POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: tednlou2 on August 19, 2010, 02:31:51 am
-
If you don't have a problem with the death penalty, I think stories like these should give you pause. It seems like I hear of prisoners being found innocent on a monthly basis after serving many years in prison. Unfortunately for some in this story, the facts came too late as some were already put to death. The North Carolina crime lab is accused of hiding evidence to come to the conclusion they and prosecutors wanted. Michael Jordan's father is involved in this story as he was murdered. I wonder just how many innocent people are in prison or have been put to death.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/nc-crime-lab-accused-hiding-doctoring-evidence-doctoring-evidence-convictions-north-carolina-prosecutors-death-penalty-wronlgy-convicted-11432582
In other news, Dr. Laura is gone! Just had to say that outloud.
-
Most people I know who support the death penalty are okay with "mistakes". I abhor the death penalty, but I'm also anti abortion (except in rare cases). My politics are convoluted and complicated to say the least.
-
Most people I know who support the death penalty are okay with "mistakes". I abhor the death penalty, but I'm also anti abortion (except in rare cases). My politics are convoluted and complicated to say the least.
You're anti abortion? ::) What the fuck does a woman's right to choose have to do with the likes of you? There's an old feminist saying:
If men could fall pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
With reference to the OP, Matty the Damned is fanatically anti death penalty.
MtD
-
You're anti abortion? ::) What the fuck does a woman's right to choose have to do with the likes of you? There's an old feminist saying:
If men could fall pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
With reference to the OP, Matty the Damned is fanatically anti death penalty.
MtD
I'm anti abortion as birth control. Of course I'm not huge on reproductive rights in general. I think most people should be fixed at birth and then when they prove they aren't complete fuck ups they should have the process reversed when they are able to provide for their spawn.
-
I'm anti abortion as birth control. Of course I'm not huge on reproductive rights in general. I think most people should be fixed at birth and then when they prove they aren't complete fuck ups they should have the process reversed when they are able to provide for their spawn.
All of sudden I'm wondering if post natal abortion might be appropriate in certain cases.
MtD
-
All of sudden I'm wondering if post natal abortion might be appropriate in certain cases.
MtD
up to 60 months!
-
If men could fall pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
This is so true, my Dear Damned One. Hellraiser, don't you dare think about putting your hands all over my rights. Until you've been through the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, keep your laws to yourself.
As for the death penalty, I am totally against it. There are mistakes every day, judges falling asleep, yet letting the gaval fall too quickly etc. Maybe someday, it'll be a distant memory.
-
I'm anti abortion as birth control.
please provide statistics on the amount of women who utilize abortions as birth control, in a manner as cavalier as slapping on a condom
-
please provide statistics on the amount of women who utilize abortions as birth control, in a manner as cavalier as slapping on a condom
I personally know a girl who has had at a minimum 3 abortions. Unlike her, I hope that most women who have abortions view them as a last ditch effort and take them incredibly seriously. I know some do not however. As for any abortion statistics I'm sure there are none about the state of mind prior to the conception.
If it came down to banning all abortions outright, or keeping the right to abortion intact then I would side with most socially liberal and progressive people to retain the right. However, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of abortion and feel it should be restricted to specific circumstances. Since navigating the circumstances and reasons for an abortion is murky at best the only real option is to keep them available to everyone. Luckily this is not an issue I personally will ever have to deal with.
-
I personally know a girl who has had at a minimum 3 abortions. Unlike her, I hope that most women who have abortions view them as a last ditch effort and take them incredibly seriously. I know some do not however. As for any abortion statistics I'm sure there are none about the state of mind prior to the conception.
If it came down to banning all abortions outright, or keeping the right to abortion intact then I would side with most socially liberal and progressive people to retain the right. However, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of abortion and feel it should be restricted to specific circumstances. Since navigating the circumstances and reasons for an abortion is murky at best the only real option is to keep them available to everyone. Luckily this is not an issue I personally will ever have to deal with.
That's like an HIV- person saying that since they know one HIV+ that has intentionally infected someone else we should lock up all of the pozzies... or something, rather than looking at the larger picture and data set which would clearly lead one to have a more rationale, less emotionally led opinion.
-
That's like an HIV- person saying that since they know one HIV+ that has intentionally infected someone else we should lock up all of the pozzies... or something, rather than looking at the larger picture and data set which would clearly lead one to have a more rationale, less emotionally led opinion.
Desperately trying not to derail Ted's thread, but no I see the reasoning for things necessitating the way they are implemented, but I just can't agree with it. No one actually likes abortion it's just a necessary evil.
-
Oh Oh Oh the endless and paradoxical discussions/arguments that can, have and will continue to be made around topics such as the death penalty and abortion - definitely always evoke strong emotions - I remember in college we were told to avoid these areas when selecting term paper subjects. As cut and dry as they may seem in regards to forming an opinion and then using opinion as a basis for action, there are so many factors that play into formation of defined thought outcome for each - if one were to really look at each of the arguments/justifications/explanations for each - both pro and con, for and against the paradoxes would be readily identifiable - much like the staircase that leads nowhere. Truly subjects that can form the basis of eternal, infinite arguments among those with opposing views.
Not arguing one way or the other and not reflecting my view on either here - just thoughts to further discussion:
- Does it seem that most who are pro choice (not necessarily pro abortion) are also anti-death penalty?
- Does it seem that most who are pro death penalty are also anti abortion against choice?
- Does it seem that most who are pro death penalty and anti abortion/ against choice (and many times against gay rights) are also most against government interference in personal matters and matters tied to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
- Does it make more sense to abolish death penalty and instead incarcerate for life (at the expense of taxpayers) those found guilty of capital crimes? Particularly when we aren't always sure the guilty are actually guilty. Particularly when the cost of imprisonment comes at the expense of adequately being able to fund other needed services (i.e. HIV treatment). Knowing that the criminal justice system as a product of society has institutionalized injustices built in (talk about a concept - the very system that is supposed to measure and balance justice is by its very creation out of balance and unjust) - those with $$$ are able to afford better defense; those with property and money are able to bail/bond out and help with their defense; there is a certain predisposition to perceiving someone as guilty who is sitting in jail, as opposed to finding guilt in someone who is able to bond out and be on the streets before the trial begins.
I used to teach diversity in jails and we would discuss the stereotype about one race committing more crime then another - a lot of this was perception based on conviction rates - didn't take into account that one race might not be able to bond out based on discrimination against tied to getting a mortgage (with said mortgage a/k/a property ownership making it easier to obtain bond/bail) - and factor, after factor, after factor....
