Abortion/The Death Penalty

[Sebulbus]

We just went over this in my history class, and I was curious as to everyone's thoughts on it.

[Digïtál £vîl]

Honestly, we tend to try to stay away from such debatable topics here in general chat. We actually have a Debate/Discussions forum for things like this.

 

I know people will still reply here, but I would honestly recommend going there if you wish for a really decent outcome for this topic.

[AZSupraT]

I, for one, am in total favor of putting it over here.

 

Come on, pedo's getting only 2 years of prison??? serial killers only getting five?

 

F*ckin bullsh*t, I tell ya.

 

25-to life should also be implemented.

[Mike Tequeli]

serial killers only getting five?

Since when?

[AZSupraT]

serial killers only getting five?

Since when?

Since 1821, when my country became independant.

[Mike Tequeli]

serial killers only getting five?

Since when?

Since 1821, when my country became independant.

Yeah but I don't understand, do you have any examples of serial killers actually getting off with 5 years?

[Digïtál £vîl]

serial killers only getting five?

Since when?

Since 1821, when my country became independant.

Wow. Remind me to move to your country if I ever decide to go on a massive killing spree by roaming the railroad systems and picking off hobos, prostitutes, and runaways.

 

 

^ There was an actual serial killer like this in the U.S. He was an illegal immigrant from Mexico and would go back and forth, crossing illegally to kill random people on and around the railroad area. He would take stolen objects and stuff back to his wife and give them to her which she would melt down and sell off. The odd thing was he didn't do it for the money as they had plenty.

 

 

[SmellyJelly]

For abortion, I'm pro choice. I don't think someone should be forced to have a baby if they don't want to. On the other hand, people who are against it or aren't comfortable don't have to do do it, however, I don't understand why they feel the need to control everyone elses decision.

[AZSupraT]

serial killers only getting five?

Since when?

Since 1821, when my country became independant.

Wow. Remind me to move to your country if I ever decide to go on a massive killing spree by roaming the railroad systems and picking off hobos, prostitutes, and runaways.

 

 

^ There was an actual serial killer like this in the U.S. He was an illegal immigrant from Mexico and would go back and forth, crossing illegally to kill random people on and around the railroad area. He would take stolen objects and stuff back to his wife and give them to her which she would melt down and sell off. The odd thing was he didn't do it for the money as they had plenty.

This story cracked me up.

 

Tequila, this kind of stuff happens every single day... you see it on the news, on the papers, in the net..

 

Just research.

[Digïtál £vîl]

I am sure most of us have no clue where you live as most of us aren't some geography genius who can tell instantly what country you reside in from your flag.

 

This isn't the U.N., you don't have a little name placard next to your little flag.

[AZSupraT]

I am sure most of us have no clue where you live as most of us aren't some geography genius who can tell instantly what country you reside in from your flag.

 

This isn't the U.N., you don't have a little name placard next to your little flag.

Guatemala.

 

Central America at it's finest.

[Mexli]

 

Guatemala.

 

Central America at it's finest.

Lol ok whatever you say supra!! You know it's all about Mexico,even though is not in Central America, and you guys can thank us for your independence.

 

 

I support pro-choice and the government shouldn't tell you what to do with your body.

 

I also support the death penalty as there is some people on this world who really deserve to die.

[Saggy]

To bet blunt, I value the lives of the born more than I do those that are unborn. If a mother is unhappy and unhealthy when she gives birth, I think the child has a far greater chance at being unhappy and unhealthy as well. However, if the mother is happy and healthy later, she can always have another child. It may sound harsh, and of course I realize many mothers themselves value their unborn child's life more than their own, but for those who don't their rights need to be protected too. I don't know, I've just always found it silly we have more consideration for lives of which the potential is unknown, for people that are actually living here with us, that contribute something whatsoever.

 

So, abortion, it's fine with me, so long as it's not forced, and I really believe that unborn lifeforms have no real rights to speak of but what their mothers allow them.

