NationStates Jolt Archive

Before we had Abortion vs Gun Control, in order to find how many pro-choice people also supported gun rights.

Now we have a poll to find how many pro-lifers favour the death penalty and how many pro-choicers oppose it.

I am pro-choice and opposed to the death penalty.

To clarify

Pro-choice The opinion that abortion should be legal under most circumstances. It does not necessitate friendliness to the act of abortion. Even if you think abortion is terrible, but don't think that it should be illegal, you count as pro-choice.

Pro-life This means that you think abortion should be illegal under most circumstances. Possible exceptions include rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life.

No other or unsure option?

Pro-choice and in support of the death penalty.

If someone doesn't want a kid, it's their choice.

Keeping criminals alive costs money, and I believe in the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Myyyyrth!

Pro-choice and in support of the death penalty.

If someone doesn't want a kid, it's their choice.

Keeping criminals alive costs money, and I believe in the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
that's not meant to be taken literally, it means that you're meant to give equivalent compenstion.
don't just read the torah/bible, read the commentaries.

Pro-choice, anti-death penalty. It's cheaper to keep criminals alive than it is to kill them. It also doesn't act as a deterrent at all.

that's not meant to be taken literally, it means that you're meant to give equivalent compenstion.
don't just read the torah/bible, read the commentaries.

Yes. If you murder someone, you're murdered. That's equal compensation. ;)

Myyyyrth!

Not every poll is going to have a Myrth option. You're going to just have to accept that and move on.

Pro-choice, anti-death penalty. It's cheaper to keep criminals alive than it is to kill them. It also doesn't act as a deterrent at all.

I call bullshit. It costs less to kill someone. Beating them over the head with a rock is cheaper than providing them with food and shelter for life.

I call bullshit. It costs less to kill someone. Beating them over the head with a rock is cheaper than providing them with food and shelter for life.
Ever heard of the appeals process?

I'm Pro-choice and anti-death penalty in principle. There are however cases where I think "FRY THE SOB."

Ever heard of the appeals process?

Beating someone over the head with a rock doesn't require the appeals process.

On a more serious note, there needs to be severe limitations on appeals in regard to major crimes.

Yes. If you murder someone, you're murdered. That's equal compensation. ;)
and how does that help the family of those who've died? they lost a loved one, making someone else lose one won't help them. all it will do is make the family of the dead person want revenge.
the meaning of an equal compensation is that the people get something of equivalent value (as far as possible) as compensation. ie, if you lose an eye due to someone, they should give compensation of that value.
if a person who is blind in one eye accidentally causes you to lose one, is it fair that they lose their one good eye to compensate you? no, and it wouldn't really help you.

Pro-choice and in support of the death penalty.

If someone doesn't want a kid, it's their choice.

Keeping criminals alive costs money, and I believe in the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
Actually, incarcerating a criminal for life is cheaper than executing them.

In my opinion the death penalty is a pointless way of punishment, with several disadvantages.

*irreversible
*death is too easy an escape for a criminal... they must be punished properly
*and so on...

and how does that help the family of those who've died? they lost a loved one, making someone else lose one won't help them. all it will do is make the family of the dead person want revenge.
the meaning of an equal compensation is that the people get something of equivalent value (as far as possible) as compensation. ie, if you lose an eye due to someone, they should give compensation of that value.
if a person who is blind in one eye accidentally causes you to lose one, is it fair that they lose their one good eye to compensate you? no, and it wouldn't really help you.

Money isn't compensation enough if I lose an eye. Not only that, but who pays for the loss, my insurance company? Oftentimes the person at fault can't, and they're the ones who should. I'd want retribution.

To be blunt, it is fair that if someone murders another human being, they are killed as well. You may disagree, whatever. This is my position and it won't be altered.

Money isn't compensation enough if I lose an eye. Not only that, but who pays for the loss, my insurance company? Oftentimes the person at fault can't, and they're the ones who should. I'd want retribution.

To be blunt, it is fair that if someone murders another human being, they are killed as well. You may disagree, whatever. This is my position and it won't be altered.
i admit there are some situations where that's true, but i guess not everyone can believe in the teachings of the torah.
oh well, i guess the goyim win out here, being that they control the world

Money isn't compensation enough if I lose an eye. Not only that, but who pays for the loss, my insurance company? Oftentimes the person at fault can't, and they're the ones who should. I'd want retribution.

To be blunt, it is fair that if someone murders another human being, they are killed as well. You may disagree, whatever. This is my position and it won't be altered.
So do you think that the punishment for rapists should be that they get raped?

Do you think that the punishment for those who commit GBH should be that they get a savage beating?

In a civilised society we have a standardised punishment system for crimes (prison) just as we have a standardised remuneration system for goods (money). Capital punishment is an odd deviation from the civilised order. Fortunately it is pretty much gone from the civilised world, except for the USA.

Say there is a man. He kills your father with a gunshot to the head. Your father's death is irreversible. Fairness dictates that the murderer is shot in the head too. The pain he dealt is the pain he suffers. Any more would be purely out of spite.
When I said irreversible I mean that if someone who was executed was later found to be innocent, then they cannot be allowed to return to free life. The death is irreversible.

Actually, incarcerating a criminal for life is cheaper than executing them.

In my opinion the death penalty is a pointless way of punishment, with several disadvantages.

*irreversible
*death is too easy an escape for a criminal... they must be punished properly
*and so on...

Say there is a man. He kills your father with a gunshot to the head. Your father's death is irreversible. Fairness dictates that the murderer is shot in the head too. The pain he dealt is the pain he suffers. Any more would be purely out of spite.

Say there is a man. He kills your father with a gunshot to the head. Your father's death is irreversible. Fairness dictates that the murderer is shot in the head too. The pain he dealt is the pain he suffers. Any more would be purely out of spite.
but would the death of that man bring your father back? would it help put food on your table? what about the murderer's family? do they deserve to lose him over his actions?

Pro-choice, Pro-Cap. Pun.

Also in favor of lowering death penalty standards(same appeals as a person serving life, bullets to the head when its time).

Im not in favor of capital punishment for retribution though, rather for deterance.

but would the death of that man bring your father back? would it help put food on your table? what about the murderer's family? do they deserve to lose him over his actions?

Its not about bringing them back.

Did he deserve his father to die for the murderers actions? No. Both families have to suffer.

So do you think that the punishment for rapists should be that they get raped?

No, because rape isn't about sex, its about power. Being in jail for life strips them of all power, making it an equal gain/loss.

Its not about bringing them back.

