|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 9:09 pm
I can see why some people would draw a moral distinction between the death penalty and abortion, however, I most emphatically do not. It'll be a cold day in hell before I give my government the permission to kill me. People on death row are exonerated all the time--you never know if you'll be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be executed for a crime you didn't commit. I would much, much rather deal with unjustly spending my life in jail than being killed.
A favorite quote of mine, possibly mangled a bit:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be so eager to deal out death and judgement."
--Gandalf, if you hadn't guessed, in the Fellowship of the Ring.
As the fiancee of someone who most definitely deserved at least 75 more years of life, I wouldn't want to give anyone the power to kill anyone for any reason.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 5:43 am
Ne, I'm posting, how rare.
The death penalty and abortion are two different things or the same thing, it deapends on your point of veu.
I don't thing anyone realy deaserves to die, not born or 50 years old, it dosen't matter, even if this person has killed someone. It's not like there death will bring anyone back to life. It's pointless. The death penalty acheaves nothing but more death.
And don't any of you dare bucher me on my spelling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:08 pm
lymelady And in states with the death penalty, murder rates are lower than those without. It works as prevention. They can't ever kill anyone again, they're dead. It works with detterance. I will never murder anyone only because of the fact I might die, not because I have moral qualms about it. Some people I feel I could kill without turning a hair. so it's at least kept one guy alive. As I've said, though, retribution and reform make no sense for me, but prevention and deterrance are enough to convince me. I am a person who values safety. Well....freedom over safety, but the two go hand in hand more often than not. I want to keep innocent people safe. It makes perfect sense for me to be both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, my only complaint is that both abortion and the death penalty are widely overused and not even safely. My stance on abortion being used and the death penalty being used are exactly the same. If the person poses a life-threatening situation, and I mean undeniably. No doubt about it. Hands down, no possible way to be mistaken. It should be an option to protect people.
To quote myself for the rest of it:Quote: Prevention - It'll never happen again! (Well... they're both dead. So it won't.)
Deterrence - Scroll to the bottom there are better and much more effective ways to deter crime. In fact if I really don't count 1% as doing anything really.
So really the only one that had any weight was deterrence, and that's a big 1% weight. Not to mention that in Canada the amount of murders per-capita (sp?) is significantly lower than in America and we have no death penalty. In fact if someone flees to Canada after commiting a crime, we won't send them back to the country if their punishment will be death. I'm not seeing deterrence working so well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 2:37 pm
toxic_lollipop lymelady And in states with the death penalty, murder rates are lower than those without. It works as prevention. They can't ever kill anyone again, they're dead. It works with detterance. I will never murder anyone only because of the fact I might die, not because I have moral qualms about it. Some people I feel I could kill without turning a hair. so it's at least kept one guy alive. As I've said, though, retribution and reform make no sense for me, but prevention and deterrance are enough to convince me. I am a person who values safety. Well....freedom over safety, but the two go hand in hand more often than not. I want to keep innocent people safe. It makes perfect sense for me to be both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, my only complaint is that both abortion and the death penalty are widely overused and not even safely. My stance on abortion being used and the death penalty being used are exactly the same. If the person poses a life-threatening situation, and I mean undeniably. No doubt about it. Hands down, no possible way to be mistaken. It should be an option to protect people.
To quote myself for the rest of it:Quote: Prevention - It'll never happen again! (Well... they're both dead. So it won't.)
Deterrence - Scroll to the bottom there are better and much more effective ways to deter crime. In fact if I really don't count 1% as doing anything really.
