Your political opinions on abortion and capital punishment

Post Reply New Topic

your thoughts?

Pro-choice, pro-death penalty.

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

Reason is, the child in the womb is an innocent life that has not committed any crimes, and is not responsible for whatever crimes one of his/her parents have committed. The death penalty is in place as a consequence of deliberately and maliciously depriving someone else of their right to live. Someone up on death row is on death row because they committed murder, and the death sentence is a consequence of the crime they committed.

I find it interesting that pro-choicers think it's okay to slaughter babies, but we can't execute a homicidal maniac.

I find it interesting that "Pro-Lifers" think the sanctity of zygotes is paramount, yet trust a wildly dysfunctional US Judicial System to decide Who Lives and Who Dies when it comes to a fully developed adult with feelings, consciousness, and introspection.

An unborn baby is functionally anencephalic until the third trimester so I don't see how aborting it is equivalent to slaughtering it. Though I think abortion should be avoided as much as possible with contraception, failing that it is the lesser of two evils. It is much better than back alley abortions and not being able to financially provide for the baby. That being said, I just wish the accusations of hypocrisy from both sides would stop because it is just ret*d and it is only hypocritical if one side projects underlying assumptions onto the other. There's nothing hypocritical about either being pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

It's regretful whenever an abortion has to occur, but what has to be done has to be done to prevent worse things from happening. As for a serial murdering and raping scumbag, good f*****g riddance.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 29 Jul 2011, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The fact the person on death row maliciously took the life or lives of other people. Or are you saying that a murderer should just be locked up for 5 years and go free? The death penalty isn't something that should be used on a simple thief that stole a car radio, it is used for instances where a man or woman goes into a home and slaughters practically an entire family (if there are any survivors they are traumatized for life).

Correct. These are two separate issues, and there is no sane reason to expect a correlation between people's views on them.

Way to completely miss the point. While I do have some moral qualms with killing people in response to them killing others, I could live with it if it weren't for the fact that prosecutors (especially in Judicial systems with such perverse incentives as the USA) are pretty good at winning over the Jury and besting the defense attorney when the defendent is poor. The amount of wrongful conviction cases is far to much for to see the institution of slaughtering people in retribution as justifiable or sound.

I think the biggest problem when it comes to wrongful conviction is both relying entirely on the testimony of informants who would rat on anyone so they don't have to man up and do their time and the fact that juries too often think CSI is reality. But the margin of error is acceptable enough for me to reduce overcrowding, convicts calling shots from behind bars, violence within the prisons, STD infested rapes, etc.

Yeah I used to be pro-life and anti-death penalty. I guess I must've become a sociopath who lost respect for all life. Or so the straw man who resembles me would make it look like.

The concept is jarring, but not so much in practice. Most of them on deathrow are not on the basis of whether they butchered person X or not. Its more about people fighting the principle of killing killers or making some phony case for the societal benefit of keeping him alive and rehabilitating him versus executing him.

They have feelings, and the those feelings is that them being jailed for their selfish evil ways is not right. They also feel justified about past killings or beatings that they were involved in, and feel fine hurting the guards and workers at the prison that their serving their penitence in.

Their economic, social, cultural benefit pales in comparison to the unjust taking of someone else's life. Feel free to take your own life, but get the permission of another before taking their's. That people should not kill others should be the highest value, but it isn't... it takes a backseat to: Killers deserve to live and remake a new life for themselves. You can't value the life of the innocent if you hold it in moral parallel with the life of the guilty.

No Abortion except in the usual extreme cases (though in the case of abortion, women should be given positive encouragement and, if needed, medical care to put the baby up for adoption), and use the death penalty (publicly as much as possible) extremely liberally when the evidence is compelling. And use violent methods too. No wimpy lethal injection. Use a method that fits the crime like handing or firing squad! The constitution also allows for the use of forced convict labor, and it would be nice if we could find a loophole for corporal punishment and change laws to make it easier to execute convicts for new offenses committed in prison. Of course, to navigate the appeals process we would need to establish as many separate death rows per state or even per prison as possible, submit cases for appeal in batches, limit new appeals if courts keep ruling the same way, and let other death row inmates pass up one on the list with a stalled appeals process. That eventually just leave more money for schools to help curb the number of new 1st offenders. California would still have to execute people at a rate of about 3-4 a week to keep up. Perhaps pull volunteers out of the jury duty pool to help keep up the quota?

pro-death on both accounts. unwanted children often grow up to be criminals anyway.

* It is not slaughter, it is a surgical procedure.
* It is not babies, it is zygotes. Using chatter like baby and "child in the womb" is dishonest. It is up to your beliefs to decide whether sperm, zygotes and fetuses should have the same rights as a human being. But that won't change their names to 'baby' or child unless you want to put an emotional charge in the discussion.

Why are you against letting women decide what to do with their bodies? If a woman decides to end pregnancy, worst case scenario she will go to hell in-case in case God is an irrational bigot as much as his followers. But her going to hell is really, her problem.

If she believes that the thing is a baby and that she would be wrong to end the life, she would be able not to end it. So, no, nobody is asking to force pro-life women to abort.

But what if it is really not a human, then you would be forcing women to get pregnant. You would be raising the amount of people in an already-crowded planet for no reason.

Pro-choice, anti-death penalty.

No, a person is on death row because they are thought to have committed murder. There have been mistakes made before in capital punishment cases. If it acceptable to you to kill an innocent person, then murder ought not be a crime anyway. If it is unacceptable, then best to withhold death penalty until you have a trial system that never gets it wrong.

And many of them (but not all) have actually committed capital crime. As in any war, the war against crime will have casualties due to friendly fire.

ruveyn

I am more baffled about pro-small government people being happy with it given a license to kill.

I guess friendly fire is ok until it hits you.