Did he deserve his father to die for the murderers actions? No. Both families have to suffer.
i agree that the murderer should suffer for what he has done, but how can you justify the idea that his loved ones should suffer? what gain do i have from sheer vindictiveness? especially when it's against those who have not personally wronged me

So do you think that the punishment for rapists should be that they get raped?

Do you think that the punishment for those who commit GBH should be that they get a savage beating?

In a civilised society we have a standardised punishment system for crimes (prison) just as we have a standardised remuneration system for goods (money). Capital punishment is an odd deviation from the civilised order. Fortunately it is pretty much gone from the civilised world, except for the USA.

1. Yes, they get raped. By a machine, bull, whatever.

2. Yes, they're savagely beaten.

3. Your standardized system of punishment may not be equal to the crime that was committed.

but would the death of that man bring your father back? would it help put food on your table? what about the murderer's family? do they deserve to lose him over his actions?

No, it would not bring the father back. It would not put food on the table. Yes, the murderer's family must deal with the consequences of his/her actions. That is fair. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the ultimate deterrent.

i am prochoice because if you have been raped or have never wanted a child OR can't raise the child and that he would lead a miserable life it's better to abort

and for the death penalty i am against since it's not cheaper to kill someone than it is to punish him by living a miserable life in prison and the death of those people is supposed to be set as an example but it is really hidden you don't really see much of death penalties being accomplished and some people just want to do something stupid and then get killed it's their accomplishment it's better to make them suffer for a longer period of time

Pro-choice, opposed to most abortion, iffy on the death penalty - and opposed to it in most cases.

No, it would not bring the father back. It would not put food on the table. Yes, the murderer's family must deal with the consequences of his/her actions. That is fair. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the ultimate deterrent.
i wouldn't call it the ultimate deterrent, even if i did support your incorrect taking of jewish law.

1. Yes, they get raped. By a machine, bull, whatever.

2. Yes, they're savagely beaten.

3. Your standardized system of punishment may not be equal to the crime that was committed.
My standardised system? That's not my system, it's the system used by all civilised countries of the world. The standard punishment is prison. How much of it, and the conditions therein, are determined by the nature and severity of the crime.

If you want to see your ideas in place in reality just go to Sudan, Saudi Arabia or any other Middle Eastern thugocracy where insanity combined with religion reign supreme.

i wouldn't call it the ultimate deterrent, even if i did support your incorrect taking of jewish law.

I don't give a damn about jewish law, I'm not 'taking' it. I would call "eye for an eye" the ultimate deterrent, unless the criminal is willing to give up what they take away. Few people are.

My standardised system? That's not my system, it's the system used by all civilised countries of the world. The standard punishment is prison. How much of it, and the conditions therein, are determined by the nature and severity of the crime.

If you want to see your ideas in place in reality just go to Sudan, Saudi Arabia or any other Middle Eastern thugocracy where insanity combined with religion reign supreme.
correction: insanity, dictatorship and poor religious use/interpretation reign supreme

I don't give a damn about jewish law, I'm not 'taking' it. I would call "eye for an eye" the ultimate deterrent, unless the criminal is willing to give up what they take away. Few people are.
there are enough countries where the death penalty doesn't act as a real dterrent, the amount of people that get caught with drugs in indonesia despite the possibility of the death penalty is an example. and that's giving a punishment often more severe than what the law breaker did

My standardised system? That's not my system, it's the system used by all civilised countries of the world. The standard punishment is prison. How much of it, and the conditions therein, are determined by the nature and severity of the crime.

If you want to see your ideas in place in reality just go to Sudan, Saudi Arabia or any other Middle Eastern thugocracy where insanity combined with religion reign supreme.

1. Then it is your system. I don't believe imprisonment can equal that of the crime committed. In 99% of cases it is either too harsh or not harsh enough.

2. I don't want to visit places where insanity combined with religion reigns supreme.

there are enough countries where the death penalty doesn't act as a real dterrent, the amount of people that get caught with drugs in indonesia despite the possibility of the death penalty is an example. and that's giving a punishment often more severe than what the law breaker did

Getting caught with drugs shouldn't be punishable by death. There are certain crimes in which the person deserves it, but that's not one of them.

Here is a question, should an inmate be allowed to choose the death penalty over imprissonment. I know given the choice between 10 years (or more) in prisson and the death penalty, I would choose the death penalty in no time flat. (Could deffinately cut down on costs as appeals would not be neccesary.)

I am pro-life and anti-capital punishment

I do not understand why people believe someone has the right to murder an innocent child.
If you don't want or can't raise the child, adoption is a much better alternative to abortion.

I use to support the death penalty, but after I watched news coverage about the execution of Timothy McVey there was no satisfaction in it. It was like he was able to take the easy way out.
And as mentioned before, there is no way to bring back those people he killed.

I have also heard its cheaper to incarcerate criminals than kill them. Only in the most severe cases should it be used.

Here is a question, should an inmate be allowed to choose the death penalty over imprissonment. I know given the choice between 10 years (or more) in prisson and the death penalty, I would choose the death penalty in no time flat. (Could deffinately cut down on costs as appeals would not be neccesary.)

I don't think it would be a good idea. They might see it as an easy way out. Its better not to give them that satisfaction.

Here is a question, should an inmate be allowed to choose the death penalty over imprissonment. I know given the choice between 10 years (or more) in prisson and the death penalty, I would choose the death penalty in no time flat. (Could deffinately cut down on costs as appeals would not be neccesary.)
before or after they go to prison? should they be allowed to be able to say "kill me now" after say, 3 years?

Here is a question, should an inmate be allowed to choose the death penalty over imprissonment. I know given the choice between 10 years (or more) in prisson and the death penalty, I would choose the death penalty in no time flat. (Could deffinately cut down on costs as appeals would not be neccesary.)

Yes, I believe everyone deserves the right to end their own life. As a means of punishment, escape, whatever. The end result is that they're gone forever, which means they can't cause trouble again.

I am pro-life and anti-capital punishment

I do not understand why people believe someone has the right to murder an innocent child.
If you don't want or can't raise the child, adoption is a much better alternative to abortion.

I use to support the death penalty, but after I watched news coverage about the execution of Timothy McVey there was no satisfaction in it. It was like he was able to take the easy way out.
And as mentioned before, there is no way to bring back those people he killed.

I have also heard its cheaper to incarcerate criminals than kill them. Only in the most severe cases should it be used.

Nobody has the right to murder innocent children. Killing fetuses is neither illegal killing, or killing children. And you still have to go through birth-giving, etc. Its not right to force that on people.

Its only more expensive to kill, because the system makes it that way.