So why the above dissertation (if that is loosely what one would call it)? Because, for some issues there really is no way to come to a resolution or standard of agreement other than to agree to disagree). Also, many of these very same issues create conflict in the morals, values, understanding and actions of individuals themselves.
Now back to our regular scheduled thread... :D
-
-
I am pro death penalty, with certain caveats. *ducks as tomatoes are thrown my way*.
But I'm not "OK" with mistakes. I think a moratorium should be enacted for anyone who has received the death penalty based on blood evidence alone, there is too much room for mistakes or intentional tampering with the blood evidence, as indicated in the OP's link. I believe states such as Texas are too cavalier in doling out the death penalty in "blood only" cases.
I wholeheartedly and unequivocally support the death penalty when there is irrefutable eyewitness evidence the the crime (a capital offense) was committed by the defendant...
Example, irrefutable eyewitness evidence could be caught on a camera as in the case of Tx. Trooper Vetter shot in the head by an individual he stopped for a seatbelt violation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFPDeiQFfZs
Irrefutable evidence could be in the form of overwhelming personal eyewitness situations, Such as Major Hasan in the Ft. Hood massacre, The Lubys massacre where George Hannard murdered 23 people (had he lived and been found competent), The Virginia Tech massacre (had he lived)...to name a few.
Where there is not irrefutable eyewitness evidence I believe the death penal;ty should be off the table, such as only a single eyewitness, or multiple eyewitnesses who are associated with each other or are of questionable character or have questionable motives
I also believe in the Death penalty where a person is in prison and has established a history of violence in prison and then kills more than one fellow inmates or guards and there exists overwhelming witness evidence such as cameras, or fellow inmates or guards.
I could go on for 80 pages regarding what I believe should be done with the Death Penalty and why I support it in certain circumstances, but the above hi lites the major points (but there are others).
Regarding abortion, I agree with Heckraisers comments and his concern for it being used as birth control. Ive known 2 separate women who have had 2 and 3 abortions respectively as birth control (I'm not referring to rape), and in my mind if only one instance of using abortion as birth control occurred, it is one too many. That's what condoms are for. If you are a woman and you agree to have have unprotected sex you are agreeing to the possibility of bearing a child, the ramifications of which I do not believe should be eliminated by abortion.
-Will
-
I actually did a major paper, for my law class, on the Death Penalty. It was incredibly difficult but very enlightening. The conclusion of my paper was the premise that the Death Penalty is wrong, because you cannot be absolutely sure you are executing the right person. And that the state has no inherent right to execute an innocent person.
As to abortion, that's always been easy for me. Nobody has the right to tell another person, what to do with their body, period. You may notice I did not say women, because when you get the right to control female reproduction, then you can get the right to do just about anything, to anyone, for any reason. I believe the choice of abortion, is between the parents and their beliefs.
Edited to add: About the death penalty... some of you argue for its use, while opposing abortion, but in reality, isn't the death penalty equal to abortion, in that they both end a human life? I'll concede there are vast differences between the two, however their end result remains the same.
-
I am opposed to the death penalty . I have a huge problem with the system in place where career politicians , meaning district attorneys advocate for the death penalty . How is it possible an elected official can remain impartial and leave politics aside when he or she is doing what politicians do , trying to pander to constituents to save a job for themselves . I also think its just wrong .
Look at the case where the FBI lab had been relying on bullet analysis for years , it was excepted science that they could match bullets back to a box or batch of bullets . They were wrong and folks are still setting in prison based on that evidence to this day . There is no automatic appeal for these imprisoned people convicted on this bad science or evidence . I wonder how many are on death row and cant afford an attorney .
I'm prochoice on the abortion issue .
-
I believe states such as Texas are too cavalier in doling out the death penalty in "blood only" cases.
Texas is just plain cavalier about the death penalty. It should be renamed Texas Arabia. Why not just stone people?
-
Texas is just plain cavalier about the death penalty. It should be renamed Texas Arabia. Why not just stone people?
Agreed. I'm sure some would like to implement stoning here.
w
-
Edited to add: About the death penalty... some of you argue for its use, while opposing abortion, but in reality, isn't the death penalty equal to abortion, in that they both end a human life? I'll concede there are vast differences between the two, however their end result remains the same.
ahhh, yes, the timeless paradox. a philosophy that can be used by either side. The other side being... If a person is against the death penalty but advocates abortion, isn't abortion then equal to the death penalty? Don't they both end a human life? but of course then we get into the sticky arena of "when does life begin?"
I think the answer lies in the "vast differences between the two" that you alluded too.
-W
-
ahhh, yes, the timeless paradox. a philosophy that can be used by either side. The other side being... If a person is against the death penalty but advocates abortion, isn't abortion then equal to the death penalty? Don't they both end a human life? but of course then we get into the sticky arena of "when does life begin?"
I think the answer lies in the "vast differences between the two" that you alluded too.
-W
and adding more to the timeless paradox is...."abortion is the taking of an innocent life; death penalty is the taking of a guilty life" Adding further would be being that a pro choice/anti-death penalty supporter would be seen by the opposing side as being okay with the taking of an innocent life) while at the same time being against the taking of a guilty life. --- The paradoxes of the critically thinking are many. :-\
Edited to add: I choose to remain neutral so as not to ruin my chances of Senate confirmation for future Supreme Court Justice. ;D
-
My opposition to the death penalty rests with the fact and we all know, it is wrong, to intentionally kill another human being. When you cross that line, you are playing god and no matter how heinous the crime, we have no inherent right to kill someone, if we are to be true to human nature. Yes it costs more to incarcerate them, but given the decades of appeals involved with the death penalty, we are going to spend the money, one way or another.
I cannot offer an opinion, on abortion, because it does not involve my body. I believe we have an unalienable right, to control what happens to our bodies. Again, you start dictating who lives and who dies and you are right back to playing god. Abortion involves an incredibly complex set of emotions and since I am not a female, my opinion means nothing. I believe that many pregnancies could be prevented, if religious dogma was removed from sexual education. Tell people the truth, get both sides involved in prevention and give them the tools that they need. It saddens me that so many folks look down on human sexuality, as something dirty or perverted. I just do not understand. You want to limit abortions?, then change the system so we can avoid as many unwanted pregnancies, without the need for abortion.