 

 

As for the death penalty. In some circumstances it's hard to say that someone shouldn't die for what they've done because of the emotional elements involved. However, when you really think about it, there are too many variables involved here for it to really be just, in the face of one inherent truth: That if you kill that person, you're doing the same thing that you're punishing them for. Even if our justice system was perfect, and there was no such thing as a false conviction, it's still not in our hands to decide why any person should die, even if it is for the sake of justice, because often we're trying to punish people who have made that decision themselves. Why dirty our own hands with such decisions?

[Saget]

Yes for both.

In fact, we should go back to public humiliation. Guillotines and mass stone-throwing in a public square, anyone?

 

About the whole prison thing: no one can be in jail for more than 35 years here. How about that? =P

[Picolini]

Stupid to clump two HUGE topics together. I'd say either stick to abortion or the death penalty.

 

My stances though:

 

Abortion - I would never have the person I got pregnant do it, and I would beg her not too. Chances are if I got some one pregnant they'd be some one who'd never do it in the first place. I'm one that believes you need to take responsibility for your actions. The only reasons I'd agree to it is if she or the baby were in mortal danger, and possibly (still stuck on this one) if the baby was highly likely to be phsyically/mentally challenged.

 

Death sentence: Depends. If the person is beyond "rehabilitation" and the punishment fits, then f*ck it, kill them. Some people just deserve to be locked up forever and feel the seemingly endless pain of lonesomeness of being locked up for the rest of their life. For instance, that Austrian Frtizl guy who locked up his daughter and their inbred children. I say let him rot in a dark empty room all alone, for ever. Death is too easy for him.

But for straight murderers, depending on the circumstances, if not life in jail, then yes, death penalty.

[GTA3Freak-2001]

Stupid to clump two HUGE topics together. I'd say either stick to abortion or the death penalty.

Yeah why not throw in Euthanasia while we're at it!

 

 

[Digïtál £vîl]

I've had some very long conversations and debates about this subject with pro-life (against abortion) supporters and I have to say, people on each side of the debate just don't see things the same at all. I've debated everything from what scientifically constitutes a fetus to possible prison sentencing and whether the government should have the authority to govern something so personal and private. There is always a lot of good facts but the pro-life stance just tends to have a very powerful opinion on it and their own statistics they like to quote. lol. Although much of their debate is lacking in knowledge and true fact. I had one person tell me that abortion was at (and I quote), "genocide like levels". And I couldn't believe that. I had a bunch of evidence against that fact but they just moved onto another issue halfheartedly related to it. In my opinion, flawed logic, but logic all the same I guess, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on something. But it doesn't mean you don't have to keep from telling them your issues on the subject as long as they at least are smart enough to attempt a decent reply to a debatable subject like abortion.

 

edit: How about we also add the impact of genetic modification to the list of debates related to this. If a parent doesn't have the right to abort a fetus, do they also not retain the right to chose the exact genetic makeup of their child then?

Edited June 3, 2008 by Digïtál £vîl

[wutangblade]

I don't agree with abortion because I still see it as taking a life. The death penalty on the hand, I totally agree with. It should be an eye for an eye, if you're willing to destroy someone's life then you don't deserve to live and should die in the least humane way. Human rights shouldn't exist for people like that

[voteneg]

::EDIT:: This is a post I had previously posted in the abortion topic of the Debates and Discussion Section.

This post is 2,686 words long... Read it all if you dare. Sorry... I have a penchant for posting giant walls of text.

 

First there is an issue with the abortion debate I'd like to address. It's the common labeling of Progressives (Democrats) as pro-abortion/pro-choice and Conservatives (Republicans) as pro-life/anti-abortion.

 

I am the biggest Progressive Liberal out there and I will definitively say that we are ALL pro-life, no if ands or buts about it. Nobody wants abortion, nor do we as Liberals wish it would happen... in fact we want it to be decreased as much as possible. The fact of the matter is that deciding to have an abortion is a very hard decision for any woman to make, and preferably people should be educated/responsible enough to prevent a situation where having an abortion is a considered option.

 

I'd also like to make it clear that most abortions are mainly non-intrusive chemical procedures that simply require medical dosages of hormones to be delivered (via pill or shot) to the female in order to dispel the embryo. Very few abortions occur after the end of the first trimester, and those that do are usually performed as a result of newly diagnosed medical conditions (which typically occur after the 1st trimester) with the unborn or the mother.

