few issues where I'd say "hang him!" I do believe that there are crimes where one doesn't deserve to continue living.

I'm also leaning towards pro-abortion, simply because a) better have it done by people who have the right know-how and equipment than some old hag with a hot knitting needle and b) ultimately it's the decision of the woman, I don't think that anyone (especially men) has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to abort, even though there would be strong reasons to do so.

I am also Pro-Life and anti-death penalty

I've seen a video of an abortion performed, and I can tell you, it's not anything I'd like to see again. Someone said earlier about women in the past drowning their babys when they couldn't kill them otherwise, and basically saying that a painless abortion is better than that, well, abortions aren't painless

Getting pregnant is not something that happens by chance, it's a completely natural course of events when you have sex, I don't see how people can compare it to something women have no control over. It's like arguing that you can't be responsible for getting drunk, no matter how much you drink.

I think in the end, it comes down to one question for abortion, when does life begin? I personally hold that as soon as you have a unique set of human DNA, you're a human being, and should have protection under the laws (ie, conception) Other people say it's not a human until it's born, even tho plenty of premature babies have survived birth in the 5th month and later, and a few survived birth in the 4th month, if I recall correctly. The problem with that theory, is that eventually, it will be possible to grow a baby entirely outside the womb, so when would these people consider it a human? Other people say when it's "self aware" and state a week of development, but that's not going to be 100% accurate, as development rates differ between people. I still hold that conception is when life begins, and I'd outlaw abortions if I had the choice.

On a side note, did you know that is's a felony offense to destroy Condor eggs in California, but abortion is legal? There's something to think about :rolleyes:

I am also Pro-Life and anti-death penalty

I've seen a video of an abortion performed, and I can tell you, it's not anything I'd like to see again. Someone said earlier about women in the past drowning their babys when they couldn't kill them otherwise, and basically saying that a painless abortion is better than that, well, abortions aren't painless.

i've seen an apendectomy, open heart surgery, and an abortion procedure, and if you want to use grossness to evaluate the morality of something then abortion is much more "moral" than either of the other two.


Getting pregnant is not something that happens by chance, it's a completely natural course of events when you have sex, I don't see how people can compare it to something women have no control over. It's like arguing that you can't be responsible for getting drunk, no matter how much you drink.

it's more like arguing that if you choose to drink, get drunk, and fall down and break your leg, then you still have the right to get a cast and some painkillers from the doctor. nobody is going to tell you, "well, you chose to get drunk, so you can just limp around on your broken leg without any medical care."


I think in the end, it comes down to one question for abortion, when does life begin? I personally hold that as soon as you have a unique set of human DNA, you're a human being, and should have protection under the laws (ie, conception).

then every single cell of your body is a human being. furthermore, each of your mitochondria (which are organelles inside your cells) are separate human beings, since they have independent and unique DNA of their own.

i think you need to add something to your standards for "human."


Other people say it's not a human until it's born, even tho plenty of premature babies have survived birth in the 5th month and later, and a few survived birth in the 4th month, if I recall correctly.

check those numbers, and give sources...i don't buy a 4-months-gestation survival, personally, but that's just because i know what a human fetus looks like at 4 month's gestation.


The problem with that theory, is that eventually, it will be possible to grow a baby entirely outside the womb, so when would these people consider it a human?

probably when it is "born." when it is removed from its gestational apparatus, i would assume. i'm not saying they are right, necessarily, but it would be quite easy for them to apply the same standard to fetuses grown in artificial wombs.


Other people say when it's "self aware" and state a week of development, but that's not going to be 100% accurate, as development rates differ between people.

actually, it's pretty easy to set a cutoff point at which no human fetus could have consciousness, because we know when the structures that create consciousness develop. with advancing imaging technology, we may even be able to take comprehensive and detailed scans of the developing brain, and determine on an individual basis when a fetus has the possibility of consciousness.


I still hold that conception is when life begins, and I'd outlaw abortions if I had the choice.

then we can all breath a sigh of relief that more educated and informed heads than yours are making such decision.