Instead, government and other groups, muddy the waters with incomplete and sometimes outright lies, as if you can scare someone into doing something, that goes against all human instincts. I believe that if the opponents to abortion, spent half of their time and money on prevention, the issue of abortion would become less serious. Maybe one answer is to build into insurance, a form of prevention services, that would cover prevention services which are scientifically sound. But all of that leads to further discussion of American culture, because even though our founding documents, provide for separation of church and state, the reality is so very different.
One thing I have noticed, since moving to Canada, is Canadians seem to be very good at separating what are religious vs. secular issues and to address them accordingly. It's very different here and when Stephen Harper was reelected, after Canada extended marriage to all citizens, he started a campaign to reopen that issue. Canadians, in their own modest way, essentially told him to STFU, that issue had already been decided. For me, it is always easier to separate the real questions and then try to answer them in the most humane way possible.
I can never subscribe to legislating decisions of life and death.
-
If you are a woman and you agree to have have unprotected sex you are agreeing to the possibility of bearing a child, the ramifications of which I do not believe should be eliminated by abortion.
-Will
[/quote]
Do you volunteer your time as a mentor? Would you be willing to support all the unwanted children that would be a result of unwanted pregnancies? I doubt you do, or would want to (or be able to). So, just chalk up more drug addicted babies, abused kids who weren't wanted in the first place etc. There are circumstances, where a woman (or a man, for that matter) isn't necessarily thinking about birth control. I don't believe any person should force a woman into going to term with a pregnancy, and keeping a child that wasn't wanted in the first place. Too many desperate, and unpleasant things can result.
Edited to add: sorry, I messed up the quote function somehow. I was quoting Willywump.
-
If you are a woman and you agree to have have unprotected sex you are agreeing to the possibility of bearing a child, the ramifications of which I do not believe should be eliminated by abortion.
-Will
Do you volunteer your time as a mentor? Would you be willing to support all the unwanted children that would be a result of unwanted pregnancies? I doubt you do, or would want to (or be able to). So, just chalk up more drug addicted babies, abused kids who weren't wanted in the first place etc. There are circumstances, where a woman (or a man, for that matter) isn't necessarily thinking about birth control. I don't believe any person should force a woman into going to term with a pregnancy, and keeping a child that wasn't wanted in the first place. Too many desperate, and unpleasant things can result.
Edited to add: sorry, I messed up the quote function somehow. I was quoting Willywump.
Just making sure we keep the conversation equal here and look at all parts - so in the instances you are talking about - adoption wouldn't be an option?? Better to kill the child and avoid the abuse or drug addiction that might end in his/her death or other harsh consequences -- Just saying - something to think about when looking at both sides of the discussion. Good thing MLK's parents didn't think about abortion and of course Mary was an unmarried mom.... Just generating discussion - not taking any sides here. :)
-
My opposition to the death penalty rests with the fact and we all know, it is wrong, to intentionally kill another human being. When you cross that line, you are playing god and no matter how heinous the crime, we have no inherent right to kill someone, if we are to be true to human nature.
If "we all knows it is wrong to intentionally kill another human being" why have human beings been killing each other, by the millions, throughout human history? If you look at the human race objectively "human nature" clearly demonstrates that humans kill other humans under certain circumstances. If you want to say God, or a divine being, doesn't want us to kill people that is an entirely different argument.
-
If you are a woman and you agree to have have unprotected sex you are agreeing to the possibility of bearing a child, the ramifications of which I do not believe should be eliminated by abortion.
-Will
Do you volunteer your time as a mentor? Would you be willing to support all the unwanted children that would be a result of unwanted pregnancies? I doubt you do, or would want to (or be able to). So, just chalk up more drug addicted babies, abused kids who weren't wanted in the first place etc. There are circumstances, where a woman (or a man, for that matter) isn't necessarily thinking about birth control. I don't believe any person should force a woman into going to term with a pregnancy, and keeping a child that wasn't wanted in the first place. Too many desperate, and unpleasant things can result.
Edited to add: sorry, I messed up the quote function somehow. I was quoting Willywump.
I'll refrain from commenting directly to your post, as it would serve no purpose. Although I am curious about what me mentoring has to do about my beliefs on abortion.This debate has been occuring for decades, and as we know is one of the most volatile issues there is. I try not to judge you or anyone else who is pro-abortion, you are no better than I , and I am no better than you.
I make no apologies to anyone and stand behind my quote,as it is what I believe. However the quote should read "If you are a woman OR A MAN and you agree to have have unprotected sex you are agreeing to the possibility of bearing a child, the ramifications of which I do not believe should be eliminated by abortion"
I will however offer you the reason for my anit-abortion stance, and it's from personal, painful experiece (yes, even men are affected by abortion)
When a fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall, nothing (with a few exceptions of nature) will prevent it from becoming a human being who can think, speak, live and love. Nothing that is except abortion. When we abort a fetus we are removing the possibility that the fetus will grown into a loving human being and have a positive effect on the world and those around him/her...AND to love and be a lifelong positive experience with the person who gave birth to them.
We always talk about a person's legacy. We describe people who ahve passed in terms of what they did for the fellow human being, how they changed the world, and how much love they had in their heart, how much they loved us, etc...We've all gone through that recently right here on the Forums. We also describe the living in similair terms...They're an amazing person, they are so caring, they ahve changed my life, I am a better person for knowing them, I dont know what I would do without them, etc...
How many people do not get the chance to be spoke of like this because of abortion. I personally KNOW of at least 2 of them
One of the girls I referred to in my previous post who used abortion as birth control was my high school sweetheart. "We" had 2 abortions (possibly 3, I cannot remember and that pains me), we both agreed on it, there was never any talk otherwise. We were using it as birth control. We were careless and wreckless in our actions, and we were unaware how these abortions would effect us in the future, and how much pain it would bring. Soon after these abortions she became pregnant again, there was some pushback from her regarding having an abortion again. Ultimately we were in the waiting room of the doctor mere minutes away from ending yet another "legacy" or life, when she was seen by the doctor she was told it was too late to have a legal abortion, too late by a few days..
A few months later my son was born. My son was the most wonderful thing that ever happened to me in my life, ever. He is a spitting image of me, we look like twins, he is my best friend (Im not jsut saying that), we talk daily. We love each other unbelievably. He is a professional firefighter/paramedic. As a rookie has already been commended on saving his captain in a working fire. On his days off he is a Vol. Firefighter, and as such he single handedly saved a person who had a self inflicted gunshot wound to the throat, today that person is happy to be alive. My son has impacted my life immensley, as well as those of the poeple around him. I never thought a man could be so proud as I am of my son. I already have a lifetime of wonderful memories with him. I Dont know what I would do without him :)
Why am i telling you this?