Getting caught with drugs shouldn't be punishable by death. There are certain crimes in which the person deserves it, but that's not one of them.
but it does provide evidence against the idea that the death penalty being worthwile.
on another note, how does the person deserve their family's suffering over their death?
damn it, i talked myself away from my minor support of the death penalty, now i don't support it at all, my vote wasted, i guess

before or after they go to prison? should they be allowed to be able to say "kill me now" after say, 3 years?

I would say yes, no point to keep them alive.

I have quite a simple opinion of the matter, pro-choice, pro-death penalty.
Of course, both depend on the reasons for it. If there's a good reason to have an abortion, do it. If one murdered another in a particularly horrid fashion (for other reasons than self defense), they should be duelly punished.

The reason for my stance on the death penalty is simple as well...one of my distant relations, whom lived in Louisiana a few years back, knifed her son, who was a toddler, killing him.

She was a family member, she killed for no other reason than selfishness, because "God told her to." For her great, divine efforts, she was awarded a wonderful punishment: Death.

Simple, huh?

Killing fetuses is neither illegal killing, or killing children. And you still have to go through birth-giving, etc. Its not right to force that on people.

Its only more expensive to kill, because the system makes it that way.

So you don't belive a fetus is a living thing? Why is that? If it was proven the fetus was in fact alive (now this is hypothetical*), would you still say that its not illegal to kill it?

If it's more expensive to kill because of the system, is there a way to make it less expensive without being accused of something like torture?

* I believe the fetus is alive, but I'm going to say hypothetical because not everyone agrees with me

I wouldn't mind if they gave Hitler the death penalty - same for some other crazy asswipes too. Pro choice, but Im not a hippie feminist pro-choicer.

So you don't belive a fetus is a living thing? Why is that? If it was proven the fetus was in fact alive (now this is hypothetical), would you still say that its not illegal to kill it?

If it's more expensive to kill because of the system, is there a way to make it less expensive without being accused of something like torture?

I didnt say it wasnt alive.

A. Its not illegal killing, because abortion is illegal.

B. Its not a child, because its not really human yet.

Being alive means nothing to me. Plants are alive. I eat plants.

They are alive, and its not illegal. It has nothing to do with life, but law.

I dont know what you might consider torture. Shooting someone in the head isn't torture, imo. Not that I care of being accused of torture. Anyone who deserves death penalty doesn't have the right to painless death. Its only a bonus, if its cheap.

A life is a life is a life is a life...
life is sacred...
i really truly think murder is wrong, and i think that both the death penalty and abortion are murder, as in both cases a living human beings life is ended before natural death.
I agree that in certain cases you have to balance the health of the mother, so if the mothers life is truly in danger... then maybe...
but the truth is, neither is necessary for general use.


that said... any bastard who performs an abortion should be fried!!!!
:P

So you don't belive a fetus is a living thing? Why is that? If it was proven the fetus was in fact alive (now this is hypothetical), would you still say that its not illegal to kill it?

The fetus is alive, but so are the sperm and egg cells. Does masturbation become mass murder? Should girls be forced to have sex as soon as they start their menstal cycles? Granted they don't have 100% of human genetic material but lets look at a group of skin cells growing in a nutrient solution. These are also clearly alive and 100% genetically human (or how about cancer cells? Also clearly alive and 100% genetically human) are they human? We can also keep a braindead person "alive" using resperators and whatnot to force their heart to beat and their lungs to work. I would say no, an enitity is not human unless it has a human brain, and thus a fetus does not become human until it exibits human brain waves (Around the beginning of the 7th month). This is not meant as a strong deffinition, just an argument to show why some people do not feel abortion is murder.

The fetus is alive, but so are the sperm and egg cells. Does masturbation become mass murder? Should girls be forced to have sex as soon as they start their menstal cycles? Granted they don't have 100% of human genetic material but lets look at a group of skin cells growing in a nutrient solution. These are also clearly alive and 100% genetically human (or how about cancer cells? Also clearly alive and 100% genetically human) are they human? We can also keep a braindead person "alive" using resperators and whatnot to force their heart to beat and their lungs to work. I would say no, an enitity is not human unless it has a human brain, and thus a fetus does not become human until it exibits human brain waves (Around the beginning of the 7th month). This is not meant as a strong deffinition, just an argument to show why some people do not feel abortion is murder.


so... at what point does someone start being human? stop being human? (in cases of brain trauma)...
my point is... no one can really come up with a "strong definition", so for me, just in order to make sure no mistakes are made and no "full human" is killed, i don't think abortion should be a general choice. The earliest point that someone COULD be fully human is at the moment of conception. (before that they dont have a full set of DNA)... for me, i'd rather just be on the safe side where life is concerned. Thats also my position on the death penalty. Many innocent people are convicted, and some are even executed. To me, no matter how many guilty bastards you fry, its not worth even 1 innocent life...

Its wrong to get rid of a baby becuase you don't want it. If you choose not to have a kid, then you should also choose to use a condom.

As far as the death penalty, there have been people on death row for 10-20 years. Either get rid of it, or stop the bullshit in the system and execute them.

Actually, incarcerating a criminal for life is cheaper than executing them.


Not even vaguely true. The ONLY reason that Death Penalty is so expensive in the US, for example, is the ridiculously drawn-out legal process.

Death Penalty should ONLY be used where there is no shadow of a doubt. Like Video-camera footage of a rapist, for example.

There should be no appeal. Because potentially innocent people shouldn't be being sentenced.


In my opinion the death penalty is a pointless way of punishment, with several disadvantages.

*irreversible
*death is too easy an escape for a criminal... they must be punished properly
*and so on...

On the other hand, irreversible is no bad thing, and not everyone enjoys inflicting suffering. Personally, I am VERY anti-suffering, but can condone the Death Penalty because it is humane.

A life is a life is a life is a life...
life is sacred...
i really truly think murder is wrong, and i think that both the death penalty and abortion are murder, as in both cases a living human beings life is ended before natural death.
I agree that in certain cases you have to balance the health of the mother, so if the mothers life is truly in danger... then maybe...
but the truth is, neither is necessary for general use.


that said... any bastard who performs an abortion should be fried!!!!
:P

Abortion, at least in the US, is not murder. Period. Fact. No discussion.

Its wrong to get rid of a baby becuase you don't want it. If you choose not to have a kid, then you should also choose to use a condom.

As far as the death penalty, there have been people on death row for 10-20 years. Either get rid of it, or stop the bullshit in the system and execute them.

Condoms break. People forget if they took birth control, and birth control doesnt always work. People get raped. Sometimes, people cant have kids. Sometimes, kids have kids.

No absolutes.