On a side note, did you know that is's a felony offense to destroy Condor eggs in California, but abortion is legal? There's something to think about :rolleyes:not really, unless your hobby is collecting logical falacies.

I think you've read one too many books on the Spanish Inquisition, my friend. They came up with the most original torture devices in human history, you know. Made Jesus's crucifixion look swift and painless...


Actually I have read little on the Spanish Inquisition, besides those I had to in school. I just feel those that are proven guilty by their peers should be put through a more humilating and painful punishment than 3 meals a day, 1 hr outside and a free bed. I think it is inhumane to make the tax payers, those citizens that are following the rules and law of the land, pay for such ignorant people. Not to mention said criminals 80% of the time vote liberal when allowed, what do you think that says about the liberal idealogy where rapists, murders, and other scum of the earth vote overwhelming for it?

On a side note, did you know that is's a felony offense to destroy Condor eggs in California, but abortion is legal? There's something to think about :rolleyes:

Feh! There's no shortage of people.

Honestly, just because the potential is there for something to be another human doesn't mean it has to be explored every time. Abortion is not a thing I'm advocating for the liberal wanton use of, of course. But respecting the sanctity of life means more than just creating it because the opportunity presents itself. If we really want to do a service to new life, the human race ought to first be concientious of how that new life can be supported, given the natural resources we have left.

Again, responsibilty (and perhaps better advocation and acceptance of child-free lifestyles) should be the first course of action. Given a sincere and reasonable effort not to concieve has been exerted (mind you, lifelong abstinence is pretty unreasonable, IMHO.... we're just not deisgned to function that way), a expedient abortion is hardly thoughtless. To cease the development of an organism before it can feel and understand pain could, in some respects, be more thoughtful than to bring it into a world where it was unwanted. It's a pretty weird attitude, IMHO, to create life 'just because', out of some obligation to a conciousness that hasn't even coalesced. If we are going to respect life, we must approach the matter with thoughtfulness.

For that matter, voluntary sterilizations, extreme as they sound, might one day be the most useful solution. I mean, seriously, world population is out of control right now. We're doing a pretty slipshod job perserving the sanctity of life as-is; we're breeding ourselves into corners anyway and killing each other in wars.

On another tangent: why is human life more valuable than any other life? I mean, putting all personal biases aside? Is it so much worse to kill an unfeeling clump of human cells, than it is to say, in a meat factory, rip apart a concious, feeling, fully formed cow for meat when it, factory style, hasn't gotten stunned properly? It happens, people. And it happens because there's too many human beings to both feed and to fully pay respect to what life is.

Wasn't that in reference to a prostitute they were going to literally stone to death? I don't quite remember any accounts of him intervening on behalf of murderers in the same manner. I could be wrong since I really don't give a shit either way, but I don't think I am. I'm extremely pro death penalty, but only when guilt is assured, which means DNA and/or Video evidence and preferably a confession of guilt. That means most current death penalty cases would be shifted to life without parole. As for abortion, it should be legal up to about the 5th, possibly 6th month but every attempt should be made to eradicate the need for it. Which means available abortificants and morning after pills, w/o any sort of perscription.


Even DNA isn't a guarentee of guilt.
Contrary to what the propagandists tell you, DNA is an in infallable identifier.
Most obvious, there could be a valid reason for the DNA to be there that has nothing to do with the crime. It can also be planted.
More importantly, Lab workers make mistakes. They mix up samples. However, beyond human error there is a more serious issue. Human beings all have very similar DNA. If not, then some people would have scales and some people would have feathers and some people would be able to breath water.
True, there are many different varriations and the probability of two unrelated people having identical DNA is very low. However, two look at the entire DNA strand would be cost prohibitive. Instead, lab analists look at a small portion of the DNA. There is no guarentee that the portion the analysts look at is unique in any way.