Because when I look in his eyes I remember how we were within days of "ending" the life he now has. It is an unimaginable pain today when I think about that he almost "wasnt". By aborting him then, I would ahve "killed" him today, for me it is no different than holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger today.. There would be no legacy to look forward to, I would not have this joy I now ahve in my life, and a couple people may potentilally have lost their lives if my son had been aborted all those years back.
But what's even more unbearable for me is the souls we aborted before him. What about them? Who might they ahve been? How much more joy would be in my life today had we not aborted them? What different memories would I now have? What would they look like? Sometimes I see their faces (as I imagine they might look)The questions are endless... God how I wished they were here now. Just a few years back my ex and I got into a discussion about it, the first time we have ever talked about it, she broke down uncontrollably, she says she thinks about it often and cannot get over the pain....I myself still more than 20 years later still regret the decision we made, sometimes I still lay may head down at night and sometimes cry over it, I'm in pain right now as I type this. It's horrible, it makes me feel like a terrible person.. I know I will never get over it. Sometimes I feel like Im no better than Susan Smith who murdered her 2 boys (yes, rationally I know its different, but emotionally sometimes it's not)
The biggest regret of my life, that pains me often, all because we made a careless wreckless decision to abort them because we didnt use a condom. God forgive me....2 or 3 lost lives, lost legacies because we simply didnt use a condom...
It just is not right, and frankly no one can tell me otherwise.
That's why I stand against abortion when used as birth control, the lost lives, the lost potential, the lost love, and the pain of those who chose to abort them. I am aware not everyone who goes through abortion has the same reaction I have, some can just go on and never think about the possibility that was there, some forget about the incident altogether, but I couldnt, my ex couldnt, and Im sure there are others out there who have the same burden over them and live with regret just as I do.
So there it is, that is my personal reason for being against abortion, and again, no one can tell me what I did was OK, or right. I know in my heart it was not.
-W
-
I've never been an advocate of the death penalty because of the possibility of taking a single innocent life either accidently or as a result of the corruption that the OP alludes to.
However, I've also never understood the concepts of rehabilitation, prisoners' rights, continuing education and the like. When it costs more to house a single prisoner than many teachers and prison guards and other civil servants make in a single year, something is wrong with the system.
I believe that the risk of going to prison should be a deterrant and that the math related to sentencing should be made less complicated. If someone is sentenced to 10 years in prison, they should expect to be gone for somewhere around 3,650 days; a twenty year sentence should be roughly twice that. Time off for good behaviour?? That doesn't make sense. If the convicted had demonstrated good behaviour to begin with, they would have all the time in the world. Life is filled with decisions and people need to make a decision as to whether they want to be sent off to a work farm for 15 solid years or try to rob a filling station.
If we wrongly convict someone and they lose a portion of their life, I'm not sure how we, as a society, can adequately compensate them for that lost time. However, at least they are still alive and some type of an attempt can be made to overcome the mistake.
-
Good thing MLK's parents didn't think about abortion and of course Mary was an unmarried mom
Maybe Hitler's parents, and Stalin's should have thought about abortion.
Willywump, I understand why you feel bad about what happened with you and your ex. I myself have been through an abortion. Do I pain over it? Not really. At the time, it was the best decision I could have made. But either way, I don't feel that any government has the right to step in and start demanding to tell women what to do with their bodies. I could probably say more, but being that you kind of bared your soul, I won't. I respect your feelings. I believe we all have the right to our feelings, which means pro-choice as well. Sorry for your pain.
-
So there it is, that is my personal reason for being against abortion, and again, no one can tell me what I did was OK, or right. I know in my heart it was not.
-W
Will,
I'm so sorry for the pain you feel. Your story brought tears to my eyes. What struck me most though -- is that it appears that you haven't found a way to forgive yourself for what happened. While you may make a different decision today if faced with the same circumstance -- I'm sure that you made the best decision that you could at the time. It's in the past now and can't be undone. Much like many of us needed to find a way to forgive ourselves for our infection -- you need to find a way to forgive yourself, so that you can find peace.
Right now, in my mind, this has nothing to do with the politics of abortion -- it is about your pain and guilt. Personally, I find guilt to be a useless emotion, but one that is so difficult to get past. I really hope you can find someway to let this go and give yourself the chance to not live in the past.
Big hugs to you sweetie.....
Mike
-
Yikes, well this is a bit awkward, my intention was not to garner pity or compassion (or to bring this thread down in one fell swoop), I realize my post was abit of a Buzz kill. But my intent was to give some insight into what is behind my strong belief, and possibly others, that Abortion for birth control is abhorant. I'm aware that there are just as stong beliefs on the Pro-abortion side. Hence, the wider philosophical deadlock on the issue. At least we are agreeing on something, even if it is to disagree.
Although, there is definately something that I think we ALL can agree on and that is that Condoms are an amazing thing (for so many reasons)
BT and Bock, your words are kindly appreciated.
*crickets*
Ummm, How 'bout them cowboys?
-Will
-
Abortion for birth control is abhorant.
I try to stay out of discussions on this topic, because they can be so polarizing. However, I completely agree with you, Will, and have been saying that for years. I can understand when "mistakes" are made or things don't work out, but when no attempts are made to preclude a pregnancy because "the doctor can always fix it", it makes me shudder a bit. Twenty three years ago, I was faced with making that decision and I'm elated everyday that we opted to have the child; despite all of the challenges it created. Everyone has to make their own decisions though...
-
*crickets*
No crickets sweetpea, I'm just still laying on the floor with my smelling salts that your gay ass produced three chilluns. And no, I didn't even know you had one that was allowed to mature.
What else are you hiding from me?
ps: while I appreciate your tidy anecdotes explaining your personal views towards the subject of abortion, I think it should be emphasized that what is one's opinion of what one would do if they could do things over should be separated from what one advocates as a public policy via the whims of the government. I don't want the government legislating where I can stick my dick, so it would seem to follow that I also don't think it's the place of government to tell a woman what to do with her own body.
-
if it's any consolation, Miss P, my son is a flaming queen! ;)
-
I have to head out to the hustings shortly to hand out How To Vote cards on this Federal Election Day.
But before I do, I have to say that Wumpy's story, whilst touching and rather cleverly crafted, is not a particularly compelling argument on the abortion question. The point that Wump either misses or glosses over is that in his case, there was a right to choose. Just because it caused him pain doesn't mean it should be denied to others.