A life is a life is a life is a life...
life is sacred...
i really truly think murder is wrong, and i think that both the death penalty and abortion are murder, as in both cases a living human beings life is ended before natural death.
I agree that in certain cases you have to balance the health of the mother, so if the mothers life is truly in danger... then maybe...
but the truth is, neither is necessary for general use.


that said... any bastard who performs an abortion should be fried!!!!
:P

I have the answer. Rather than aborting foetuses, we should just remove the placenta.

If the foetus can continue to come to term, more power to it.

If it 'dies', it 'dies' of natural causes... i.e. it ceases to 'feed'.

Similarly, how about putting mass-murderers, etc. in big glass tanks full of water? They can keep kicking to the surface, where food and air are.

Thus - if they die, they die of natural causes... i.e. drowning.

Im not in favor of capital punishment for retribution though, rather for deterance.
Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a deterrence. Here's (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167) a bunch of them.

Abortion, at least in the US, is not murder. Period. Fact. No discussion.

But what if the law is wrong? There have been many times in history where that's been the case.

I have the answer. Rather than aborting foetuses, we should just remove the placenta.

If the foetus can continue to come to term, more power to it.

If it 'dies', it 'dies' of natural causes... i.e. it ceases to 'feed'.

Similarly, how about putting mass-murderers, etc. in big glass tanks full of water? They can keep kicking to the surface, where food and air are.

Thus - if they die, they die of natural causes... i.e. drowning.

well... the problem i have with this method is that some very deliberate outside influence, with the intent of killing the fetus, is changing the situation to cause the death. Natural is unplanned and not premeditated.

But what if the law is wrong? There have been many times in history where that's been the case.

Unless you want to find some way the wording can be said to imply its illegal, its not. If you think the law should be changed, great. But its still not murder. Not as of the time, not by the nations laws.

I’m pro-choice an pro-capital punishment. I think capital punishment should be implemented for serial killers (the psycho ones, like BTK), spies, genocidal maniacs detained by another country, and those that commit high treason during war time (giving away troop positions, endangering the lives of soldiers and civilians, etc. and yep that includes Geraldo).

Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a deterrence. Here's (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167) a bunch of them.

Its situational.

But what if the law is wrong? There have been many times in history where that's been the case.
By definition, murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Since abortion is legal, it cannot be murder. No amount of squirming and weaseling will change that.

Abortion, at least in the US, is not murder. Period. Fact. No discussion.

well.. actually, there are restrictions on when you can have an abortion. However, i agree that in the US, the law states that abortion is not murder. I am speaking theoretically here, discussing my personal beliefs. Not every citizens beliefs must agree with the law.
IE:
I believe that a state should be allowed to legalize marijuana without the federal governments influence. I believe that that power should be retained to the states. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, including the entire federal government.


On a completely different note, legally suicide is not allowed. I dont know what the original reasoning was, but many people see it as murdering yourself. Doesn't this fit into the abortion debate? Is it any more murder for a person to commit suicide than for a person to abort a fetus?

(note: the above question is purely theoretical, and probably poorly worded... please dont misinterpret it)

pro life, pro capital punishment. Its you own damn fault if you fool around and get a kid, and those fucking criminls should be put to death, not having 3 meals a day in prision.

Pro-life and I'm against the death penalty. I don't believe that we have the right to choose who lives and who dies, and I certainly think it's disgraceful that someone thinks that an innocent unborn child should die for any reason, but a man who's raped and killed 20 women deserves to live instead.

Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a deterrence. Here's (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167) a bunch of them.

Numerous cases have shown that imprisonment does not act as a deterrent. Your point?

I’m pro-choice an pro-capital punishment. I think capital punishment should be implemented for serial killers (the psycho ones, like BTK), spies, genocidal maniacs detained by another country, and those that commit high treason during war time (giving away troop positions, endangering the lives of soldiers and civilians, etc. and yep that includes Geraldo).


amen, Geraldo should fry!!!
:P

Numerous cases have shown that imprisonment does not act as a deterrent. Your point?
This is where you're supposed to provide a source.

This is where you're supposed to provide a source.

No. I refuse to, due to laziness. If you care enough, you find the source. I just know that sometimes people who are jailed for a crime commit the same crime after they're released.

well.. actually, there are restrictions on when you can have an abortion. However, i agree that in the US, the law states that abortion is not murder. I am speaking theoretically here, discussing my personal beliefs. Not every citizens beliefs must agree with the law.
IE:
I believe that a state should be allowed to legalize marijuana without the federal governments influence. I believe that that power should be retained to the states. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, including the entire federal government.


On a completely different note, legally suicide is not allowed. I dont know what the original reasoning was, but many people see it as murdering yourself. Doesn't this fit into the abortion debate? Is it any more murder for a person to commit suicide than for a person to abort a fetus?

(note: the above question is purely theoretical, and probably poorly worded... please dont misinterpret it)

I agree with legalizing marijuana, and allowing suicide, though not with states rights(though federal power shouldnt judge certain areas at all).It is more murder for a person to commit suicide, because its illegal.

No. I refuse to, due to laziness. If you care enough, you find the source. I just know that sometimes people who are jailed for a crime commit the same crime after they're released.
Telling other people to find sources for your arguments themselves is generally considered to be in very bad form, and often indicates that one was pulling arguments out of his or her ass.

I agree with legalizing marijuana, and allowing suicide, though not with states rights(though federal power shouldnt judge certain areas at all).It is more murder for a person to commit suicide, because its illegal.

i did not mean "legally" which was more murder...
i meant theoretically, from a moral point of view.
and before you flame me for bringing morals into this, by morals i mean WHICHEVER set of rules you use to determine which choice you should make in your daily life.

It has been pointed out numerous times that US law says that abortion is not murder. But does that still mean it is right?
If the law said drowning someone (or something similar) is not murder, does that mean it's okay to drown people?

Before we had Abortion vs Gun Control, in order to find how many pro-choice people also supported gun rights.

Now we have a poll to find how many pro-lifers favour the death penalty and how many pro-choicers oppose it.



I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

I feel that the only moral barrier to the death penalty is execution of an innocent man.

Nobody has the right to murder innocent children. Killing fetuses is neither illegal killing, or killing children. And you still have to go through birth-giving, etc. Its not right to force that on people.


If a person gets themselves knocked up, they should have to pay the consequences, no matter what their situation. Rape is different... but I still believe they should have to give birth. You're pro-choice, right? Don't you believe that if the child had a choice he/she would choose to live? Just because someone can't speak for themselves right yet doesn't mean they don't deserve a chance to live.