 

Many when they think of abortions think of pulling out of a humanoid creature alive and screaming and simply discarding it into the trash to die... this is not the case. It bothers me when anti-reproductive rights/anti privacy activists protest against heinous procedures like partial birth abortion and try to characterize all abortion like that. The fact of the matter is that those account for less than 1% of all abortions performed (and usually for health safety concerns at that.) Usually an abortion is just a pill taken to force a menstrual period... and the tiny nondescript soupy embryo comes out with the rest of the bloody discharge... no screaming child or cutting anything up or open. I think when people understand that they are only as squeamish about it as they are a normal menstrual flow. The posters you see with the baby reaching out of a cut open womb and a little hand grabbing the doctor’s finger are mere propaganda to make you believe all abortions are like that... they are not.

 

Regardless of legality, women will still continue to procure (hasty) abortions via any means possible. You cannot take away a right once it’s been given to the people, and especially when it’s been accepted into most social norms. The fact of the matter is that without safe ways to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason the woman chooses,) abortions will simply move from sterile clinics to shady back alley doctors looking to make a few bucks. Unsafe and unregulated practices will be used; this will result in more harm to the woman than would have originally occurred. According to a World Health Organization estimate, 110,000 women worldwide die each year from such illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them. Other women will retreat to home remedies as many did in old brothel houses of days bygone... where dangerous drinks and concoctions were swallowed in order to kill the fetus by poisoning... and in many cases the woman would suffer medical problems or death as a result as well. The point here being is that if abortions will be done (and it will regardless of legality) we should at least conduct them in a safe healthy manner. Simply banning abortion does not account for this.

 

Many anti-reproductive freedom activists make claims about the state of the fetus saying that it has a heartbeat at such and such week, or fingernails by the end of the first trimester etc etc... And the goals are too shame or sicken the potential pregnant woman out of having an abortion. Don't let that sway you. I'll agree life is miracle on many scales, but the fact that an embryo has a heartbeat isn't something wholly amazing or unique to humans... to put in contrast worms have hearts... several of them to be exact. Conception and biology and life are amazing, but not wholly unique to humans.

 

I do not think abortions should be looked to as a normal form of birth control, I think too many people rely on the fact that they can just have an abortion as an excuse to have unrestrained sex. This is inexcusable. But at the same time many are performed for very legitimate reasons... perhaps the mother is in school, is too young, cannot afford a child, or would be punished/ostracized if people found out she was carrying. The fact of the matter is that having a child is insanely expensive, prenatal care and ultrasounds will cost around 2-4K, delivery for a normal vaginal birth costs between 2-5k, and if a c-section is performed it'll cost between 3-8k. This is all assuming there are no drugs (epidural) and all goes as planned and there are no health complications for the mother or child. That’s at a minimum 4k or a maximum of 9k for normal delivery and 12k for c-section delivery. If you are without healthcare there is no way a single woman (or in a lot of cases even a couple) could afford that cost, and it still doesn't even cover the cost of first year living for the infant which is around 10k itself.

 

Public coverage is available to cover the costs through Medicaid, but even so that option isn't readily known of even easily accessible. But if you are truly pro-life are you willing to pony up the extra tax money to pay for other people’s children, then their welfare, and food stamps, and school education? For all the anti-tax talk I'm surprised many evangelical conservatives aren't more charitable... if you want people to have children then I suggest you gladly vote for and pay for public funding of social services. Put your money where your mouth is. To be frank I'd rather have my tax money cover some $500 abortions, then the cost of paying for the delivery, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, public schooling and then perhaps the prison term of the original child over the course of its life. "While anti-choice groups would like people to believe that these clinics are only interested in making money off of abortions, or in costing the taxpayers money by having to pay for those abortions, the truth is that clinics actually save taxpayers money by providing services and education about reproductive freedom in an effort to prevent unintended pregnancies. These unintended pregnancies lead to both unwanted births and abortions, both of which cost private and public money. In 1989, for example, taxpayers were billed $18 billion dollars in direct health and welfare costs for teen childbearing alone." Abortion is a simple way of reducing the burden on society... and therefore you.

