NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently read on wiki about what Pope John Paul II wanted to create in the world, he called it a "Culture of Life" in which there is no abortion, no death penalty, and no euthenasia.

You know what? If someone comits a murder or a rape (either women, men, or children) I think that person DESERVES TO DIE!

If I'm dying of an incurable and painful disease I think I have the right to be euthanized if I so desire.

And If I was a woman I would want to have the right abortion if I saw that there was a need (but even since I'm not a chick I STILL believe in the right to choose).

So here is the Counter-Movement that I want to see created (and i consider myself to be regardless).

The Pro-Death Movement

Which Means you are for.

Abortion
Euthanasia
Death Penalty

We could make T-Shirts that say on the front that, I AM PRO-DEATH! and on the back list what the Pro-Death movement is for.

So who agrees with me?

You know what? If someone comits a murder or a rape (either women, men, or children) I think that person DESERVES TO DIE!

I agree. However, given the amount of people convicted of murder, and then later found innocent, I think that the death penalty is too difficult to apply in practice. So no.

Abortion: Yes. Not alive until born.
Euthanasia: Yes. My choice.
Death Penalty: No. Not your choice, not an effective way of preventing crime, and it cannot properly be reasoned for. It's state-sponsored revenge.

You're obviously not serious about this, because it is obvious that you cannot simplify these issues down to a question about "life vs death". No one could be that simplistic (well, except maybe the Pope...)

I agree. However, given the amount of people convicted of murder, and then later found innocent, I think that the death penalty is too difficult to apply in practice. So no.
I agree too, and this is indeed a valid point to make. You can release an innocent person from incarceration, yet you cannot bring them back to life. The death penalty has its merits, but its uncertainty that weakens it.

I agree. However, given the amount of people convicted of murder, and then later found innocent, I think that the death penalty is too difficult to apply in practice. So no.

The actual number of people who were innocent and executed is VERY low (like about 1 out of 500 cases or something like that) from what I have read on the subject. Most people who are on death row who are innocent get exonerated LONG before they are up for execution.

But (unlike PETA) I'm not going to throw blood at you because I disagree with you. I repsect your opinion.

SIGN ME UP!!! Only, I believe in rape and danger abortion cases. otherwise it's personal responsibility, but that's in another thread.

SIGN ME UP!!! Only, I believe in rape and danger abortion cases. otherwise it's personal responsibility, but that's in another thread.

Hooray! A supporter, I give you kisses :fluffle:

Who else will join us to create a Grand and Glorious Culture of Death?

The actual number of people who were innocent and executed is VERY low (like about 1 out of 500 cases or something like that) from what I have read on the subject. Most people who are on death row who are innocent get exonerated LONG before they are up for execution.

People don't usually work to clear the names of dead men. Considering the large amount of people exonerated, I don't believe it's unreasonable to say that numbers much higher than 1 in 500 have gone to a wrongful death.
Even if not, 1 in 500 is still too high.

I repsect your opinion.

You're obiviously not suited for NS general;)

You're obiviously not suited for NS general;)

LOL!:)

If someone callously takes the life of another, they forfrit their own. If you want to take your own life, it is yours to take. If a Woman can't keep her legs closed (which is her CHOICE) then she shouldn't be able to murder the baby because she's too lazy to take care of it.

Sex isn't an excuse for murder.

Sex isn't an excuse for murder.

You mean sex isn't an excuse for killing. You Pro-death penalty guys are usually the first to point out that if the state allows it, it isn't murder.

You know what? If someone comits a murder or a rape (either women, men, or children) I think that person DESERVES TO DIE!

i think they deserve to rot in prison the rest of thier lives...

You mean sex isn't an excuse for killing. You Pro-death penalty guys are usually the first to point out that if the state allows it, it isn't murder.
No, I point out that if it's a savage animal that has executed someone by shooting them in the back while they beg for mercy, for no other reason the to do it, then the death penalty isn't murder.

If it's a defenseless little baby, it's murder, and the people doing it are scum.

Get the difference? Murderous scum DOES NOT = little defenseless baby.