A woman should be entitled to accessible and safe abortions for whatever reason she chooses. Those reasons should be a matter for her and those she chooses to share them with.
That includes choosing to use abortion as a form of contraception. Her body, her choice.
No ifs, no buts. With the exception of affirming that right to choose any other views of men (even fags who've managed sire a couple of crotch trophies) should be viewed as irrelevant.
Now if you'll excuse me, the stultifying grind of democracy beckons.
MtD
-
A woman should be entitled to accessible and safe abortions for whatever reason she chooses. Those reasons should be a matter for her and those she chooses to share them with.
That includes choosing to use abortion as a form of contraception. Her body, her choice.
No ifs, no buts. With the exception of affirming that right to choose any other views of men (even fags who've managed sire a couple of crotch trophies) should be viewed as irrelevant.
Amen. Thank you for phrasing this exactly the way that I feel about it.
Have fun with them elections.
-
But before I do, I have to say that Wumpy's story, whilst touching and rather cleverly crafted, is not a particularly compelling argument on the abortion question. The point that Wump either misses or glosses over is that in his case, there was a right to choose. Just because it caused him pain doesn't mean it should be denied to others.
MtD
I agree, Matty. I don't believe, because of possible later regrets, that women should be forced to carry a child to term.
A woman should be entitled to accessible and safe abortions for whatever reason she chooses. Those reasons should be a matter for her and those she chooses to share them with.
MtD
I totally agree with this also. Had I not had that option, it would have been a disaster. Every woman's case is individualized; therefore, no generalizations should be made (e.g. "a woman who got pregnant by choice should have to have the baby). No one knows exactly how that woman feels except, well, that woman.
No ifs, no buts. With the exception of affirming that right to choose any other views of men (even fags who've managed sire a couple of crotch trophies) should be viewed as irrelevant.
In agreement again. The woman is the one who is ultimately saddled with the 9 (or however long) month waiting period, etc. No man, or anyone else for that matter, can possibly know what exactly the pregnancy is doing to/for the woman emotionally, physically etc. I don't know if that makes sense.
I've had more than one abortion, and I can honestly say that none were done by haste. And living with that decision prior to and after the procedure can extremely uproot the emotions. The procedure itself is not pleasant, at all. Do I regret it? Hell no. Had I chose to go through with the pregnancies, well, it would not have been good.
Should I have thought about using condoms? Well, I suppose everyone on this forum should have thought about that, aye?
Now if you'll excuse me, the stultifying grind of democracy beckons.
MtD
Have fun, Dear Damned One. So nice to have someone explain how I feel. ;)
-
I'm having a flashback to a George Carlin episode: "Pro life, Abortion, and the Sanctity of life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM
Ray
-
No crickets sweetpea, I'm just still laying on the floor with my smelling salts that your gay ass produced three chilluns. And no, I didn't even know you had one that was allowed to mature.
Better get the smelling salts out again P, ...as I have 2 boys, the second quite a bit younger (and from a different mother) than the one I depicted above. They are both AMAZING!
:)
-Will
-
Better get the smelling salts out again P, ...as I have 2 boys, the second quite a bit younger (and from a different mother) than the one I depicted above. They are both AMAZING!
:)
-Will
Lak omg... Mah boo is a breeder.
::faints::
-
Better get the smelling salts out again P, ...as I have 2 boys, the second quite a bit younger (and from a different mother) than the one I depicted above. They are both AMAZING!
:)
-Will
So why haven't you ever talked about them? I'm gonna have to require PIX-OR-IT-DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Oh, wait -- so it's more than one girl too? You heteroslut. Too bad you're not still a top with the boypussi.
-
Lak omg... Mah boo is a breeder.
::faints::
Barbara please -- have you had one female wife or two?
-
So why haven't you ever talked about them? I'm gonna have to require PIX-OR-IT-DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Oh, wait -- so it's more than one girl too? You heteroslut. Too bad you're not still a top with the boypussi.
It's a long line of girls, i dont know they just throw theirselves at me for some reason. But in the interest of full disclosure i havent been with a woman in over a decade, and even then Mr. Wee Willy had no intentions of "rising to the occasion" it was a rather "limpy" event. However to this day I'm hit on by mostly women *sigh*....I guess I need to queen it up a little more.
And, of course, I am going to have to defer from posting pics to protect the innocent.
-W
-
Barbara please -- have you had one female wife or two?
WUT? My Rev has had wives???
:faints:
This thread is too much to handle, I'm gonna have to the egg thread where things are even keeled.
-W
-
Barbara please -- have you had one female wife or two?
Two, but that's ancient history (that I believe only you and Matty knew about; so thanks for outing me, byotch :)) And we didn't procreate. Neither one of them liked chirrens and I only find the little critters to be cute from afar.
-
I love babies, but I could never eat a whole one.
-
Two, but that's ancient history (that I believe only you and Matty knew about; so thanks for outing me, byotch :)) And we didn't procreate. Neither one of them liked chirrens and I only find the little critters to be cute from afar.
I also knew! :D
-
Better get the smelling salts out again P, ...as I have 2 boys, the second quite a bit younger (and from a different mother) than the one I depicted above. They are both AMAZING!
:)
-Will
Why should anyone be surprised, what with those bulging biceps and all......... ;)
Actually, if I can have a child, Willy's not so surprising...... (of course I was a young 'un of 15 when she was born -- I got over that "phase" early).
M
-
One of the girls I referred to in my previous post who used abortion as birth control was my high school sweetheart. "We" had 2 abortions (possibly 3, I cannot remember and that pains me), we both agreed on it, there was never any talk otherwise. We were using it as birth control. We were careless and wreckless in our actions, and we were unaware how these abortions would effect us in the future, and how much pain it would bring. Soon after these abortions she became pregnant again, there was some pushback from her regarding having an abortion again. Ultimately we were in the waiting room of the doctor mere minutes away from ending yet another "legacy" or life, when she was seen by the doctor she was told it was too late to have a legal abortion, too late by a few days..
How do you not remember whether you had 2 or 3 abortions? Not being smartass, but just curious.
I completely understand where you are coming from on this. Well, not exactly. I had unprotected sex with girls and actually had to do a paternity test. The child wasn't mine. However, my partner's sister offered us her unborn baby when I was about 21. We spent sleepless nights thinking about it. We came to the decision that we just weren't ready. We also saw problems down the road with her possibly asking for the child back. We really didn't think she'd go through with the abortion. But, she did. That has haughted us ever since. That child would be about 13 now. And, we would actually like a child now.