Abortion, at least in the US, is not murder. Period. Fact. No discussion.

Bullshit. There's a difference between the ethical definition and the legal definition of murder. In other words, the law is irrelevant to discussions of right and wrong. I can't dispute the law; I can discuss whether the law's right.

It has been pointed out numerous times that US law says that abortion is not murder. But does that still mean it is right?
If the law said drowning someone (or something similar) is not murder, does that mean it's okay to drown people?

exactly!!!
and before anyone says, "well, the law says that its not okay to drown people, so therefor your argument is useless" let me remind everyone here that the law is not always right. in fact, the law used to allow you to keep people as slaves...

therefore, i think its not really important, for the purposes of this discussion, what the law says. The thing of real importance here is the opinions of the people discussing the issue.

Bullshit. There's a difference between the ethical definition and the legal definition of murder. In other words, the law is irrelevant to discussions of right and wrong. I can't dispute the law; I can discuss whether the law's right.

Yes, there is a difference. But murder is whether its wrong, via the law. In the US, it isnt.

If you think its ethically wrong, argue until you are blue in the face. But its not murder, not now, not here.

I am neither pro-choice or pro-life but I am in favor of abortion. Just the government gets to choose who is aborted. Also an eugenics policy should be adopted in this country. Gay marriage should be required, women should be required to get pregnent once a year (we can encourage adultery.) Cocaine should be required but all other drugs outlawed. Our medicare system should be run by ninjas. They would "take care" of the elderly.

Doesnt the mere fact that there are people in prisons who willingly commit acts that they know are against the law show that prison is not a completely effective deterent?

If a person gets themselves knocked up, they should have to pay the consequences, no matter what their situation. Rape is different... but I still believe they should have to give birth. You're pro-choice, right? Don't you believe that if the child had a choice he/she would choose to live? Just because someone can't speak for themselves right yet doesn't mean they don't deserve a chance to live.

Children don't have the capacity to choose for themselves. Or are you for getting rid of statutory rape, etc?

Yes, there is a difference. But murder is whether its wrong, via the law. In the US, it isnt.

If you think its ethically wrong, argue until you are blue in the face. But its not murder, not now, not here.

Murder isn't just a legal definition. Murder is a concept that exists prior to the creation of laws. The reason laws against murder exist is because murder is wrong.

I didnt say it wasnt alive.

A. Its not illegal killing, because abortion is illegal.

B. Its not a child, because its not really human yet.

Being alive means nothing to me. Plants are alive. I eat plants.

They are alive, and its not illegal. It has nothing to do with life, but law.

I dont know what you might consider torture. Shooting someone in the head isn't torture, imo. Not that I care of being accused of torture. Anyone who deserves death penalty doesn't have the right to painless death. Its only a bonus, if its cheap.

If it's not human, what is it? Do rocks grow into humans? Do plants? Do frogs? Ugh.

so... at what point does someone start being human? stop being human? (in cases of brain trauma)...
The answer is the same for each: When the brain waves become (or cease to be) distinguishable from other animals.

The earliest point that someone COULD be fully human is at the moment of conception. (before that they dont have a full set of DNA)... for me, i'd rather just be on the safe side where life is concerned.

What about skin cells? Those have a full set of DNA, they are clearly alive, should we experiment with them like we do? Why are they not human if you think they are not?

i did not mean "legally" which was more murder...
i meant theoretically, from a moral point of view.
and before you flame me for bringing morals into this, by morals i mean WHICHEVER set of rules you use to determine which choice you should make in your daily life.

I have no morals, other than what is best for society and worst, best for individual and worst, etc.

Abortion keeps the crime and poverty rates down. Thats good enough for me.

Murder isn't just a legal definition. Murder is a concept that exists prior to the creation of laws. The reason laws against murder exist is because murder is wrong.



If it's not human, what is it? Do rocks grow into humans? Do plants? Do frogs? Ugh.

For the first part, the law apparently doesn't see abortion as wrong, then. Regardless, its not murdur.

Second, its a fetus. It might grow into a human, but I don't really care about maybe's.

Yes, there is a difference. But murder is whether its wrong, via the law. In the US, it isnt.

If you think its ethically wrong, argue until you are blue in the face. But its not murder, not now, not here.
no... murder is whether its wrong, regardless of the law. sometimes they just dont punish it...
i believe there are times when killing is justified (IE self defense) but i still think that abortion, whether legally sanctioned or not, is wrong. To me, murder is unjustified killing, whether or not the law permits it.

Children don't have the capacity to choose for themselves. Or are you for getting rid of statutory rape, etc?

I mean when they're older, of course.... but if you never give them the chance to choose, then yeah, I suppose they wouldn't be able to choose now eh?

The answer is the same for each: When the brain waves become (or cease to be) distinguishable from other animals.



What about skin cells? Those have a full set of DNA, they are clearly alive, should we experiment with them like we do? Why are they not human if you think they are not?

Sperm and ova each contain 23 chromosomes. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the chromosomes join, making the total forty six. Forty-six chromosomes human chromosomes are the basis for human life. What makes conception different than simply extracting skin cells of a person is that the DNA of the embryo isn't that of the mother's or the father's, nor is it a mutation of the original.

Abortion keeps the crime and poverty rates down. Thats good enough for me.

Agreed.

I mean when they're older, of course.... but if you never give them the chance to choose, then yeah, I suppose they wouldn't be able to choose now eh?

If I could choose now, I would have chosen to be aborted.

no... murder is whether its wrong, regardless of the law. sometimes they just dont punish it...
i believe there are times when killing is justified (IE self defense) but i still think that abortion, whether legally sanctioned or not, is wrong. To me, murder is unjustified killing, whether or not the law permits it.

Thats morally wrong, not murder. Murder is illegal killing. I don't see what there is to argue.

I have no morals, other than what is best for society and worst, best for individual and worst, etc.

everyone has morals...
even you....
infact, you just defined your morals right there...
however, i think that sounds more like your trying to make some sort of exuse or hide something from yourself. Just think about it...

So unborn children should die for the sake of crime rates and poverty? that alone should be a crime.

everyone has morals...
even you....
infact, you just defined your morals right there...
however, i think that sounds more like your trying to make some sort of exuse or hide something from yourself. Just think about it...

Hence why I said I have no morals, other than

For the first part, the law apparently doesn't see abortion as wrong, then. Regardless, its not murdur.

Second, its a fetus. It might grow into a human, but I don't really care about maybe's.

Yeah, it can be considered murder since murder isn't only a legal definition. I don't know how else to say this. We're not arguing whether abortion is murder yet, only that the legal definition of murder isn't the only or even most important standard.

