Your political opinions on abortion and capital punishment

Post Reply New Topic

well like I've said if they're suicidal because of it they should be allowed to have an abortion, since of anything, I'd rather the mother live than the baby, but what I don't agree with is the idea of killing the baby because its life is seen as dishonorable. A lot of women have had the baby and it made them feel a lot better since it made what happened to them have a positive result. It's not true for every woman but the concept that abortion will make them feel better isn't always or even usually true. A lot of the times it's just yet another trauma for them. Because now after being raped they have to live with choosing an abortion.

That is why I think it should be up to the individual woman who ends up in that situation, also I fail to see how an embryo for instance is the exact same thing as a baby.....it does not start out as a 'baby'. so I don't really see it as the same as you know killing a baby. But yeah they should not be forced to abort and they should not be forced to continue the pregnancy if they do not want to.

I agree it's not the same; that's why I still value an adult woman over an embryo. Still though I think we need to have principles ... while a fetus/embryo is not equal to a woman's life, I wouldn't say it's so worthless that it's a woman's right to kill it.

but its ok for someone to kill a spider for instance? I mean that is the thing somethign that has not even developed into a concious life form yet is definatly not something that is more important then a concious humans mental state for instance. So if someone is raped and they do not want to continue the pregnancy they should not have to.

Good point. Hmmm. Yeah it's hard, I guess what makes the idea repulsive to me is the fact it seems an awful lot like an honor killing - ie, killing the unborn because they were the product of a negative act - but then again, the mental state of the woman is probably more important yes.

What bothers me I guess is people who are NORMALLY pro-life but support abortion in cases of rape. Because they actually believe the unborn are equal to the born, yet they support killing babies that are dishonorable. To me like that's the same as supporting infanticide.

I want to be pro-choice but I struggle with it because I'm a pacifist - it seems like a non-pacifistic stance to take to me.

on that i will agree completely, i just dont see it as the problem of legislation but of the people with a "pro life" attitude.

Well at last someone from the prolife camp who appears to be thinking for themselves and not joining the masses because their political leader, preacher or good book tells them to.

Once more for the record after careful consideration I am in favour of abortion but only until 12 weeks, after which time very stringent guidlines must apply allowing abortion for only the most demanding of cases.
As to capital punishment, this should never be allowed, above all else ruvyens example of "friendly fire" rules out capital punishment.

They endure it because they want children.

But what when they don't want to? Just because it doesn't sound uncomfortable to you it doesn't mean the government should force them to use their bodies in that way.

Except it isn't "killing people". It is removing unwanted fetuses.

zygotes don't become human on their own. They need a host, for starters.

It is not a baby, it is a fetus. And the way for a fetus to avoid abortion is by having parents that actually want it to, one day, become a human being.


It is not 'someone' it is a parasitic sucker of life. And its life already depends on that other human, because until it develops enough and is born, the fetus is actually part of the woman's body.



It is the best one.

Because I know in advance that you would fail considerably if you attempted to give any proof that a zygote or a fetus deserve person-hood. Because I have asked for such kind of proof a zillion of times in these forums and no one actually bothered to provide it. But they are good and greatly skilled at using emotional language like "baby" to justify their bigoted, irrational view that the government should have a say in what a woman does with her body. . You know, women are confirmed to be people, human beings, and be sentient and have emotions. Not only that, but they can think for themselves and they can actually decide what to do in case of pregnancy. Many of them will actually go through the pregnancy, but some won't . And just because it makes you uncomfortable to accept their right to decide about it it shouldn't mean the government should pander to you and make it illegal.

Not only that, but making it illegal is unlikely to reduce the number of abortions. It will only raise the number of black market abortions, and that means giving money to criminal and increasing health risks for everyone.

If you want there to be less abortions. Just promote actual sexual education and contraception. No woman in her sane mind would consider abortion an "easy way out" of her responsibility and it is insane to believe that legal abortion makes them believe that. Nobody well educated actually wants to end in an unwanted pregnancy.



Pain and emotion. Not a great accomplishment in the scale of things that make life sacred. Chicken feel that stuff too, and it is perfectly OK to kill them.


---

Give me a trait, one trait that a) Applies exclusively to things we consider to be human beings (for example, try not to let them apply to a bunny) . b) Does not apply to sperm, ovules , or skin cells. c) Applies to a zygote. And I would change my mind. But I am actually being a cynic. Because I know that you won't come up with that trait, you will rather prefer to ignore this request and continue using loaded language like "baby" to describe an unborn fetus.

+1

More or less.

A fetus is the result of two people making a choice. In and of itself, it has done nothing to forfeit any "right" to be born. If people don't want kids...have yourself fixed or use the most reliable contraceptive method(s) available to you...or just don't have sex. When you're pregnant, it's a consequence, and if you don't want the kid (and it's going to be a healthy baby), there are many families willing to adopt.

A person convicted by due process for a heinous crime beyond any doubt has forfeited his/her right to live, and their death is a just punishment. Keep in mind the Bible actually authorized the death penalty for much, much more than what most secular societies enumerate.

My only issue with the death penalty is one of evidence...being certain that the convicted was proven by an irrefutable amount of evidence and that they did receive motivated and highly-qualified legal counsel when the punishment was sought against them. The sloppiness of many judicial systems is the only reason to really question the use of the death penalty (in my opinion).

Pro-choice, and pro-death penalty.