So really the only one that had any weight was deterrence, and that's a big 1% weight. Not to mention that in Canada the amount of murders per-capita (sp?) is significantly lower than in America and we have no death penalty. In fact if someone flees to Canada after commiting a crime, we won't send them back to the country if their punishment will be death. I'm not seeing deterrence working so well. I responded to that. But I'll quote myself because I'm so awesome! Quote: in states with the death penalty, murder rates are lower than those without. deterrance obviously works at least somewhat. Either that or there's something in the water. Prevention works as well. You can't kill someone if you're dead. That leaves retribution and reform. Obviously, you can't reform someone who's dead. And I don't think death is good retribution, unless it happens to be slow and painful, but even that isn't satisfying. No, I personally find it more retribution to make them live with it for a long, long, LONG time in an uncomfy situation. My argument is not that the system is working right now, because I don't think it is. It's got a lot of flaws. My argument is that it is not hypocritical for me to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. If I was against abortion in the case of the mother's life, it would be. As I believe both should only be used in rare cases in order to keep as many people as possible safe, it isn't hypocritical. It's exactly in line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 7:30 pm
There are a few reasons why I think that the death penalty and anti-abortion can cohabitate. Here they are:
First, the fetus has not had the opportunity to commit a crime. What is defined as a crime is decided through the legal system, not by our individual morality. The fetus has no committed no crime by existing.
Second, destroying the fetus is not retribution against the rapist (which someone might argue, stupidly). The fact is, what would be more effective retribution is having the child and making the father pay through the nose VIA child support. Though a raped woman can hardly be expected to make the most mentally sound choice, understandably.
Third, some people really do deserve death. The death penalty exists for a few reasons, probably in the following order:
1) Revenge. This is a very real and very human goal, and there is no reason this shouldn't be acted on if the punishment fits the crime.
2) Closure. Seeing the b*****d who did it dying is a good sense of closure; knowing that any pleasure they might have in life is now out of the question.
3) Prevention. Few people want to die, so committing capital crimes is probably a bad idea on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 11:34 am
CRAP! I forgot about my own thread. eek I'll flog myself later and answer soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 5:51 pm
This is a topic that I am very torn about.
Right now...the way I think right now...I don't really go for the "eye for an eye" philosophy in general. Because then the world would be blind right? So most of the time I claim to be against the death penalty and more in favor of being locked away for life with no chance for parole.
However I know full well this this way of thinking is all happy sunshine and daises thinking. Would this belief hold if someone I love is raped and murdered? God forbid I ever find out. I know full well that depending on the person there is a possibility that I could suddenly have a change of heart and want an "eye".
I've also thought about this as far as abortion goes. If I were raped and became pregnent would I REALLY stay true to my pro-life beliefs. God forbid I ever find out. But after a LOT of thinking about this, I think givin the circumstances, it would be easier to refuse the abortion then refuse the "eye".
Though I would most likely regret taking the "eye" a few years down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 11:05 pm
Pro-choicers make a triple distinction among a human life, a human being and a human person. Each cell in our bodies has human life, and a single cell kept alive in a laboratory could be called "a human life" but certainly not "a human being" or "a human person." "A human being" is a biologically whole individual of the species. Even a human being born with no brain is a human being, not an ape; but it is not a person because it has no brain and cannot do anything distinctively human: think, know, choose, love, feel, desire, commit, relate, aspire, know itself, know God, know its past, know its future, know its environment, or communicate - all of which have, in various combinations, been offered as the marks of a person. The pro-life position seems to confuse the sanctity of the person with the sanctity of life, which is two steps removed from it.