Finger prints present the same problem. Analysts look at specific points on a firegerprint raehr than the entire print. It is neih impossible for two people to have identical fingerprints but it isn't improbable for several people to have many matching points.

I think in the end, it comes down to one question for abortion, when does life begin? I personally hold that as soon as you have a unique set of human DNA, you're a human being, and should have protection under the laws (ie, conception)

I guess you are willing to prosecute women for manslaughter when they have a miscarriage then?

Other people say it's not a human until it's born, even tho plenty of premature babies have survived birth in the 5th month and later, and a few survived birth in the 4th month, if I recall correctly.

Funny, did you know that elective abortions are illegal in most Western countries, US states after the 3rd month?

The problem with that theory, is that eventually, it will be possible to grow a baby entirely outside the womb, so when would these people consider it a human?

It won't matter - as no woman will be forced to carry it. Meanwhile, ability to develop in a tube doesn't automatically make something a human life.

Other people say when it's "self aware" and state a week of development, but that's not going to be 100% accurate, as development rates differ between people.

...which is why a conservative estimate is used.

I still hold that conception is when life begins, and I'd outlaw abortions if I had the choice.

And, unless you are a complete hypocrite, will prosecute women who have miscarriages for manslaughter/second degree murder.

Well I don't really fit either of the requisites in yonder thread title, being that I'm pro-choice and generally against the death pentaly, but I think I have to weigh in.

Many conservatives, it seems, are pro-life and pro- death penalty, which is a gross contradiction that I'm not certain many 'neoconservatives' are able to see. Also amusing to me is the nation that pro-life activists are somehow justified in bombing abortion clinics: so you're all for the rights of the unborn but if it grows up to be a doctor you just might have to kill it?

Conservatism [or at least, what 'conservatism' has come to mean these days, I agree with the early 90's definition od 'conservative] is so full of contradictions it makes me sick. They want to count an unborn fetus as a child in the eyes of the law, but I have yet to see any familty--no matter how right wing they profess to be--hold a funeral after a miscarriage.

So how about some consistency from the religious right for a change? I think it'd surprise a lot of folks.

Alright another arguement based on axioms

One set
Fetus's is life (right or wrong it is an axiom to some)
Only thoes that deserve it should be punished

I may not agree with it but they believe only guilty should be punished and that fetus's are life therefore it is not really that contradictory

I am also Pro-Life and anti-death penalty

Bully for you - you are almost half right.

I've seen a video of an abortion performed, and I can tell you, it's not anything I'd like to see again. Someone said earlier about women in the past drowning their babys when they couldn't kill them otherwise, and basically saying that a painless abortion is better than that, well, abortions aren't painless

Abortions are safer and less painful than birth.

I've seen video of several medical procedures that I would never like to see again. I've also undergone surgical procedures I wish I had not undergone and hope I never will need to undergo again. Squeamishness or grossness are not good indicators of morality. Otherwise we'd ban brain surgery, open heart surgery, and meat packing plants.

Getting pregnant is not something that happens by chance, it's a completely natural course of events when you have sex, I don't see how people can compare it to something women have no control over. It's like arguing that you can't be responsible for getting drunk, no matter how much you drink.

Sex without protection is unwise but it does not necessarily lead to pregnancy.

Moreover, contraception can greatly reduce the chance of getting pregnant.

The "completely natural course of events" may include any number of reasons why a woman does not become pregnant or a pregnancy ceases.

Moreoever, it is a fallacy to say abortion is contrary to the "completely natural course of events." Humans are part of nature. Just as humans can have sex and/or use contraceptives, humans can have abortions. It's more natural than using your computer to post in these Forums or driving a car.

I think in the end, it comes down to one question for abortion, when does life begin? I personally hold that as soon as you have a unique set of human DNA, you're a human being, and should have protection under the laws (ie, conception)

No. It comes down to respect for the rights and moral autonomy of the only undeniably living, human person with rights in the equation -- the mother. Pro-lifers like yourself tend to overlook that minor detail of the living, breathing, thinking human being that is not simply a baby carrier. Fundamental liberties -- self-ownership and bodily integrity -- must be respected or there is no freedom at all.