You are confusing "human" and "person." Human just means belonging to the grouping Homo sapien. Human sperm and human eggs make humans, not monkeys or frogs or plants. There's no scientific dispute WHATSOEVER that what starts growing from conception is human because it can't be anything else. HUMANS CAN ONLY PRODUCE OTHER HUMANS. You mean "person," which is a subjective, wishy-washy, relativist, good-for-nothing term that just means the human fetus hasn't been endowed with rights yet, legal or otherwise.

The answer is the same for each: When the brain waves become (or cease to be) distinguishable from other animals.

and how can you tell the difference at any time?
its just electrical waves. They look the same in humans and animals all the time BECAUSE HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.

and if thats not convincing, what about autistic people?
autism is often described as being mentally very like an animal.

So unborn children should die for the sake of crime rates and poverty? that alone should be a crime.

Its pre-emptive striking. Israel does it, America does it internationally, japan did it in ww2, why can america do it civilly?

If I could choose now, I would have chosen to be aborted.

And now you have the choice to do so. But at least you've been given the choice, right?

What makes conception different than simply extracting skin cells of a person is that the DNA of the embryo isn't that of the mother's or the father's, nor is it a mutation of the original.

That's nice, but it really doens't answer what makes it human. By that arguments a clone would not be human; or one (at least) of a pair of identical twins since it is a direct copy of the original.

A question for the anti-abortion crowd.

If a person is using protection i.e. condom/the pill/the patch etc. and for whatever reason their chosen contraceptive device(s) fail them (broken condom/missed pill etc.) Is it morally acceptable to doom them to a lifetime of caring for an unwanted child? Or would it be okay for the couple to go down to the clinic and get a first term abortion?

Please don’t mind any grammatical errors, as I am very tired atm.

well... the problem i have with this method is that some very deliberate outside influence, with the intent of killing the fetus, is changing the situation to cause the death. Natural is unplanned and not premeditated.
On the contrary, a placenta strips useful nutrients from the mothers body, and replaces them with waste products. To remove such is no different than removing a cancer or any other parasite.

If the foetus cannot survive AFTER that parasitic organism has been removed, that is a natural failure... an unfortunate side-effect of curing the disease that is a placenta.

Yeah, it can be considered murder since murder isn't only a legal definition. I don't know how else to say this. We're not arguing whether abortion is murder yet, only that the legal definition of murder isn't the only or even most important standard.

You are confusing "human" and "person." Human just means belonging to the grouping Homo sapien. Human sperm and human eggs make humans, not monkeys or frogs or plants. There's no scientific dispute WHATSOEVER that what starts growing from conception is human because it can't be anything else. HUMANS CAN ONLY PRODUCE OTHER HUMANS. You mean "person," which is a subjective, wishy-washy, relativist, good-for-nothing term that just means the human fetus hasn't been endowed with rights yet, legal or otherwise.

il·le·gal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lgl)
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

You are wrong.

and how can you tell the difference at any time?
its just electrical waves. They look the same in humans and animals all the time BECAUSE HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.

and if thats not convincing, what about autistic people?
autism is often described as being mentally very like an animal.

With all do respect that is like arguing how can you tell the difference between human and animal DNA because humans are animals. We can tell the difference between autistic people and animals, brain damaged people and animals.

Its pre-emptive striking. Israel does it, America does it internationally, japan did it in ww2, why can america do it civilly?

People doing something doesn't make it right... only legal... you know, like slaves, nazism, stuff like that, ya know?

And now you have the choice to do so. But at least you've been given the choice, right?

I dont have the choice to be aborted. I have the choice of suicide, but thats illegal.

Originally Posted by Orangians
What makes conception different than simply extracting skin cells of a person is that the DNA of the embryo isn't that of the mother's or the father's, nor is it a mutation of the original.

the difference is that you have the consent of the person that the skin sample was taken from. (i should hope, though some researches dont bother with that, which angers me)

Hooray for the dictionary definition morality game!

par·a·site
1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
1. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
2. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Damn fetus'!

People doing something doesn't make it right... only legal... you know, like slaves, nazism, stuff like that, ya know?

Ok, but my point is, pre-emptive strikes are made all the time, and accepted, as long as there are results. Israel doesn't get too much crap for destroying iraqi nuclear plants. America only really gets crap over iraq, because it didnt find wmd. And abortions lower crime rates, fairly consistently. What you want?

I dont have the choice to be aborted. I have the choice of suicide, but thats illegal.

If you commit suicide, what difference does it make rather or not it's illegal? how in the hell are you going to pay the consequences for it? Besides, that's a choice you make for yourself and yourself only... choosing to abort a child is making the choice for the child too.

PS: the term abort just means to end... so it's the same damned concept as suicide... just the term abortion very generally is used to explain when a mother does it to her child.

il·le·gal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lgl)
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

You are wrong.

Oh my god. You still don't get it. Yeah, you quoted a dictionary that says murder is the unlawful killing of another person. I've found about five other dictionary definitions online that also say that murder means killing another person brutally or inhumanely. You're not getting the point. Murder is a concept, not just a legal definition. Murder is a concept that predates law. It predates the Bible. It predates human record. The law doesn't define what's right and wrong and it doesn't define murder. The law ideally follows what's ethical. Ethics don't follow what's legal.

And I notice you didn't respond to my second point.

If you commit suicide, what difference does it make rather or not it's illegal? how in the hell are you going to pay the consequences for it? Besides, that's a choice you make for yourself and yourself only... choosing to abort a child is making the choice for the child too.

PS: the term abort just means to end... so it's the same damned concept as suicide... just the term abortion very generally is used to explain when a mother does it to her child.

Its still illegal. I might fail to do it right.

Though you're right, I don't really care. I'm mostly just to afraid to kill myself.

Also, I don't like using abort for suicide, because its a leap. Abort means stopping a process, and I hate to see life as a process, while birth, or the flight of a missile, is.

Its still illegal. I might fail to do it right.

Though you're right, I don't really care. I'm mostly just to afraid to kill myself.

Also, I don't like using abort for suicide, because its a leap. Abort means stopping a process, and I hate to see life as a process, while birth, or the flight of a missile, is.


ummm... friend, only suicide is illegal... I've yet to find anyone who's gotten in trouble for attempted suicide either. And I know plenty of people who've tried. My father was a nut job... he tried it tons of times...

Also, life is a process as well... moreso than birth... see, you know... you grow and stuff... you learn... get older.. get taller.. stuff like that, ya know?