Sex isn't an excuse for MURDER.

<snip>

You missed the point of my post. I said "murder is a legal term, and does not apply where a killing is legal." Nothing about the state of who it is applied to.

i think they deserve to rot in prison the rest of thier lives...
Yet we pay for this via taxation.

If someone callously takes the life of another, they forfrit their own. If you want to take your own life, it is yours to take. If a Woman can't keep her legs closed (which is her CHOICE) then she shouldn't be able to murder the baby because she's too lazy to take care of it.

Sex isn't an excuse for murder.

if she doesnt want to have a baby, why cant she decide to abort?

Yet we pay for this via taxation.

doesnt it cost more money putting criminals on death row than keeping them in prison for life?

Yet we pay for this via taxation.

You'd pay as much in appeals.

doesnt it cost more money putting criminals on death row than keeping them in prison for life?
The Chinese had the policy of charging the criminal's relatives for the bullet used in an execution :p

Get the difference? Murderous scum DOES NOT = little defenseless baby.
Baby:
http://livingbeing.com/images/walkergirl1.jpg

Not Baby:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/images/manipulate_fetus_l.jpg

As just being born is an automatic death sentence, I suppose I am pro death too. It would suck if we were all immortal. Can you imagine Eutrusca's 10,000,000,000th post? :D

if she doesnt want to have a baby, why cant she decide to abort?
If I don't like my wife anymore, why can't I blow her head off? Alimony can be SO hard, ya know! I don't know if I'm ready! :rolleyes:

When you create a society of pro-death'ers, count me in.

The Chinese had the policy of charging the criminal's relatives for the bullet used in an execution :p

lol, well thats one way of doing it :p

Baby:
http://livingbeing.com/images/walkergirl1.jpg

Not Baby:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/images/manipulate_fetus_l.jpg
Yeah, good point. One looks all funny! LET'S KILL IT! :rolleyes:


Don't care how you phrase it, it's murder by a lazy thoughtless irresponsible bitch with no morals.

The Chinese had the policy of charging the criminal's relatives for the bullet used in an execution :p

Unfair, In my opinion. I've an idiot cousin. If she fucks up, why should I have to pay for her?

Also, we cannot reduce the costs of appeals without worsening the occurances of miscarraiges of justice.

As just being born is an automatic death sentence, I suppose I am pro death too. It would suck if we were all immortal. Can you imagine Eutrusca's 10,000,000,000th post? :D

i thought eutrusca was immortal? :p

IF that woman was raped, should she have to have the reminder of that experience all of her life? People don't usually use abortion for birth control. There are a lot cheaper ways to do that. Abortion is usually used in matters of rape or if the mother is not ready to have a baby. If the baby is going to end up being neglected and abused while growing up, maybe its better that it was never born at all.

If murder is wrong and illegal, why is the state able to do it?

Yeah, good point. One looks all funny! LET'S KILL IT! :rolleyes:

Don't care how you phrase it, it's murder by a lazy thoughtless irresponsible bitch with no morals.

Half right.

Half right.
UUHHHHHH............. *cringes* Which half?

i thought eutrusca was immortal? :p

Only in spirit! ;)

Don't care how you phrase it, it's murder by a lazy thoughtless irresponsible bitch with no morals.

Good thing the United States and the several States and the US territories ALL disagree with you on the definition of murder.

If you want to live in a place where privacy is not sacrosanct and people do not have freedom to choose with their bodies, I suggest very strongly you move to Saudi Arabia. You'd like it there. They agree with you.

Don't care how you phrase it, it's murder by a lazy thoughtless irresponsible bitch with no morals.
Murder is a legal term. Since abortion is not illegal, it is not murder.

As far as your morals go...well, let's just say I couldn't give a flying fuck.

The baby is the only person who could possibly care whether it lives or it doesn't. And since it doesn't exist yet, there is no decision to be made.

It's simply none of your business. And none of the State's business either.

UUHHHHHH............. *cringes* Which half?

It should be:

"it's killing by a lazy thoughtless irresponsible bitch with no morals"

Sorry to continually bug you with this, but any time I used "Murder" to describe execution, I got shouted down by all sides. So we should apply it evenly.