Moreover, the question is who decides? The government. A complete stranger such as yourself. Or the mother who we presumably entrust with a child and therefore must entrust with a choice.

Even focusing on the issue you raise, you have it wrong. The question is when do rights begin -- when does a zygote-embryo-fetus become a person with a claim to life? Mere life is insufficient. If you eat either meat or plants you do not afford every life a right to life. Mere human DNA is insufficient -- we do not afford rights to skin cells. (Nor is there a good moral reason why humanity is either a necessary or sufficient basis for rights.) Many entities that we do not afford a strong right to life -- such as chimps, dolphins, and pigs -- have a better claim to personhood and rights than a clump of cells.

Other people say it's not a human until it's born, even tho plenty of premature babies have survived birth in the 5th month and later, and a few survived birth in the 4th month, if I recall correctly. The problem with that theory, is that eventually, it will be possible to grow a baby entirely outside the womb, so when would these people consider it a human?

I seriously doubt you can prove that statement about fetuses surving outside the womb at 12-16 weeks.

Regardless, 90% of abortions in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancies. About 4% occur between 16 and 20 weeks. About 1.4% occur after the 20th week and only 0.08% occur after the 24th week.

Other people say when it's "self aware" and state a week of development, but that's not going to be 100% accurate, as development rates differ between people.

Which is why our abortion laws error on the side of caution and almost all abortions occur early in the pregnancy.

I still hold that conception is when life begins, and I'd outlaw abortions if I had the choice.

Luckily your irrational view is rejected by the majority of the US populace and contrary to our Constitution.

On a side note, did you know that is's a felony offense to destroy Condor eggs in California, but abortion is legal? There's something to think about :rolleyes:

And?

Condors are an endangered species.

People aren't.

Condors do not live inside and require the use of tissue of a human being.

Human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses do.

Very well put Cat-Tribe. Even if you want to seperate the unborn fetus and the mother as seperate entities, I would think that the rights of the fully developed, cognizant one sort of outweighs those of the one that doesn't even know its alive yet.

Besides, if you outlaw abortions altogether, the same thing will happen to them as happened with drugs: regulation will cease, and the only way to get what you want will be to go to the black market. The important thing to realize here is that unqualified individuals will be performing this process on frightened teenagers, and I don't really see this as being a good thing.

You can to an extent change the way government regulates or controls things, but you cannot change the way people think. No way on either side of Hell you'll get the entire population of the US or any other country to stop having premarital sex; and there's no way on either side of hell you'll ever stop a certain percentage of them from getting abortions.

If you really want to make a difference the best thing to do is educate your opposition and encourage adoption as a means for not having to deal with children they can't support or simply don't have the time for. Outlawing it altogether solves nothing and suggesting it only incenses the opposition. It would be like me reciting satanic verses backwards to a devout christian.

On a side note, did you know that is's a felony offense to destroy Condor eggs in California, but abortion is legal? There's something to think about

Just the way it should be. I'd rather spend a day with a Condor than a Californian. Californian abortion should be mandatory. God dammed OC.

[snip]
Many conservatives, it seems, are pro-life and pro- death penalty, which is a gross contradiction that I'm not certain many 'neoconservatives' are able to see.

Its not a contradiction at all. Murderers have made a choice that they knew would have consequences. The consequence for their choice is death. Unborn children have not made any choice, so to kill them would be murder. It is quite simple.

Of course, Im against the death penalty myself. But I am not going to pretend that it is a contradiction to be for the death penalty and against abortion, it makes perfect sense. A human being deserves a chance at life, but if they blow it then they can forfeit it, thats what they believe.


Also amusing to me is the nation that pro-life activists are somehow justified in bombing abortion clinics: so you're all for the rights of the unborn but if it grows up to be a doctor you just might have to kill it?