No one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 12:17 am
Ok, so I've re-written this three times, because of internet troubles, or my own stupidity. evil I really need to stop writing posts in the early morning. T33NAG3 D!RTBAG Pro-choicers make a triple distinction among a human life, a human being and a human person. Each cell in our bodies has human life, and a single cell kept alive in a laboratory could be called "a human life" but certainly not "a human being" or "a human person." "A human being" is a biologically whole individual of the species. Even a human being born with no brain is a human being, not an ape; but it is not a person because it has no brain and cannot do anything distinctively human: think, know, choose, love, feel, desire, commit, relate, aspire, know itself, know God, know its past, know its future, know its environment, or communicate - all of which have, in various combinations, been offered as the marks of a person. The pro-life position seems to confuse the sanctity of the person with the sanctity of life, which is two steps removed from it. You aren't really clear about what you are saying in connection with the death-penalty stuff, but I think I get it. From what I can tell, you see this as the death penalty only violates the sanctity of life idea, whereas abortion violates the santity of personhood. This confuses me a little bit, as the criminal getting the death penalty is a person too. Which is why it confuses people when we are Pro-Death Penalty but Anti-Abortion. Now, if you were defending a meat-eater and Pro-Life, your argument would fly fine, I think. Quote: No one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it. biggrin On the other hand, the personhood of a fetus has never been proven with any certainty either. That's the difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life; We believe that the fetus is a person because of the evidence, or personal feeling, or just to err on the side of caution. Meanwhile, they, (for the most part sweatdrop ) believe the fetus -isn't- a person because of the evidence, or personal feeling, or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 6:46 am
lymelady I responded to that. But I'll quote myself because I'm so awesome! Quote: in states with the death penalty, murder rates are lower than those without. deterrance obviously works at least somewhat. Either that or there's something in the water. Prevention works as well. You can't kill someone if you're dead. That leaves retribution and reform. Obviously, you can't reform someone who's dead. And I don't think death is good retribution, unless it happens to be slow and painful, but even that isn't satisfying. No, I personally find it more retribution to make them live with it for a long, long, LONG time in an uncomfy situation. My argument is not that the system is working right now, because I don't think it is. It's got a lot of flaws. My argument is that it is not hypocritical for me to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. If I was against abortion in the case of the mother's life, it would be. As I believe both should only be used in rare cases in order to keep as many people as possible safe, it isn't hypocritical. It's exactly in line.
Prevention works for pregnancy as well, it prevents her from being pregnant.
And the other two work as well but as you don't think they're a viable reason for the death penalty than I don't see a point in bringing them up further. The system definately isn't working on either end, however I think they should deal out harsher sentances (life in prison means LIFE not 25 years etc.) and not resort to killing people.
There's always going to be a time when someone's actions look as though they warrent their death however where do we have the right to judge them? The people who shoot abortion doctors do so because they feel it's justified it not only prevents the abortionist from killing anymore fetuses but it also deters other abortionists from doing the same. Some could argue it was in defense of the fetus, does this make what they did right? Just as choicers argue that having an abortion was in defense of their bodily integrity, does this make what the woman does right? You argue that it's in defense (to keep people safe) starting to see where I'm going?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 7:02 am
Protagonist There are a few reasons why I think that the death penalty and anti-abortion can cohabitate. Here they are: First, the fetus has not had the opportunity to commit a crime. What is defined as a crime is decided through the legal system, not by our individual morality. The fetus has no committed no crime by existing.
See where this keeps going?Quote: Second, destroying the fetus is not retribution against the rapist (which someone might argue, stupidly). The fact is, what would be more effective retribution is having the child and making the father pay through the nose VIA child support. Though a raped woman can hardly be expected to make the most mentally sound choice, understandably. Quote: Third, some people really do deserve death. The death penalty exists for a few reasons, probably in the following order: 1) Revenge. This is a very real and very human goal, and there is no reason this shouldn't be acted on if the punishment fits the crime. 2) Closure. Seeing the b*****d who did it dying is a good sense of closure; knowing that any pleasure they might have in life is now out of the question. 3) Prevention. Few people want to die, so committing capital crimes is probably a bad idea on this subject.
As for the third on that's actually deterrance that you're thinking of, prevention is "they can never do it again". It works for both the fetus and a person who's commited a capital crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 12:05 pm
toxic_lollipop lymelady I responded to that. But I'll quote myself because I'm so awesome! Quote: in states with the death penalty, murder rates are lower than those without. deterrance obviously works at least somewhat. Either that or there's something in the water. Prevention works as well. You can't kill someone if you're dead. That leaves retribution and reform. Obviously, you can't reform someone who's dead. And I don't think death is good retribution, unless it happens to be slow and painful, but even that isn't satisfying. No, I personally find it more retribution to make them live with it for a long, long, LONG time in an uncomfy situation. My argument is not that the system is working right now, because I don't think it is. It's got a lot of flaws. My argument is that it is not hypocritical for me to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. If I was against abortion in the case of the mother's life, it would be. As I believe both should only be used in rare cases in order to keep as many people as possible safe, it isn't hypocritical. It's exactly in line.