Edit: See? Two people have already attacked you for it.

According to a lawyer talking on Fox last night, there have been 123 people executed that were later found to be innocent. But as to the fact of the death penalty being a deterent, how many criminals that have been executed later committed their crimes again? I think its quite effective.

According to a lawyer talking on Fox last night, there have been 123 people executed that were later found to be innocent. But as to the fact of the death penalty being a deterent, how many criminals that have been executed later committed their crimes again? I think its quite effective.

Was that sarcasm? I can't tell anymore.

If someone callously takes the life of another, they forfrit their own. If you want to take your own life, it is yours to take. If a Woman can't keep her legs closed (which is her CHOICE) then she shouldn't be able to murder the baby because she's too lazy to take care of it.

Sex isn't an excuse for murder.

Yeah but what if that baby had a diease that could painfully kill them later on in life. Would't it be better terminate the baby before he/she can fell anything? And what about rape victim? Having to look in the face of someone who raped you everyday. Having to take care of a baby that is the son/daughter of the person who raped you? Or how about a person with no money or anything to take care of that baby? Bring a baby into a world where they won't be cared for or may have a horrible life shouldn't be allow either.

I recently read on wiki about what Pope John Paul II wanted to create in the world, he called it a "Culture of Life" in which there is no abortion, no death penalty, and no euthenasia.

You know what? If someone comits a murder or a rape (either women, men, or children) I think that person DESERVES TO DIE!

If I'm dying of an incurable and painful disease I think I have the right to be euthanized if I so desire.

And If I was a woman I would want to have the right abortion if I saw that there was a need (but even since I'm not a chick I STILL believe in the right to choose).

So who agrees with me?

I would have to say that the reason he thought and wanted that type of world was because as the Pope, he believed that only god has the right to decide who lives and dies. While I do not agree with his belief, it certainly is a sensible one consdiering who he was. Euthenasia, the murder penalty, and abortion all have the common thread of taking someone's life whether they be innocent, guilty, wanting it, or "unborn" yet... he believed that only God should have the right to make the choice.

how many criminals that have been executed later committed their crimes again?

At least 4:

Ted Bundy, Richard Cartwright, David F. Dawson, and Billy Ray Fox all came back as zombies. You fill in the rest.

But as to the fact of the death penalty being a deterent, how many criminals that have been executed later committed their crimes again? I think its quite effective.
Well, no. A Deterrent would be something that prevents them from committing the crime in the first place - it obviously doesn't.
Crime Stats are not significantly lower in the US than in countries without the death penalty (more the other way around).

Sex isn't an excuse for MURDER.

Then you're not having sex with the right people.

At least 4:

Ted Bundy, Richard Cartwright, David F. Dawson, and Billy Ray Fox all came back as zombies. You fill in the rest.
Well, sense zombies are not actually the same person, just the flesh of a person being embodied by the devil, then the zombies you speak of have never actually been criminals. Its science.

Well, sense zombies are not actually the same person, just the flesh of a person being embodied by the devil, then the zombies you speak of have never actually been criminals. Its science.

Oh sure ... bring science and logic into the zombie Ted Bundy.

Damn you! Damn you to Hell! :p

Well, no. A Deterrent would be something that prevents them from committing the crime in the first place - it obviously doesn't.
Crime Stats are not significantly lower in the US than in countries without the death penalty (more the other way around).
It is obviously hard to tell if something serves as a deterrent or not. It is difficult to take a survey of how many people would have killed someone if it wasn't for the death penalty, but anyway. The US overall has a lower crime rate then most European countries. But the US also has a slighty higher murder rate.

But the US also has a slighty higher murder rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
You'll notice that there is absolutely no correlation between the harshness of the criminal system and the number of murders committed.
And I believe murder-related crimes are the only ones that attract death sentences in the US, correct?

It is obviously hard to tell if something serves as a deterrent or not. It is difficult to take a survey of how many people would have killed someone if it wasn't for the death penalty, but anyway. The US overall has a lower crime rate then most European countries. But the US also has a slighty higher murder rate.