There is no organized group that has those beleifs.


They want to count an unborn fetus as a child in the eyes of the law, but I have yet to see any familty--no matter how right wing they profess to be--hold a funeral after a miscarriage.

A funeral is a way to say goodbye to someone you knew and loved. It serves no purpose when its someone you never got to meet.


So how about some consistency from the religious right for a change? I think it'd surprise a lot of folks.

You havent presented anything inconsistent. If you want to get into the war issue, then you'll have some valid points. But when it comes to abortion/death penalty, there are no inconsistencies to be found there.

Support of the death penalty carries with it an implicit assumption that the Federal Government is correct in 100% of all cases where the suspect is condemned to death. This means the religious right is trusting the government to kill people based on the preceding trial, but they're not allowing it to make the call to destroy fetuses based on the parents' set of circumstances. It's a different standard, but the principle is the same. It's a contradiction in the sense that they only believe a life is worth having if it fits a ceratin set of circumstances.

Also, the point about miscarraiges and funerals was sort of tounge-in-cheek. I'd have thought the sheer ridiculousness of the statement would have made that obvious.

Not to mention said criminals 80% of the time vote liberal when allowed, what do you think that says about the liberal idealogy where rapists, murders, and other scum of the earth vote overwhelming for it?

That doesn't necessarily say anything negative about the liberal idealogy. On the contrary, it points to liberal people as giving a voice to people who are in disadvantaged groups: prisoners, homeless, the poor etc. Even if someone commits a crime, that doesn't stop them being deserving of rights. Particularly when guilt is determined by a human jury, which can be wrong at times (as people have found out on death row appeals using new DNA evidence).

Support of the death penalty carries with it an implicit assumption that the Federal Government is correct in 100% of all cases where the suspect is condemned to death.


No. It does not carry with it that assumption. You can also believe that being wrong occasionally is inevitable and acceptable. Also, it is not the government (federal or state) that decides on a persons guilt. It is a jury composed of individuals from society at large.


This means the religious right is trusting the government to kill people based on the preceding trial, but they're not allowing it to make the call to destroy fetuses based on the parents' set of circumstances. It's a different standard, but the principle is the same.

I fail to see how the principle is the same. Killing a person who most likely murdered others, thereby forfeiting his right to live after giving him/her many chances to overturn the verdict vs killing a child who has yet to make any decisions of their own. The principle is not even remotely similar.


It's a contradiction in the sense that they only believe a life is worth having if it fits a ceratin set of circumstances.

How is that a contradiction?


Also, the point about miscarraiges and funerals was sort of tounge-in-cheek. I'd have thought the sheer ridiculousness of the statement would have made that obvious.

Your other arguments were sufficiently ridiculous as to make it possible that you might actually be serious about that statement.

I haven't read through the rest of the thread yet, but what the Hell, I'm posting anyway...

it's also contradictory to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion....

No it isn't. Neither position is contradictory unless your position is that 'all life is sacred'. The death penalty and abortion are two different things.
One is punitive, and involves killing a fully developed, thinking person, fully engaged with the world around them, probably with links like friendships, rivalries, etc. The other has nothing to do with blame, and involves killing a being which is not yet fully developed, isn't self aware or able to think, let alone have done something to deserve death, which has very little to tie it to the world.

Umm, isn't it obvious? An unborn child is innocent. A vicious criminal is not. Simple. I'm not saying you can't disagree, but I can't comprehend how you can't seem to understand what we believe.
I thought that the Christian perspective was that "only God can choose when someone dies."

I thought that the Christian perspective was that "only God can choose when someone dies."

Not everyone who's pro life is Christian.

I've always found religion to be fascinating, ideas such as how people act on their beliefs: pro-lifers murdering doctors...

HaHAHAHA!

Pro-lifers murdering people!

HAHAHAHA!

It's irony on a base level, but I like it. It's real basic irony, but you can still get a hoot...

>No, it's not. Pro-choice people usually don't consider abortion to be a form >of killing, while the death penalty undoubtedly is.