 

Raising a child also requires extreme dedication in time and money to raise a child, money and time a young college student doesn't have. It is just near impossible to care for a child, work, and go to school all at once; having a child would require a sacrifice, usually the individual’s education. Nobody should have to choose between finishing school and having a child. If a woman isn't ready or equipped to care for a baby she should be able to make the decision to not have one. Too many kids are born to irresponsible and ill-equipped parents only to be poorly raised/disciplined/cared for/ and educated. Is it really smart to encourage that sort of scenario by banning abortion? Parenthood should be planned; otherwise the effects on the child are usually negative. Improperly cared for and insufficiently educated kids are at a much higher risk to be violent and or criminal. Is the higher crime rate, spike in orphaned children, neglected kids, and unsafe back alley abortions good for society? I think not.

 

The real argument is not whether abortion is good or bad, we all can say nobody wants it to occur, the question is whether or not the government has the authority and or right to tell us what we can or cannot do with our bodies. If we allow the government the option to determine our reproductive rights (the right to have children or not) we open up the precedent for allowing them to determine who we can or cannot have children with, when we can have children, and how many we may have (or have to have.) Less governmental rules in this instance protect the greater rights that we as individuals have for our own self determination.

 

The fact of the matter is that a fetus or embryo has no rights other than those granted to it by its host (the mother.) The fetus is directly dependent on the mother and therefore cannot have rights of its own, simply because ones rights stop short of crossing another. A woman has a right to decide to have a child or not. The government cannot force a non-pregnant woman to become pregnant, nor can the government force a pregnant woman to remain pregnant. Therefore a fetus’s supposed right to be born crosses the mothers right to decide to have a child, therefore it actually doesn't exist. The child only gains that right if the mother wills it to be so. That’s why when an individual kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two murders, simply for the fact that the woman had obviously given the child the right to be born by her will to remain pregnant. Simply put any right the baby has while in the womb is wholly dependent on the mother; her will is the baby's will.

 

Killing human life is not murder... for a hand is human life and if chopped off (and the victim still lives) it would not be considered a murder. Also for example if a man was robbing a bank and the teller went to reach for a panic/alarm button and he shot at her hand blowing her thumb off he would have technically killed human life (for a thumb is living human tissue/life.) There is a difference between human tissue, life, and personhood. In order to commit murder you must kill a human person intentionally. There is no doubt that abortion is intentional and that an embryo is human, but is it a human being? In order to consider a human a human being they must have several things, consciousness, self awareness, and memory. Without these the human embryo is not a person. We are sentient beings, without it we lose what makes us uniquely human. The fact of the matter is that the earliest speculated brain development that would allow very primitive functions of sentience occur after the first trimester (after most abortions are performed.) But many scientists and doctors think that they fetus isn't completely aware until the third trimester. Therefore abortion before consciousness, awareness, and memory is not murder, because without them there is no personhood... and without personhood there is no loss of life.

 

I think I've made a solid case why abortion should remain legal. But as I mentioned at the top of my post here, I do think we should reduce the amount of abortions. The key to this is comprehensive sexual education at numerous levels of age and also readily available and accessible contraception measures. The fact of the matter is that abstinence only education does not work, and studies are coming out to prove that. No matter how strict a parent is, or how religious one may be, or how much trouble you'll say your kids will be in, they will always think they can get away with it. Strict parenting won’t ever overcome the strong biological urge to mate, never. Nor will threatened punishment for being sexually active deter kids from being sexually active... teenagers especially are inclined to be rebellious and think they'll never get caught. It’s a simple psychological issue too, if you continually tell someone not to do something they'll be more the inclined to try it just to see what the big deal is about. Peer pressure also makes a big impact on the decisions of young individuals, especially avoiding the ridicule of still being a virgin is especially tempting.

 

Sadly those who have had abstinence only education aren’t any less likely to have sex, they are however a hell of a lot more likely to do so in an unsafe/unprotected/uneducated manner. Abstinence only is just a convenient way for parents to easily brush aside the topic of sex and avoiding their responsibility to educate their children. Being against sex before marriage doesn’t mean you still can’t educate your child about it; you can still encourage your child to wait for faith reasons… education doesn’t mean you condone that certain behavior. It only means your preparing them for when the time comes for sooner or later, and for better or for worse.