The US has a higher crime rate too. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri)

As for deterrence, Murders will either be pre-planned or in the heat of the moment. The ones committed in the heat of the moments will happen anyway because the perpetrators aren't really considering anything when they commit the crime. And the ones that are preplanned expect to get away with it, so it's no deterrence anyway.

Besides, where are all the tough guys that say: "I could spend my life in prison standing on my head, but no way will I even consider death

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
You'll notice that there is absolutely no correlation between the harshness of the criminal system and the number of murders committed.
And I believe murder-related crimes are the only ones that attract death sentences in the US, correct?
Murder and High Treason, although i dont think the treason one has ever been used, but i could be wrong

The US has a higher crime rate too. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri)

As for deterrence, Murders will either be pre-planned or in the heat of the moment. The ones committed in the heat of the moments will happen anyway because the perpetrators aren't really considering anything when they commit the crime. And the ones that are preplanned expect to get away with it, so it's no deterrence anyway.

Besides, where are all the tough guys that say: "I could spend my life in prison standing on my head, but no way will I even consider death

Well, first of all flip over to the per capita, that is why i said rate. Even the source you found points out that Great Britain, Finland, Denmark, and a couple other countries are ahead of the U.S.

Well, first of all flip over to the per capita, that is why i said rate. Even the source you found points out that Great Britain, Finland, Denmark, and a couple other countries are ahead of the U.S.

My mistake. However, that's only 3 out of 25.

The Pro-Death Movement

Which Means you are for.

Abortion
Euthanasia
Death Penalty

We could make T-Shirts that say on the front that, I AM PRO-DEATH! and on the back list what the Pro-Death movement is for.

So who agrees with me?
I respect you for being consistent. Most abortion supporters piss me off since they are against the death penalty. So they are for killing innocent babies, but not murderers.

Okay, so we established that the "abortion is murder" argument has no leg to stand on, and that the "death penalty is a good idea" concept is also pretty silly.

Which leaves us with Euthanasia.

Anyone wanna argue that Euthanasia is a bad idea?....I'd be surprised.

Okay, so we established that the "abortion is murder" argument has no leg to stand on, and that the "death penalty is a good idea" concept is also pretty silly.

Which leaves us with Euthanasia.

Anyone wanna argue that Euthanasia is a bad idea?....I'd be surprised.
Depends on if you mean pulling the plug.

Anyone wanna argue that Euthanasia is a bad idea?

Nope! If someone has the brain capacity of cabbage for at least 6 months, I feel Euthanasia should be mandatory.

Depends on if you mean pulling the plug.
Either way.

That reminds me of that case in Germany a few months back where this guy put an ad up on the internet because he wanted to eat someone (he is a Cannibal), a suicidal person agreed, visited him, got killed, chopped up and eaten.

And now they threw the Cannibal in jail I believe, even though it was consensual.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,714339,00.html

Either way.

That reminds me of that case in Germany a few months back where this guy put an ad up on the internet because he wanted to eat someone (he is a Cannibal), a suicidal person agreed, visited him, got killed, chopped up and eaten.

And now they threw the Cannibal in jail I believe, even though it was consensual.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,714339,00.html
What is your opinion on it? :p

What is your opinion on it? :p
Let him go, but monitor him. Obviously being a cannibal is a bit of a mental issue...but if he's reasonable enough to ask for consent, and people actually agree, then he's not a threat.

Let him go, but monitor him. Obviously being a cannibal is a bit of a mental issue...but if he's reasonable enough to ask for consent, and people actually agree, then he's not a threat.
Weird world we live in :confused: Why would anyone want to be eaten?

I respect you for being consistent. Most abortion supporters piss me off since they are against the death penalty. So they are for killing innocent babies, but not murderers.
They're not babies. And often, the wrong person is convicted for murder. Furthermore, how does an eye for an eye work for justice, really?

I respect you for being consistent. Most abortion supporters piss me off since they are against the death penalty. So they are for killing innocent babies, but not murderers.