>Pro-choice people usually consider abortion to be a form of killing, while the >death penalty undoubtedly is.

I'm going to assume that the writer meant "pro-life" in the second sentence...
And I agree, these are the usual interpretations (see all the threads ad nauseum about when a fetus becomes "human" or "a person")

However, I am pro-choice and I definitely consider abortion the ending of a human life. I have also come to the conclusion that no being has the right to force another being to serve up his or her body for them, even an "innocent fetus".
Yeah I meant pro-life in the second line. Damn copy-and-paste.

Abortion is not the ending of human life, it is prevention of life. Something has to start before you can end it.

I am against the death penalty for one simple reason:

Sadism.

-snip-
Yes, that's also one of the many reasons I'm against it too! People say death penalty is the ultimate punishment but compared to life in prison it's really quite pleasant.

Hey, see that guy over there? His name's Bob. You don't know him but you did enter into the raffle to have some pleasurable sex, however you won the door prize, which you were fully aware of, of putting him in a hospital bed and for the next nine months you are going to have to physically connect up to him to keep him alive.
I really hate this "don't have sex" argument. It smacks of puritanism. Who are we to tell people to keep their legs closed?

The death penalty is more of a deterrent than a punishment. Kind of like the equivalent of nukes. As for me I dont need the threat of the death penalty to keep me from murdering someone, but some people do need a powerful deterrent. Maybe they will hold off on violence and get some counseling first because they're scared of the penalty. It's sad when it's actually carried out but I think it actually saves more people than it kills. It also gives murderers rapists and other hienous miserable people about 15 years of confinement where they cant hurt anyone else and have a chance to find god and be forgiven. God loves everyone and even if it takes death row for a person to give in to him, then they can still be saved. Just my not very much thought out christian perspective.

The death penalty is more of a deterrent than a punishment. Kind of like the equivalent of nukes. As for me I dont need the threat of the death penalty to keep me from murdering someone, but some people do need a powerful deterrent. Maybe they will hold off on violence and get some counseling first because they're scared of the penalty. It's sad when it's actually carried out but I think it actually saves more people than it kills. It also gives murderers rapists and other hienous miserable people about 15 years of confinement where they cant hurt anyone else and have a chance to find god and be forgiven. God loves everyone and even if it takes death row for a person to give in to him, then they can still be saved. Just my not very much thought out christian perspective.

Its meant to be a deterrent (among other things), but studies have proven that it is ineffective as a deterrent.

Its meant to be a deterrent (among other things), but studies have proven that it is ineffective as a deterrent.
I dont think that there is any good way to measure how much of a deterrent the death penalty is. How do you find all of the would be killers and then get them all to tell the truth? Basically I think "and I could be wrong" that the person doing the study was probably against the death penalty to begin with. I would like to see a study about how many murders that the death penalty has deterred. 1, 10, 100, 1000 who knows? How many does it have to prevent before its worth it?

No. It does not carry with it that assumption. You can also believe that being wrong occasionally is inevitable and acceptable. Also, it is not the government (federal or state) that decides on a persons guilt. It is a jury composed of individuals from society at large.

Aheh...yes. If someone says "I support the death penalty" it also sort of says "I support the methods in which $COURT finds said defendant guilty." Also please don't patronise me; I know how our legal system works. Gee, I'd have never known what a "jury" was. *slaps face in mock shock*

I fail to see how the principle is the same. Killing a person who most likely murdered others, thereby forfeiting his right to live after giving him/her many chances to overturn the verdict vs killing a child who has yet to make any decisions of their own. The principle is not even remotely similar.

Ever read that commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" Four words, all monosyllabic. It doesn't get much easier to understand than that. It's right there in black and white, on every damn sunday school room and ever damn bible and every damn church in the damn nation. I don't see an addendum on it that says "unless they killed someone first."

It's a contradiction because the religious right seems fond of invoking this godly edict when they want to save an unborn child, but they seem to forget about it when Marv is sitting over there on death row.