Oh my god. You still don't get it. Yeah, you quoted a dictionary that says murder is the unlawful killing of another person. I've found about five other dictionary definitions online that also say that murder means killing another person brutally or inhumanely. You're not getting the point. Murder is a concept, not just a legal definition. Murder is a concept that predates law. It predates the Bible. It predates human record. The law doesn't define what's right and wrong and it doesn't define murder. The law ideally follows what's ethical. Ethics don't follow what's legal.

And I notice you didn't respond to my second point.

Then show me the other dictionaries!

Murder is a legal definition. Use wrongful killing, immoral killing, etc for morally wrong killing. Murder is not acceptable.

The law doesn't follow whats ethical, most of the time. It follow what is effective. Only in very few cases is it ethical before efficient. Which is how it should be.

That's nice, but it really doens't answer what makes it human. By that arguments a clone would not be human; or one (at least) of a pair of identical twins since it is a direct copy of the original.

No, because like a fetus, a clone is a separate human life. See, the fetus happens to be a combination of its mother and its father genes, but statistically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, seemingly unrelated humans can have identical DNA. It's just very, very, VERY unlikely. The separate DNA alone isn't what makes an embryo or a fetus human. (Although it should be telling to pro-choicers that the fetus isn't merely an appendage of its mother. The DNA is separate and unique from the mother's DNA.) The fetus in the womb is clearly a separate entity with its own life cycle.

Anyway, it *is* human because it has human DNA. If you are arguing "personhood," that's a completely different concept.

ummm... friend, only suicide is illegal... I've yet to find anyone who's gotten in trouble for attempted suicide either. And I know plenty of people who've tried. My father was a nut job... he tried it tons of times...

Also, life is a process as well... moreso than birth... see, you know... you grow and stuff... you learn... get older.. get taller.. stuff like that, ya know?

Since when is attempting to do something illegal not illegal?

A fetus is clump of underdeveloped cells feeding off the mothers body. It is her choice whether she wants to continue, or "abort" the process of creating a person, because it's her body.

The world is overpopulated, less people = good

Abortion reduces crime and poverty = good

Abortions = good

Law = A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

Me = too tired to form a better argument

Since when is attempting to do something illegal not illegal?

I'm not saying it's not illegal... i'm just saying you won't get in trouble for it. You might, on the otherhand, spend a little bit of time in a looney bin. But you can get out of there in a week if you pretend to be sane.

Then show me the other dictionaries!

Murder is a legal definition. Use wrongful killing, immoral killing, etc for morally wrong killing. Murder is not acceptable.

The law doesn't follow whats ethical, most of the time. It follow what is effective. Only in very few cases is it ethical before efficient. Which is how it should be.

mur·der (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder) (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

That definition can also be found here (http://www.answers.com/murder&r=67).

And here (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/murder).

And here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder).

No, because like a fetus, a clone is a separate human life.


but why aren't those skin cells? They are alive, they are existing seperate from their donor.

The fetus in the womb is clearly a separate entity with its own life cycle.

So are those skin cells, they can live long after their donor is dead or die long before their donor.

A fetus is clump of underdeveloped cells feeding off the mothers body. It is her choice whether she wants to continue, or "abort" the process of creating a person, because it's her body.

The world is overpopulated, less people = good

Abortion reduces crime and poverty = good

Abortions = good

Law = A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

Me = too tired to form a better argument

Unfortunately, the "clump of underdeveloped cells" to which you refer are human and belong to that "clump of underdeveloped cells."

And on a personal note, I get scared when people start making eugenics-style arguments about crime and overpopulation.

Hooray for the dictionary definition morality game!

par·a·site
1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
1. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
2. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Damn fetus'!

Hooray for abuse of the dictionary definition morality game!

par·a·sit·ism
n.

A symbiotic relationship in which one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

sym·bi·ot·ic
adj.

Of, resembling, or relating to symbiosis.

sym·bi·o·sis
n. pl. sym·bi·o·ses

1. Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.
2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.

Damn different-species requirements!

Hooray for the guilt by association game!

Aborted Fetus = Murder = Flock of Crows = Main ingredient in hobo stews across the land

Therefore aborted fetus' must be the main ingredient in hobo stew!

The point?

Abortion and Murder are different things.

but why aren't those skin cells? They are alive, they are existing seperate from their donor.



So are those skin cells, they can live long after their donor is dead or die long before their donor.

1. The skin cells belong to the owner. 2. The skin cells aren't a new person; they are pieces of an already existing person. 3. Skin cells don't have their own life cycle. Skin cells don't evolve into self-sufficient human beings.

1. The skin cells belong to the owner. 2. The skin cells aren't a new person; they are pieces of an already existing person. 3. Skin cells don't have their own life cycle. Skin cells don't evolve into self-sufficient human beings.

1) Once seperate they do not necesarily belong to a the donor
2) They are not pieces of a person once they are seperated any more than identical twins are pieces of each other
3) They have thier own life cycle, they live an die entirely seperate from their donor. They can be self-sufficient, they only need nutrient solution, just like all we need is oxygen and food. (Edit: Many (if not most) fertilized eggs do not evolve into self-sufficient human beings because they are spontaniuosly aborted)

Pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Pro-choice because it's my body, my risks, my responsibility, my authority, my choice. I'm okay with restricting 3rd trimester ELECTIVE abortions because, really, by then you should have your mind made up. But if the mother's life/health are at risk -- as with an injury or previously undiagnosed disease -- then it's not elective and there should be no restrictions. Bottom line on abortion for me: In a free society, you can't force anyone to be used for someone else's benefit against their will, and that includes the fetus using the mother's body.

EDIT: I don't believe most women choose to abort pregnancies unless they think it's necessary. It's never a happy choice, but it's a choice they must be able to make.

Anti-death penalty -- well, all the arguments given in favor of the death penalty in this thread are the very reasons I'm against it. I'm not interested in retribution or revenge or payback. I want justice. Justice isn't about getting even, it's about making society whole again. (Besides, how can I revenge myself on a dead enemy? :p) Bottom line: Two wrongs don't make a right. Aren't we supposed to be better than the criminals?

Bottom line on both issues: I'm more interested in dealing with people who are already in this world than with those who might show up 9 months from now.

Pro-lifers = people who havent had to sit next to a crying baby on an eight hour flight

Pro-lifers = people who havent had to sit next to a crying baby on an eight hour flight
Vicious. :D Delicious. :D

1) Once seperate they do not necesarily belong to a the donor
2) They are not pieces of a person once they are seperated any more than identical twins are pieces of each other
3) They have thier own life cycle, they live an die entirely seperate from their donor. They can be self-sufficient, they only need nutrient solution, just like all we need is oxygen and food. (Edit: Many (if not most) fertilized eggs do not evolve into self-sufficient human beings because they are spontaniuosly aborted)
Skin cells cannot be said to be complete humans. They entirely lack the genetic information required to make a heart, brain, stomach, etc.