Prevention works for pregnancy as well, it prevents her from being pregnant.
And the other two work as well but as you don't think they're a viable reason for the death penalty than I don't see a point in bringing them up further. The system definately isn't working on either end, however I think they should deal out harsher sentances (life in prison means LIFE not 25 years etc.) and not resort to killing people.
There's always going to be a time when someone's actions look as though they warrent their death however where do we have the right to judge them? The people who shoot abortion doctors do so because they feel it's justified it not only prevents the abortionist from killing anymore fetuses but it also deters other abortionists from doing the same. Some could argue it was in defense of the fetus, does this make what they did right? Just as choicers argue that having an abortion was in defense of their bodily integrity, does this make what the woman does right? You argue that it's in defense (to keep people safe) starting to see where I'm going?This can also be accounted for in cultural differences. If the only difference between America and Canada was the death penalty laws, I'd be inclined to agree, however, there are several things that can factor in. In America, only certain states have capitol punishment, and murder rates in these states are sometimes lower than those without it. These results side by side seem to conflict. The death penalty has been a deterrance in at least one case I know of. Me. I'm not risking my life to kill though. I'd go to prison for life, but not die. If they're worth killing, they aren't worth dying for. Abortion being used to prevent being pregnant would be like me saying I was for the death penalty in any case....steal a loaf of bread, you can be killed and thus you will be prevented from stealing again. Breadowners everywhere are safe! I am for abortion and death penalty in the same case. To prevent the loss of another life. If the only way to do that is abortion, I am for the woman being able to choose....if the only way is the death penalty, I am for the society being able to choose. I am not for abotion in order to prevent pregnancy. I am not for the death penalty in order to prevent any crime whatsoever. Only in the case of preventing the murder of another human. Those are two reasons I maintain as viable reasons to support the death penalty. Prevention and deterrance. Deterrance can't work with abortion. "Now if you put your mother's life in danger, you'll be aborted!" Prevention can, though. Another point is that the fetus's only crime is existing. It is being punished for being alive. A murderer's crime was freely chosen and knowingly comitted. Retribution and reform are not my motives for supporting the death penalty. If they were, I'd say that a murderer deserves it, but I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed, so that'd be kinda weird of me to say. In the cases you mention, abortion doctors are legally practicing. If they weren't, they would be punished by law if caught, in the way the law sees fit. The people who judge that they should die and kill them are murderers. They are civilians who take the law into their own hands. I don't support doing that for defense, either, or I'd end up supporting a LOT of people dying due to vigilantes. When a third party panel decides based on medical and behavioral record that someone is a threat, it is not the same as people with agendas who have emotional interests in the situation. If I did not support the death penalty being an option as a last resort, I don't see how I could in clear conscience support abortion being a last resort option in the case of a woman's life. In both cases, the person in question will probably but not definitely kill someone else. I believe it should be up to the woman to defend her life and society to defend itself. As I've said, it's a rare case that comes like this, but it happens and when it does, I believe society should be able to do what it takes to protect themselves....but only as a last resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:03 pm
The death penalty does not exist in England.
And, amazingly enough, we don't have a high murder rate.
We have no guns "for self defense" so here, gun crimes are almost always in the news.
I hear that in America, this is not uncommon.
Last year saw the countries FIRST ever recorded conviction of a child commiting an armed robbery.
So I most certainly do not approve of it.
Oh, and DEATH penalty is definately constricting life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:26 pm
I'm one of those people....that support the death penalty...and i am prolife. My simple reasoning behind my beliefs of this are that when someone commits a crime....they did something wrong and they should be punished because they deserve it...and when you abort an unborn baby youre killin a human being for no reason...they didn;t do anything wrong...so they don;t deserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:22 pm
I didn't say this before, But I kind of believe hypocrisy lies outside of your beliefs. Therefore, even if you are pro-life, you can be pro-death penalty, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