Having said that, I would never try to make decisions for others just because it caused us grief and sorrow.
-
Jebus, you Southern girls are so messy.
-
How do you not remember whether you had 2 or 3 abortions? Not being smartass, but just curious.
Not sure it's a valid question Tedders given the bigger scheme of things. What does the number of abortions I had have to do with the the argument as a whole? But since I posted it I'll answer it the best way I can.
They all happened in a short period of time, it was a blur, we were 2 young, careless, dumb kids. Also it was quite easy to get an abortion, looking back it was way too easy. You merely made an appt and got together a couple hundred dollars went in and after an hour or so you walked out the other side. There was no counseling, there were no lines of protesters to walk through. It was TOO easy. We had other things to worry about than to keep track of the abortions we had, there were the parties on saturday night, etc.. We were hell unleashed, and we should have been stopped HELLO CONDOMS), but we werent. We were merely 2 ignorant kids. So I guess the best answer I ahve to your questions is the ease of it all made it a non-issue for us, and as a non-issue we didnt keep track or dwell on it....until later.
Had there been some obstacles in place, had it not been quite so easy, then perhaps we would have had no abortions (and had Abortions not been available then we definately would have not had any abortions).
We used the argument "having an abortion was the right thing for us at the time", we were young, I had college ahead of me, "we shouldnt be burdened with a child in our situation", etc.. All these reasonings were valid to us at the time, however they were proved wrong as my son was born within a year of these abortions. When he was born we were still young (I was 18), still had college ahead, etc...Yeah it was hard, I was terrified, I couldnt party with my friends anymore because I was woking 2 jobs and going to college, she had to take a job at a daycare so she could watch my son and bring in some much needed money. It was anything but easy, but we did it, I made it through college and all that. I think it was during this time that it dawned on us that we were terribly wrong in my flippant attitude that we couldnt be burdened with bringing a human being into the world at such a young age, when in fact having a child (even though it was tough) would turn out to be the most amazing time of our lives that we are still living today.
The majority of us on these forums will not have unprotected sex with neggies because we know the ramifications of spreading HIV. The populace as a whole needs to understand the ramifications of having unprotected sex (wow I could have a baby) and use some sort of protection on the front end, not use abortion as birth control on the back end.
Look, I know Im in the minority here in my views, and I more than realize that my argument doesnt apply across the board. I get the "Keep the govt out of my body", But why do we even have to get to the point of keeping the govt out of our bodies? We can keep the government out of our bodies by using condoms, the pill, etc...We need to understand that having unprotected sex MAY resort in an unwanted child! and a 99cent condom or the pill can prevent the need to have an abortion.
-W
-
I had a bird and the bees discussion that included using condoms to prevent pregnancy from my father when I was 14.
-
Jebus, you Southern girls are so messy.
You should come live down here.
-
Jebus, you Southern girls are so messy.
Oh no ma'am! You can't just assume the mantle of or shed your southern heritage at will. You either are or are not Southern. Do I need to go looking for threads where you stated in no uncertain terms "I was born in the south!" to justify your authority on the subject matter.
You's a messy southern queen, just like the rest of us, 'fess up honey.
-
Oh no ma'am! You can't just assume the mantle of or shed your southern heritage at will. You either are or are not Southern. Do I need to go looking for threads where you stated in no uncertain terms "I was born in the south!" to justify your authority on the subject matter.
You's a messy southern queen, just like the rest of us, 'fess up honey.
Oh no he didn't ---- ;) ;D
-
Oh no ma'am! You can't just assume the mantle of or shed your southern heritage at will. You either are or are not Southern. Do I need to go looking for threads where you stated in no uncertain terms "I was born in the south!" to justify your authority on the subject matter.
You's a messy southern queen, just like the rest of us, 'fess up honey.
Meh, I left those environs when I was 23. Smarter by half.
Plus look on a map for Leesburg, VA (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=leesburg+va&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Leesburg,+VA&gl=us&ei=w1pwTKn5EML58AbhhZ2mDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ8gEwAA) and you'll see that I was a mere mile from being "not" Southern :) lol
-
Meh, I left those environs when I was 23. Smarter by half.
Plus look on a map for Leesburg, VA (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=leesburg+va&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Leesburg,+VA&gl=us&ei=w1pwTKn5EML58AbhhZ2mDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ8gEwAA) and you'll see that I was a mere mile from being "not" Southern :) lol
23 ... Your definitely southern then , its in the rule book Miss Phillicia Belle .
-
You can take a girl out of the South, but you can't take the South out of a girl.
-
Meh, I left those environs when I was 23. Smarter by half.
Plus look on a map for Leesburg, VA (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=leesburg+va&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Leesburg,+VA&gl=us&ei=w1pwTKn5EML58AbhhZ2mDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ8gEwAA) and you'll see that I was a mere mile from being "not" Southern :) lol
I'm trying to remember off the top of my head and I'm tired. Everything south of the Mason-Dixon line was considered "The South"??
-
I think a person has to be born in the South to really appreciate it. I'm from the North, moved down to Alabama years ago, and moved back up to the North as fast as I could go (even if "the North" is Indiana).
I did like a lot of the food, though.
-
How do you not remember whether you had 2 or 3 abortions? Not being smartass, but just curious.
He didn't have the abortions. She did. Other than being a seed donor, he was largely superfluous to proceedings. It should come as no surprise that he can't quite remember how many times she paid a visit to the D&C shop given that the vacuum wasn't shoved up his twat.
Oh that it could have been.
And therein lies the rub. Who gives a shit what he thinks? Why should major issues of public policy and individual rights shift on the basis of what a man thinks about female fertility?
They shouldn't.
Frankly the spectacle of fags who one the one hand shriek about the alleged injustices of marriage being denied to sodomites yet on the other advance a shamelessly anti-choice position regarding abortion borders on the faint making.
MtD
-
He didn't have the abortions. She did. Other than being a seed donor, he was largely superfluous to proceedings. It should come as no surprise that he can't quite remember how many times she paid a visit to the D&C shop given that the vacuum wasn't shoved up his twat.
Oh that it could have been.
And therein lies the rub. Who gives a shit what he thinks? Why should major issues of public policy and individual rights shift on the basis of what a man thinks about female fertility?
They shouldn't.
Frankly the spectacle of fags who one the one hand shriek about the alleged injustices of marriage being denied to sodomites yet on the other advance a shamelessly anti-choice position regarding abortion borders on the faint making.