Christ I didn't think I'd have to spell it out like this.


How is that a contradiction?

See above.

Your other arguments were sufficiently ridiculous as to make it possible that you might actually be serious about that statement.

Right back atcha.

Even focusing on the issue you raise, you have it wrong. The question is when do rights begin -- when does a zygote-embryo-fetus become a person with a claim to life? Mere life is insufficient. If you eat either meat or plants you do not afford every life a right to life. Mere human DNA is insufficient -- we do not afford rights to skin cells. (Nor is there a good moral reason why humanity is either a necessary or sufficient basis for rights.) Many entities that we do not afford a strong right to life -- such as chimps, dolphins, and pigs -- have a better claim to personhood and rights than a clump of cells.


It isn't even that, really. Abortion does nothing to damage the rights of the unborn because individuals cannot violate rights at all. Rights only apply against the goverment.
The only concern is if the government's intrest in preserving the unborn child outwieghts the mother's right to control her body.

I really hate this "don't have sex" argument. It smacks of puritanism. Who are we to tell people to keep their legs closed?

That's not what I was arguing at all. I love sex and am not pro-life at all[though I like to think my stance on the matter is a bit more complicated than to be catagorised either way]. I was simply saying that it was a poor analogy.

Pro-life, anti-death penalty here.

I've always found religion to be fascinating, ideas such as how people act on their beliefs: pro-lifers murdering doctors...

HaHAHAHA!

Pro-lifers murdering people!

HAHAHAHA!

It's irony on a base level, but I like it. It's real basic irony, but you can still get a hoot...
Pro-lifers who kill abortion doctors are a tiny minority within the movement.

Awwwwwwwwwww

*THAT PHOTO UP THERE, TOO BIG TO QUOTE SO EDITED OUT FOR EASIER VIEWING*

Look at the cute wittle baby. I think he has his father's eyes. Dontcha just want to pinch his cheeks and ... oooh was that a smile? Awww. Such a dear. Ooops ... I think someone needs a diapie change.

*coughs a little*

*walks slowly out of the room*

What the hell was that about?

I'm against abortion and against the death penalty except for extreme cases. I favor the death penalty for serial killers such as Charles Manson, Son of Sam, the DC sniper. However I'm in favor of firing squads for men such as these.

It is a completely untenable position to support the death penalty and oppose abortion. If life is sacred, it is sacred on both ends. If a Christian, it is untenable with your faith to be for the death penalty entirely, because the position of Jesus was pretty clear on it: "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone." However, it is just as untenable with their beliefs to support abortion. The pro-life movement, at least the one within the Catholic Church, is also anti-war and anti-euthanasia. It is basically against humans killing humans.

That's a bit of a rant, you can just ignore it

As I support abortion in only the utmost extreme of circumstances, I too support the death penalty in the untmost extreme of circumstance. If you're some crazy pyscho terrorists that runs around the mall stabbing toddlers with 3 or more credible eye-witnesses and enough credible evidence to back it up, you can bet I'd want to see something bad happen to him. If your say.. Scott Peterson and the evidence all seems circumstantial and there's no soild witness testimony, then at the very most I would suspect is life.

It is a completely untenable position to support the death penalty and oppose abortion. If life is sacred, it is sacred on both ends. If a Christian, it is untenable with your faith to be for the death penalty entirely, because the position of Jesus was pretty clear on it: "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone." However, it is just as untenable with their beliefs to support abortion. The pro-life movement, at least the one within the Catholic Church, is also anti-war and anti-euthanasia. It is basically against humans killing humans.

That's a bit of a rant, you can just ignore it

I pretty much agree with you but those same religious people could retort with 'an eye for an eye' and thus murderers should be given lethal injections.

...but hey, I'm not saying two of the most commonly used phrases from the Bible totally contradict each other :D

Yes, actually, I am pro-life and anti-death penalty. I'm also anti-euthenasia.