My only problem with them is that they don't happen nearly often-enough.

Pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

My main issue with the death penalty is error in prosecution, if there was no such thing I'd be in favor of it.

Death penalty is the easy one:

1) Capital punishment is ineffective at preventing crime or protecting the public.
2) Capital punishment is subject to irremediable error.

On those two counts I see no public policy justification for it. There are certainly offenders who I am pleased to see locked away from society for the rest of their lives--but I will not countenance capital punishment in these cases if it gives rise to the potential of execution of the wrongly convicted.

Abortion is tougher. Personally, I am disinclined to abortion, but being male and gay, it is not a situation that has ever presented itself. Politically, however, I am unreservedly pro-choice:

An embryo and a foetus are most assuredly alive and they are most assuredly human. To describe a foetus as a human life is certainly accurate--but it is not determinative. Legally (in this jurisdiction, at any rate) a human being is not a person until it has entirely passed, in a living state, from its mother. In a conflict of rights between a living person and a life not yet in being, I will generally prefer the living person. To use the biological term "human life" and the legal term "person" as equivalent is uncritical, and erroneous.

So when conflict arises between the interests of an life not yet in being and the right of a woman to security of her person, I must come down on the side of the mother, until the threshold of viability. Hers is the life in being. Before 20 weeks gestational age, the foetus is not viable. Her security of the person is a present need, and a threat to that can endanger both her and the foetus.

The law rarely has the privilege of dealing in absolutes. We countenance the loss of human life numerous situations. We give the military and peace officers the privilege of using deadly force. We give physicians the privilege of deciding when to cease attempts at resuscitation. We excuse the taking of human life in some cases of self-defence. In short, no matter how absolute you intend to make something, there will always be the case that comes along to demonstrate that absolutism is the law is impractical and unjust.

No possible disagreement on point 2. Having recalled essentially that principle somewhat pompously preached to my fairly significant person of the time is after all the amin reason I am still on live.

Point 1, though - not as a disputation of course, since it is self evident - I would ask, have you spotted or conceived anything that MIGHT be effective a preventing crime or protecting the public?

-----

Minority Report [the story was much better than the film] postulated even precognitive prevention was fatally flawed.

The fact that the Old Testament authorized stoning adulterers and gay men is repulsive. Honestly, how the hell can you write that with a straight face or treat it as some legitimate piece of evidence? Are you of the same mindset as Theocrats in Iran or something like that?

The fact that the Bible has little regard for the life of fully conscious, introspective, and independently viable human beings isn't something to gloat about in an argument over whether authorizing the state to kill people in retribution is an a-okay idea. That filthy book gleefully describe Moses permitting the rape of girls from an enemy group. That Ancient Hebrew culture, built along group fanaticism and a pervasive belief in disproportionate retribution isn't a guide for any sane, civilized, (comparatively) peaceful society.

And, yes, even given I have utilitarian objections over how the state legitimizing retribution by death has perverse effects on the broader culture, I *MIGHT* be able to live with it if Judicial Systems weren't so bloody errant and unequal. To AceOfSpades, any bloody time the death penalty is implemented in a place with First World civil rights, it's frickin' expensive. More expensive than life-imprisonment. I, for one, am not willing to tear down various civilizing legal precedents to make capital punishment less costly. The deterrence argument itself is daft, given that narcissists who don't think they'll get caught or criminals acting impulsively at the spur of the moment aren't going to suddenly start thinking "Hmmmm..... I could've gotten 200 years in a crummy prison, no doubt where I'd be at the bottom of the Totem Poll - below all those drug offenders and petty thieves - where I'd probably get beaten up- but that's no deterrent! There's the chance I'll be executed now, so I guess my unbeatable plan will have to wait or my impulse to strangle this homeowner with a gun so I'm not shot will have to last 30 seconds less, so he still has air in his lungs and I don't get the death penalty." NOBODY thinks like that when in the midst of committing crimes.

And to ValentineWiggin, how the hell can you be a democratic socialist yet promote the prodigious use of of an institutional process that's obscenely unequal? Prosecutors, if I'm not mistaken, are PAID on the basis of how many people they convict. A poor American whose a member of a racial minority or even a low-income Caucasian American is much more likely to get shafted by smooth-talking prosecutors outgunning their cheap, publicly provided lawyers. A wealthy athlete, on the other hand, can pretty much get away with murder.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 31 Jul 2011, 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not to forget the alleged plice quotas for citations and arrests.

I don't remember mentioning anything about deterrence so nice strawman and I'm loving the condescending tone. I am well aware that deterrence is only effective if it is immediate and certain rather than if it is in some vague, uncertain, and distant future. This is why crooks fear armed citizens more than cops. Impulsiveness, lack of foresight, and egocentricism are very common traits among crooks, especially violent crooks so obviously the death penalty doesn't do much to deter but it will stop them from committing more crimes permanently whether it is murdering other inmates in prison, raping other inmates and contributing to spreading even more STD's than we already have these days, and calling shots from behind bars to kill people on the outside. As for the costs, I'm in favour of cutting down on the number of appeals but the justice system also has to stop relying so heavily on the testimony of filthy rats who are willing to point the finger at innocents so they don't pay the full price for what they did. The jury should also somehow notified about the fallibility and shakiness of DNA evidence as it isn't anywhere near as crystal clear as CSI makes it out to be.