MtD
I don't think that Will has ever stated he wants public policy changed. He stated why he personally has issues with abortion, but I've not read where he thinks a woman's right to choose should be banned. I find your utter lack of compassion to him a bit shocking. He went out and exposed a painful chapter of his life to explain his personal feelings on an issue. Calling him nothing more than a seed donor borders on the edge of lunacy, this wasn't some anonymous one-night stand with someone he never saw again. This was someone he had an ongoing relationship with -- Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it invalid. It wouldn't kill you to show a wee bit of kindness.
Also -- while I agree that, ulitimately, it is the woman's choice -- in a perfect world one could hope it would be a choice arrived it with input from both parties involved in creating the pregnancy.
Mike
-
I abhor the death penalty, but I'm also anti abortion (except in rare cases). My politics are convoluted and complicated to say the least.
Actually, your politics seem quite consistent to me. You are against killing in both cases. Good!
-
I believe the early church went with the concept of "quickening" to determine ensoulment, and I'd suspect they didn't make that up themselves (snagged it from the pagan Romans). Quickening is the moment that the fetus first moves, or is felt to move, i.e. from 18-21 weeks. Feticide and abortion are hardly new concepts, especially with the law. Abortion views that center around the moment of conception are (relatively) new. It's a testament to the modern anti-abortion Moral Majority movement that so many are still swayed by this, but then all of you grew up around Roe v. Wade.
At any rate, the large majority of abortions are performed before that time period, and those after that period are done for the health of the mother in an unusual circumstance. I just don't see the big deal. It's been going on forever. Nobody has a funeral when there's a miscarriage (except Rick Santorum). My mother is a god-fearing Christian and has always been pro-choice.
-
I don't think that Will has ever stated he wants public policy changed. He stated why he personally has issues with abortion, but I've not read where he thinks a woman's right to choose should be banned. I find your utter lack of compassion to him a bit shocking. He went out and exposed a painful chapter of his life to explain his personal feelings on an issue. Calling him nothing more than a seed donor borders on the edge of lunacy, this wasn't some anonymous one-night stand with someone he never saw again. This was someone he had an ongoing relationship with -- Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it invalid. It wouldn't kill you to show a wee bit of kindness.
Also -- while I agree that, ulitimately, it is the woman's choice -- in a perfect world one could hope it would be a choice arrived it with input from both parties involved in creating the pregnancy.
Mike
There's an elephant in the room. His come to Jesus over the abortion issue didn't change his sexual behavior one bit. Even after all he learned about condoms he still didn't practice safe sex.
-
Feticide and abortion are hardly new concepts, especially with the law. Abortion views that center around the moment of conception are (relatively) new. It's a testament to the modern anti-abortion Moral Majority movement that so many are still swayed by this, but then all of you grew up around Roe v. Wade.
There are actually a number of things that are relatively new in the world. Serious opposition to the death penalty, (to return to the OP) is one of them--at least on the level of states actually doing away with it. Even Ashoka, that most idealistic of Buddhist rulers, didn't do that, although he may have limited its use. Growing numbers of people talking about animal rights is a very new thing, at least in the West. How many people, fifty years ago, had a problem with a fur coat? How could all of this growing feeling for life and the right to life, if it extends even to animals, not have extended to the fetus in the womb?
-
There are actually a number of things that are relatively new in the world. Serious opposition to the death penalty, (to return to the OP) is one of them--at least on the level of states actually doing away with it. Even Ashoka, that most idealistic of Buddhist rulers, didn't do that, although he may have limited its use. Growing numbers of people talking about animal rights is a very new thing, at least in the West. How many people, fifty years ago, had a problem with a fur coat? How could all of this growing feeling for life and the right to life, if it extends even to animals, not have extended to the fetus in the womb?
That's nice Nestor, but we're discussing abortion not one of your tangents. Do you believe in a woman's right to chose or not?
-
That's nice Nestor, but we're discussing abortion not one of your tangents. Do you believe in a woman's right to chose or not?
Actually, we're discussing the death penalty, if the idea of respecting the original post means anything. That discussion quickly broadened out to include abortion, which, since they are both questions of the right to life, is not surprising.
You said that the idea that human life begins at conception, and therefore deserves the same protection under law as any other human life, is relatively new. I pointed out in response that there are many ideas which are relatively new, not least of which is serious, practical opposition to the death penalty. If you want to say that anti-abortion views are strange because they are relatively new or not supported by the early church, you can then say the same thing about anti-death penalty views.
For you to introduce this line of argument, and then say that I am "going off on a tangent" when I respond to it, is frankly odd. If anything, by returning to the death penalty I was trying to nudge the discussion back to the OP and his concern. To call that a tangent is something more than odd.
As for your personal question, I believe in a woman's right to choose many, many things. But I assume abortion is what you meant by that euphemism. As for the fetus in the womb, I am unable to see "it" as anything other than a living human being. So no, that is one "choice" in which I do not believe.
-
As for the fetus in the womb, I am unable to see "it" as anything other than a living human being. So no, that is one "choice" in which I do not believe.
Since you believe that abortion is murder, what do you propose be done in terms of public policy? Is it safe to assume that you advocate making abortion illegal and prosecuting both doctors and women to the same degree as non-fetal/womb murder? If not, why not?
Additionally, are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and have all pre/post natal care paid for as well as huge amounts of orphanages? If not, why not?
-
He didn't have the abortions.
the vacuum wasn't shoved up his twat.
Oh that it could have been.
MtD
Of course I didnt ahve the abortions, but thanks for setting that straight for everyone M. If you would read and digesst my post perhaps you would see that I was invovled and that it had a huge effect on me. I know perhaps you find it odd that an abortion can also affect a man, but I'm here to say that it most certainly can.
"Who gives a shit what he thinks" - Primarily it is about women yes, but as a man who has been greatly affected by abortions why cant I have a strong belief on the issue, hence my post.
I was certainly hoping you would add something more concrete to the discussion than jsut ridiculing my inability to remember how many abortions WE had....and also musing about the joy of potentially having the vacuum shoved up my twat.
-W
-
This thread has potential to leave some very good people with hurt feelings . Is it really worth it guys ?
-
Since you believe that abortion is murder, what do you propose be done in terms of public policy? Is it safe to assume that you advocate making abortion illegal and prosecuting both doctors and women to the same degree as non-fetal/womb murder? If not, why not?
Additionally, are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and have all pre/post natal care paid for as well as huge amounts of orphanages? If not, why not?