Does abortion harm the embryo ? No - the embryo is incapable of being harmed. It has no feelings, no thoughts or dreams to take away, no heart to stop, hell - not even a chest for this heart to beat in. As far as itself is concerned at that moment, there is no difference between it never having been conceived and being aborted. The only people who would know the difference are the ones already born - mother first.
Which means it is her choice.

Does euthanasia harm the dying person ? If this person genuinely wants to die: no, on the contrary. And that is of course the whole difference between euthanasia and murder.

Does the death penalty hurt the dying person ? Yes.
So here it depends if you consider his/her wishes worthy of attention.

But as you see - the reasoning can be consistent.

It should be:

"it's killing by a lazy thoughtless irresponsible bitch with no morals"

Sorry to continually bug you with this, but any time I used "Murder" to describe execution, I got shouted down by all sides. So we should apply it evenly.

Edit: See? Two people have already attacked you for it.

Actually its more like its killed by a doctor in a hospital for varying reasons. The bitch with no morals part is a generalization, harsh, and an opinion. So I'd say it was 1/3 right.

No to death penalty, yes to personal choice, i.e. abortion. I have different opinions when it comes to different types of euthanasia.

What is this? Viva la muerte!?

Abortion: Yes. Not alive until born.
Euthanasia: Yes. My choice.
Death Penalty: No. Not your choice, not an effective way of preventing crime, and it cannot properly be reasoned for. It's state-sponsored revenge.

You're obviously not serious about this, because it is obvious that you cannot simplify these issues down to a question about "life vs death". No one could be that simplistic (well, except maybe the Pope...)

Scary. I agree pretty much excatly with this person.
But I wouldn't exactly call it 'pro-death'.
I think people have the right to choose, (it is their life, if they feel they are suffering, let them end it, & I don't think that women should be forced to carry a child if they do not want to) & I don't think that people should be given capital punishment.
Let them rot. They need to do their time, the same as everyone else.

The actual number of people who were innocent and executed is VERY low (like about 1 out of 500 cases or something like that) from what I have read on the subject. Most people who are on death row who are innocent get exonerated LONG before they are up for execution

If you are that confident, then by all means have the death penalty but pay $1 Trillion in compensation to the family of anyone murdered by the state (which is after all what wrongful execution is)

I recently read on wiki about what Pope John Paul II wanted to create in the world, he called it a "Culture of Life" in which there is no abortion, no death penalty, and no euthenasia.

You know what? If someone comits a murder or a rape (either women, men, or children) I think that person DESERVES TO DIE!

If I'm dying of an incurable and painful disease I think I have the right to be euthanized if I so desire.

And If I was a woman I would want to have the right abortion if I saw that there was a need (but even since I'm not a chick I STILL believe in the right to choose).

So here is the Counter-Movement that I want to see created (and i consider myself to be regardless).

The Pro-Death Movement

Which Means you are for.

Abortion
Euthanasia
Death Penalty

We could make T-Shirts that say on the front that, I AM PRO-DEATH! and on the back list what the Pro-Death movement is for.

So who agrees with me?

Hopefully no one you sick bastard.

Hopefully no one you sick bastard.
You shouldn't have said that. It's too... friendly :p !

Hooray! A supporter, I give you kisses :fluffle:

Who else will join us to create a Grand and Glorious Culture of Death? Nope. Death Cult or nothing.:p

EDIT: The most deathly regimes have been anti-choice. Stalin banned abortion because he wanted lots of little Red butchers.

According to a lawyer talking on Fox last night, there have been 123 people executed that were later found to be innocent. But as to the fact of the death penalty being a deterent, how many criminals that have been executed later committed their crimes again? I think its quite effective.

And since 1976, 1001 people have been executed - that means that if the lawyer you mentioned are correct, then 12,3% of the time an innocent person has been executed.

(And the number of people wrongfully sentenced to death are even higher, since many have been found to be innocent before their executions)

Murder and High Treason, although i dont think the treason one has ever been used, but i could be wrong

The Rosenbergs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Rosenberg) were executed for spying. That equals treason, doesn't it?