 

The media has a big impact on our children; kids see sex everyday (no matter how hard you try to keep them from seeing it.) A young boy is eventually gonna find an old playboy, your kids are going to stumble across something on the net, some girl is going to read a Cosmo or vogue, or they’ll see a sex scene on TV. The idea is all around us, simply ignoring it only intensifies their curiosity. They’ll know what sex is by the time they hit puberty… and they’ll probably be fond of the idea because of all the exciting passionate scenes they’ve seen on TV or in magazines. But what they don’t know is the down and dirty facts. They know what sex is they know they want it, but they don’t know how a woman’s menstrual cycle works, or how to properly use a condom, or that pulling out isn’t 100% effective etc etc. That’s why sex ed in middle school and high school is important. Not only does it educate about the dangers of diseases (which I might add did more to discourage me from having sex than my parents ever did) it also explains how to use contraception in order to prevent pregnancy… and thus potential abortions. Studies have shown that better educated children get pregnant less than uneducated ones. Finally if simple contraceptives are available to take anonymously many kids would take them while avoiding the embarrassment or shame that would normally discourage them from utilizing condoms and spermicides etc. Also on a side note I know that many are against the Plan B pills or the so called abortion pill. It needs to be understood that this pill does not terminate a pregnancy after conception has occurred, rather it prevents ovulation by delaying the woman’s cycle… thus preventing conception. So it is not an abortion pill.

 

 

Many wonder about a man’s right in all of this, what rights does he have. Unfortunately I have to say none, simply put the fetus is dependent on the mothers body, not the males. As a man I say the responsibility to get/or not get pregnant lies with the male. If you are intending to have a baby, you should only be having sex with a woman who wants one as well. If both of you are on the same page than there should be no need to consider abortion. It’s the man’s responsibility to find a woman who’s agreeable. If the pregnancy was a surprise/accident the chances are you weren’t intending for it to happen in the first place… nor was she. When two people decide to have a child its clear what the purpose in sex is. Having sex without the mutual intent on conception, is by defualt an understanding that you are not intending to create a child, therefore your rights to any potential fetus are forfeited. Be a man and make sure that if you don’t want a kid that you don’t accidently have one, and that if you do you are sleeping with the right woman who wants one too and who won’t turn around and have an abortion behind your back.

Edited June 3, 2008 by voteneg

[Moonshield]

I don't agree with abortion because I still see it as taking a life. The death penalty on the hand, I totally agree with. It should be an eye for an eye, if you're willing to destroy someone's life then you don't deserve to live and should die in the least humane way. Human rights shouldn't exist for people like that

So wait, you think abortion doctors should die then? They're taking a life, after all.

 

I don't agree with abortions at all, but I'm pro choice (it's pro choice Digital - I don't think anybody in their right mind would be "Pro Abortion". Haha). The government has no right to dictate what a woman does with her own body, even if she is a f*cking whore and uses abortions as a method of birth control, which is hardly the case more often than not - abortions are expensive (and even if it were, karma has its way of getting rid of the scum of society). What people don't realize if you make abortions illegal, people are still going to get them, with poor equipment, in shady places, with unqualified "doctors", putting the woman at a huge risk (for an elaboration, refer to voteneg's post above mine, hah).

 

In fact, ignore mine, and just read voteneg's post. That's pretty on par with how I feel. Though the last paragraph, though it is ultimately the woman's decision, and the man should be supportive no matter what, I feel in a relationship, his opinion matters too, and they should make it together.

[makeshyft]

I feel in a relationship, his opinion matters too, and they should make it together.

Yeah, I think the decision needs to be made by both parties, if possible. I have had a friend who wasn't consulted when his girlfriend underwent an abortion and it had a profoundly negative affect on him, as he doesn't condone the practice. It took him quite a long time to get over it.

[wutangblade]

I don't agree with abortion because I still see it as taking a life. The death penalty on the hand, I totally agree with. It should be an eye for an eye, if you're willing to destroy someone's life then you don't deserve to live and should die in the least humane way. Human rights shouldn't exist for people like that

So wait, you think abortion doctors should die then? They're taking a life, after all.