I feel that the only moral barrier to the death penalty is execution of an innocent man.
That's mainly why I'm against it.

Doesnt the mere fact that there are people in prisons who willingly commit acts that they know are against the law show that prison is not a completely effective deterent?
Is it not similarly baffling that there is no sign of reduction in the death rows, showing that the death penalty is not a completely effective deterent?

Abortion keeps the crime and poverty rates down. Thats good enough for me.
True, that's another good reason.

That's mainly why I'm against it.My main issues are that the judicial systems that have death penalties tend to make a lot of mistakes and that someone deserving of death doesn't mean someone has the right to give it to them.

I am pro-choice. Since I'm a man, I doubt that I will ever need an abortion. And just as I do not want anyone (or any government) to dictate which medical procedures my physician uses for me, I believe that no one and no government should interfere with the medical treatment of anyone else.

I am pro-death penalty. I believe that some heinous criminals, especially those who damage the life and/or mental health of others, should forfeit their own lives. Certainly most murderers, rapists, slavers, child molesters, drug traffickers (not users), etc. should never receive another chance to hurt others.

I cannot understand the mentality of those who wish to force a woman to give birth and then deny that child a decent diet, a decent home, a decent education, but are ready to vote for more prisons to house him once he tries to 'make it on his own.' If the so-called Christian population would act more humanely toward the poor children in our societies, then they might inspire more confidence in their beliefs.

Is it not similarly baffling that there is no sign of reduction in the death rows, showing that the death penalty is not a completely effective deterent?

There is no completely effective deterent! However, I think that one might say that a murderer, etc. who is executed does not repeat his offense. :)

There is no completely effective deterent! However, I think that one might say that a murderer, etc. who is executed does not repeat his offense. :)

I'm Pro-Life Pro-Death Penalty. Pro-Life because once a person has made a choice - there are certain irreversible consequences associated with it. And just because "skin cells can't be called a complete human" it is a proven fact that those skin cells become a complete human being. And besides - if nothing else, the death penalty is just retro-active abortion. "Whoops, decided I didn't want to have that kid after all."

I don't know how a person can say the death penalty isn't a deterent. Personally, life in a prison that feeds me 3 meals a day, provides a library, cabel television, a warm place to sleep at night - and all at no cost to me, seems like a superior option to homelessness on the street. But getting killed...well, I'll keep my cardboard box. At least I have something to live for.

I don't know how a person can say the death penalty isn't a deterent. Personally, life in a prison that feeds me 3 meals a day, provides a library, cabel television, a warm place to sleep at night - and all at no cost to me, seems like a superior option to homelessness on the street. But getting killed...well, I'll keep my cardboard box. At least I have something to live for.Ever been inside a prison?

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up but you cant be pro-life and believe in the death penalty. you can be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. an example would be president bush. he is not really pro-life because he belives in the death penalty.
i am pro-life. thats all that i really need to say.

I'm pro choice but anti death penalty except for child molestors they should get the death penalty.

But what if the law is wrong? There have been many times in history where that's been the case.
I believe that the US decided the law banning abortion was wrong a couple of decades ago.

Pro-life, anti death penalty.

I support the theory that the life begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that it's wrong to take a human life, unless in self-defense. Hence I'm against abortion, except in medically justified cases.
I'm against death penalty for the same reason (I have participated in a long argument in the death penalty thread).

No other or unsure option?

Yes, there is. Didn't you see it? It is the X at the upper right hand corner of your browser (likely).

Why should the original poster have to water down the results with people who don't know what they believe in? :confused:

I choice pro-life, pro-death penalty.

I know that confuses the crap out of some of you folks, so let me try to put it as simply as I can.

Your unborn child hasn't commited any crime, likely murder. The prisoner who is is going to be executed has commited a capital crime.

Pro-choice and anti-Death penalty.

Pro-Choice: I don't feel like inadvertedly starting/getting involved in a heated argument.

Anti-Death Penalty: Sideshow Bob proved that no one is beyond seeing their own faults.

and how does that help the family of those who've died? they lost a loved one, making someone else lose one won't help them.


I started to lash out at you about how you were assuming you knew best what the family might want, when I realized I'm doing the same thing on the other side. Then it hit me...

In cases where the victim has immediate family there should be options. (This would be fun too!)

The criminal, after conviction, would get a choice. He could take the death penalty as written in that State's laws (electric chair, lethal injection, whatever) OR he could gamble on the family. The family would have the choice to commute the death penalty sentence to a life sentence instead, or... they could choose ANY FORM OF DEATH THEY WANTED.

I would choose Lions. :cool:


all it will do is make the family of the dead person want revenge.


Now I do have to call you out. I THINK you are saying the family of the executed criminal will now want revenge? If I am correct, hear me out. If you did a poor job of communicating, then just ignore this part. ;)

So you are saying that after some criminal kills a family member of mine, I should not demand revenge because if I did, then I'd have to worry about the murderer's family wanting revenge? Do you just walk around with a little white flag in your pocket waiting to wave it at the first sign of controversy?

I'll take my chances.


the meaning of an equal compensation is that the people get something of equivalent value (as far as possible) as compensation. ie, if you lose an eye due to someone, they should give compensation of that value.
if a person who is blind in one eye accidentally causes you to lose one, is it fair that they lose their one good eye to compensate you? no, and it wouldn't really help you.

I'm calling foul here. Accidentally doesn't enter into this equation. Murder, in our country anyway, is premeditated. That and treason are the only ways I know to get the death penalty. No fair creating a false scenario and then arguing within it.

I am Pro-choice.
I am against the Death Penalty.

There is no completely effective deterent! However, I think that one might say that a murderer, etc. who is executed does not repeat his offense. :)
That's a good point, I myself think that murderers shouldn't be able to get out of prison again in order to commit the crime.

I don't know how a person can say the death penalty isn't a deterent. Personally, life in a prison that feeds me 3 meals a day, provides a library, cabel television, a warm place to sleep at night - and all at no cost to me, seems like a superior option to homelessness on the street. But getting killed...well, I'll keep my cardboard box. At least I have something to live for.
Indeed, in theory capital punishment should be a great deterrent. But for some reason in reality it is not.

I'm pro choice but anti death penalty except for child molestors they should get the death penalty.
Can you give any reasonable justification (i.e. based on more than just emotion) as to why child molestors deserve the death penalty, but murderers do not?