I respect you for being consistent. Most abortion supporters piss me off since they are against the death penalty. So they are for killing innocent babies, but not murderers.

Where to begin...?

1. Embryos and fetuses are not babies. Regardless of your opinions on abortion, your terminology is entirely wrong. Furthermore, it really disturbs me when people equate a bundle of cells with no senses, no awareness, and no capability of functioning independently with an actual living baby. Again, even if you think abortion is wrong, I have great difficulty understanding how you can see it as being as wrong as killing an actual baby.

2. Being pro-choice and anti-death penalty seem to me to be entirely consistent, although by different standards of consistency than yours. Banning abortion has approximately zero chance of stopping all abortions, but it would succeed in making a large proportion of the abortions that continued to occur very much more dangerous. Valuing a live woman's life over that of a fetus seems like a reasonable idea to me. Valuing a prisoner's life over some desire for vengeance seems so reasonable as to be almost a no-brainer.

3. Being pro-choice does not necessitate being pro-abortion; in fact, I don't really know many people who would consider themselves to be particularly pro-abortion. I entirely support a woman's legal right to an abortion; I do not personally believe that I would ever have one, except possibly if I became pregnant as a result of rape or if my health was directly imperilled by the pregnancy. Many, many people don't really like the idea of getting an abortion, but believe that it is in no way their right to impose their personal morality on another, especially when doing so is likely to profoundly harm the quality of life, the safety, and the emotional and physical health of the women involved.

4. I think holding the opposite viewpoints of those you mentioned tends to be very much more contradictory. If human life is so incredibly valuable that it is immoral to terminate the lives of beings that are, at most, potential people, how on earth can it not be valuable enough to allow beings who are unambiguously people to live? (Further, as has already been pointed out, it is not at all unknown for people who have been sentenced to death to turn out to be innocent. How can one justify killing those people? "Oops" hardly seems to be an acceptable excuse.)

5. To finish off the idea that being pro-choice and anti-death penalty are consistent, basically, I support the idea that everyone fundamentally has the right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body. Hence, euthanasia (and even plain old non-medical suicide, for that matter) seems to me to be perfectly acceptable. At least during the early stages of pregnancy, an embryo or fetus is simply a part of a woman's body that happens to be able to become a person if the circumstances are right for it. The same could pretty much be said of the average ovum, really, and no one can sensibly argue that it requires our protection. And even the most despicable of murderers still retains the right to his or her own body, even if he has forfeited many of his other rights.

I recently read on wiki about what Pope John Paul II wanted to create in the world, he called it a "Culture of Life" in which there is no abortion, no death penalty, and no euthenasia.

You know what? If someone comits a murder or a rape (either women, men, or children) I think that person DESERVES TO DIE!
Why do people always talk about rape in discussions of the death penalty? Nobody has been executed for rape in a western country for many decades.

Unsurprisingly JP2 was very much an idealist. If there was no crime, no unwanted pregnancy, no unbearably painful death and no international disputes or evil dictators - then there would be no need for capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia or war.

I'm mostly against the death penalty (it's not usually needed, the EU does fine without it) but it's quite justifiable when dealing with a criminal so dangerous and skilful that there is a high likelihood of further murders.

If someone callously takes the life of another, they forfrit their own. If you want to take your own life, it is yours to take. If a Woman can't keep her legs closed (which is her CHOICE) then she shouldn't be able to murder the baby because she's too lazy to take care of it.

Sex isn't an excuse for murder.
It's thinking like this that has given us welfare mothers!

Seriously, can't conservatives ever argue about abortion without being alarmist?

Face reality! We wouldn't want to live in a world where abortion is illegal. Criminals everywhere (probably), the budget's collapsing due to all the welfare mothers and the more desparate ones are going the way of the coat hanger.

Save me the humanity also. Look at our world. Human life is cheap. We kill it all the time for the greater good, that is more important than any single life.

It's thinking like this that has given us welfare mothers! Taxpayer money > human life?

Taxpayer money > human life?
Yes. Most of these women would better serve society if they were out working or if they are raising children, to be supported by someone else.