 

I don't agree with abortions at all, but I'm pro choice (it's pro choice Digital - I don't think anybody in their right mind would be "Pro Abortion". Haha). The government has no right to dictate what a woman does with her own body, even if she is a f*cking whore and uses abortions as a method of birth control, which is hardly the case more often than not - abortions are expensive (and even if it were, karma has its way of getting rid of the scum of society). What people don't realize if you make abortions illegal, people are still going to get them, with poor equipment, in shady places, with unqualified "doctors", putting the woman at a huge risk (for an elaboration, refer to voteneg's post above mine, hah).

 

In fact, ignore mine, and just read voteneg's post. That's pretty on par with how I feel. Though the last paragraph, though it is ultimately the woman's decision, and the man should be supportive no matter what, I feel in a relationship, his opinion matters too, and they should make it together.

No. I don't feel the same about the doctor, he didn't make the choice to have an abortion and yes I know that's a bit hypocritical (sp?) but hey

[Struff Bunstridge]

I don't agree with abortion because I still see it as taking a life. The death penalty on the hand, I totally agree with. It should be an eye for an eye, if you're willing to destroy someone's life then you don't deserve to live and should die in the least humane way. Human rights shouldn't exist for people like that

So wait, you think abortion doctors should die then? They're taking a life, after all.

 

I don't agree with abortions at all, but I'm pro choice (it's pro choice Digital - I don't think anybody in their right mind would be "Pro Abortion". Haha). The government has no right to dictate what a woman does with her own body, even if she is a f*cking whore and uses abortions as a method of birth control, which is hardly the case more often than not - abortions are expensive (and even if it were, karma has its way of getting rid of the scum of society). What people don't realize if you make abortions illegal, people are still going to get them, with poor equipment, in shady places, with unqualified "doctors", putting the woman at a huge risk (for an elaboration, refer to voteneg's post above mine, hah).

 

In fact, ignore mine, and just read voteneg's post. That's pretty on par with how I feel. Though the last paragraph, though it is ultimately the woman's decision, and the man should be supportive no matter what, I feel in a relationship, his opinion matters too, and they should make it together.

No. I don't feel the same about the doctor, he didn't make the choice to have an abortion and yes I know that's a bit hypocritical (sp?) but hey

These posts of yours are riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions. How can you be opposed to abortion on the grounds that it involves the taking of a life, and yet condone the death penalty? As for your second post, the doctor doesn't choose to have the abortion, but under your logic, he or she should at least be charged with aiding and abetting murder, or being an accessory. Finally, you can't legitimately expect to shrug off noted inconsistencies in your argument by saying "but hey". It shows you haven't thought it through properly, and you're just blindly typing. Think before you post, dude.

 

I'm in favour of both on paper, although neither act is without its grey areas. Abortion should be available for those in genuine need of it, although moral and ethical questions are raised when someone is effectively just using it as contraception; that I don't think is justified.

The death penalty I see as a marvellous way to ease the load on our judicial and prison systems. Why should a man convicted of multiple rape and murder of women and children be allowed to live? However, there's always the possibility of somebody being found innocent after the fact, and the death penalty obviously can't be reversed.

[Hayden]

Take away the surgery and pills and they're just gonna pull out the ol' coat hanger.

 

Let them abort, I say.

[wutangblade]

I don't agree with abortion because I still see it as taking a life. The death penalty on the hand, I totally agree with. It should be an eye for an eye, if you're willing to destroy someone's life then you don't deserve to live and should die in the least humane way. Human rights shouldn't exist for people like that

So wait, you think abortion doctors should die then? They're taking a life, after all.

 

I don't agree with abortions at all, but I'm pro choice (it's pro choice Digital - I don't think anybody in their right mind would be "Pro Abortion". Haha). The government has no right to dictate what a woman does with her own body, even if she is a f*cking whore and uses abortions as a method of birth control, which is hardly the case more often than not - abortions are expensive (and even if it were, karma has its way of getting rid of the scum of society). What people don't realize if you make abortions illegal, people are still going to get them, with poor equipment, in shady places, with unqualified "doctors", putting the woman at a huge risk (for an elaboration, refer to voteneg's post above mine, hah).

 

In fact, ignore mine, and just read voteneg's post. That's pretty on par with how I feel. Though the last paragraph, though it is ultimately the woman's decision, and the man should be supportive no matter what, I feel in a relationship, his opinion matters too, and they should make it together.

No. I don't feel the same about the doctor, he didn't make the choice to have an abortion and yes I know that's a bit hypocritical (sp?) but hey

These posts of yours are riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions. How can you be opposed to abortion on the grounds that it involves the taking of a life, and yet condone the death penalty? As for your second post, the doctor doesn't choose to have the abortion, but under your logic, he or she should at least be charged with aiding and abetting murder, or being an accessory. Finally, you can't legitimately expect to shrug off noted inconsistencies in your argument by saying "but hey". It shows you haven't thought it through properly, and you're just blindly typing. Think before you post, dude.

 

I'm in favour of both on paper, although neither act is without its grey areas. Abortion should be available for those in genuine need of it, although moral and ethical questions are raised when someone is effectively just using it as contraception; that I don't think is justified.

The death penalty I see as a marvellous way to ease the load on our judicial and prison systems. Why should a man convicted of multiple rape and murder of women and children be allowed to live? However, there's always the possibility of somebody being found innocent after the fact, and the death penalty obviously can't be reversed.

I never said the doctor should be charged with anything. I do see the hypocrisy in my posts though so I'm going to leave it at that, because there's not much more I can add to what I've said

 

As for what you said about a person being sentenced to death and then being proven innocent after he has been executed. If the death penalty was to come back we would need a much stricter jury system and not one that just rushes to the verdict and ignoring the evidence on the grounds that an official be it a doctor, police etc has said something different as has happened a lot over in the UK

[Struff Bunstridge]

I never said the doctor should be charged with anything. I do see the hypocrisy in my posts though so I'm going to leave it at that, because there's not much more I can add to what I've said

 

As for what you said about a person being sentenced to death and then being proven innocent after he has been executed. If the death penalty was to come back we would need a much stricter jury system and not one that just rushes to the verdict and ignoring the evidence on the grounds that an official be it a doctor, police etc has said something different as has happened a lot over in the UK

You never said that, no, I did. But if abortion is taking a life, as you said earlier, then someone who performs an abortion is guilty of involvement in that crime, surely?

 

Check this out, with regard to the death penalty. I don't claim to know anything about the organisation other than what I've read on their site, but the spin or political bias seems minimal, if it exists at all. It claims that 129 people have been exonerated from Death Row in the last thirty-five years, with "evidence of their innocence". I note that it does steer clear of actually proclaiming them innocent. I don't know why this is.

[Taste Of Chaos]

Abortion no.

 

Death penalty yes.

 

For the reasons already discussed.

[doesntcheatGTA]

This should be two seperate threads, since you ask two different questions (although related somewhat).

 

For abortion, I believe people should be able to choose what they want to do. If a couple doesn't want a baby, they don't have to have it. The human embryo at the time of the abortion typically has less cells than a fly's brain. Also, if you scratch your nose, you kill more cells than that embryo contains.

 

The death penalty is just and fair. An eye for an eye, I would gather.

[Cursed]

circumstances it's hard to say that someone shouldn't die for what they've done because of the emotional elements involved. However, when you really think about it, there are too many variables involved here for it to really be just, in the face of one inherent truth: That if you kill that person, you're doing the same thing that you're punishing them for. Even if our justice system was perfect, and there was no such thing as a false conviction, it's still not in our hands to decide why any person should die, even if it is for the sake of justice, because often we're trying to punish people who have made that decision themselves. Why dirty our own hands with such decisions?

Two wrongs do not make a right. Taking that phrase into account I am unsure on this issue. If you have taken someone life, why should you keep yours. Its a sensative issue. Although I am unsure, I can tell you that my mother is strongly in favour of the death penatly, and thinks all criminals should be killed, but humilliated first.

[Struff Bunstridge]

Honestly? I agree with your mother, specifically the humiliation part. It'd be quite some deterrent to think that if you're caught molesting children, you'll be paraded round your hometown having things thrown at you, before being brutally executed in front of a baying crowd.