To the first question: the motives of prosecution and punishment are revenge, the reform of the criminal, and the protection of society. I reject revenge as a motive. I hardly think any criminals are being reformed or made better people by the prison system as we currently have it; on the contrary. That leaves protection of society. To put anyone in prison is to deprive him of his right to liberty, but if someone comes into my apartment and kills me or steals all my things today, there is a chance that he will do the same thing to you tomorrow. The only way to protect you and everyone else, as far as I can see, is to put him in prison. A woman who has had an abortion does not pose a comparable threat to society, so I do not see why she should be prosecuted or punished in the same way. The doctor performing abortion is another matter.
I actually had an abortion doctor as a student once. He was a very cheerful, friendly man, a Santa Claus type. Most of his classmates were very young Europeans, and they all had ambivalent but largely negative feelings about abortion. At one point one student described how in Ireland, where abortion is not or was not legal, there are or were a lot of homeless children. "See!" he exclaimed, "it would have been better if their mothers had had abortions." That was the moment in which my opposition to abortion crystalized into something stronger. To say that people are better off dead than poor strikes me as so horrifying, so gross a perversion of the human soul, that I thought then that a lifetime of defending abortion, let alone actualy performing it, took a terrible toll on the defender or practitioner as much as on anyone else.
For your second question, I hardly see why it needs to be asked. I think I have gone on record as believing that all people have a right to decent health care. Why would that not include pre- and post-natal care? And of course a society that actually prohibits abortion takes upon itself a responsibility to provide humane alternatives and active support for mothers and children. Sane sex education and the encouragement and availability of condoms would also be a big part of the solution, and hopefully prevent the need for "huge" amounts of orphanages.
When I was young there was a lesbian couple in my family who decide to get pregnant (obviously only one member of the couple would have) and have a child. They at first wanted to inseminate the one with the sperm of the brother of the other, but this brother refused. Anyway what followed was a nightmare. Attempt after attempt failed, I don't know why. They lost most of their money, there was medical trauma to the partner who was making the attempts, and they finally broke up--they who had been one of the happiest couples I knew. It all seemed tragically unnecessary to me. There are children in orphanages who dream of the kind of home they could have given. Why go through all this trauma rather than simply adopt a child? Blood-lines and race do not have the importance to us which they had to our ancestors. I suspect that our society would be quite open to adoption, something that would also make "huge numbers" of orphanages less necessary.
Finally, I reject "ends justifying the means" reasoning. Laws are made based on what is right, not what the consequences are. Even if you could prove to me now that the death penalty was a powerful deterrent of crime, I would not then support it for that reason.
-
This thread has potential to leave some very good people with hurt feelings . Is it really worth it guys ?
I didn't see this until after I posted my last statement. I would probably have posted it anyway since Miss P asked a direct question and I suppose it deserved to be answered.
But thank you for the sane statement. We're all dramatically different people who are together here for the single reason that we're all dealing with HIV and can support each other in that struggle. It would be sad if we allowed something like our opinions on abortion to interfere with that.
Having said this, may I return completely to the OP?
TednLou wrote:
If you don't have a problem with the death penalty, I think stories like these should give you pause. It seems like I hear of prisoners being found innocent on a monthly basis after serving many years in prison. Unfortunately for some in this story, the facts came too late as some were already put to death. The North Carolina crime lab is accused of hiding evidence to come to the conclusion they and prosecutors wanted. Michael Jordan's father is involved in this story as he was murdered. I wonder just how many innocent people are in prison or have been put to death
There was someone at my church about seven years ago whose main work was documenting the executions of innocent people, and using that to protest the death penalty. We had a long conversation. I said that while I was fanatically against the death penalty, I didn't think the "innocent victims" argument worked for two reasons. First of all, if you believed the death penalty was just, you wouldn't feel that the execution of the innocent was a reason to abolish it; it would be enough to get a more fair judiciary, and really apply the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle. Secondly, if you do make the argument, you have to abolish prisons too, since putting an innocent person in jail is almost as horrifying as killing him.
To my first argument, he pointed out that if perfect justice was not a reasonable hope, then that would still be a good argument for not inflicting death on people who might be innocent. To the second, he said it depended on how much time passed before the innocence of the accused was discovered. If you've found out that I didn't kill the guy after all, five years after you put me behind bars, you can release me from jail and give me some serious compensation. If you had executed me, what can you do but apologize to my family? On the other hand, if you don't find out that the person is innocent until after he's been rotting in jail for fifty years, then that does indeed seem almost as bad as unjust execution.
Bottom line: if I were on a jury, I would say innocent unless I could really have not the shadow of a doubt that the accused was guilty. Couldn't we avoid all this horror just by remembering that basic principle?
-
Of course laws have consequences, Nestor -- just look at what making abortion illegal has done for Latin America. To state that laws should be made without regard to consequences is astoundingly stupid.
link (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21/opinion/oe-molmann21)
Lesson 1: Outlawing abortion does not stop women from having them. "What do I care if abortion is legal or illegal?" Marcela E. told me in 2004 in Argentina, where abortion generally is banned. "If I have to do it, I have to do it." The 32-year-old mother of three had a clandestine abortion after her husband raped her.
A community organizer in Argentina told me: "You will not believe what women end up putting in their uteruses to abort." I wish I didn't.
I have spoken to women who used knives, knitting needles, rubber tubes, even pieces of wood to pry open their uteruses. Some got access to abortive medicines that in theory lower the possibility of direct infection but that caused serious complications when they took them without medical assistance. Affluent women suffered fewer traumatic ordeals, often traveling to the U.S. for the procedure or sneaking off to upscale private Latin America clinics where, on paper, they had surgery for appendicitis.
Lesson 2: Providing limited exceptions to an abortion ban does little to improve access to safe abortions.
In reality very few, if any, women get such "non-punishable" abortions because there are no clear procedures. Fearing that they'd be charged with a crime, many of the women I interviewed who might have qualified for a legal abortion because they had been raped or because their health was endangered by the pregnancy did not dare to out themselves as potential abortion candidates. They went straight for the illegal and mostly unsafe back-alley abortions. A large proportion of maternal mortality in Latin America is caused directly by the consequences of such unsafe abortions.
Lesson 3: In Latin America, as everywhere else, the best way to stop abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Women and girls act within the circumstances imposed upon them. In Latin America, where contraceptives are inaccessible and sex is stigmatized (through cultural expectations that they be virginal and uneducated about sex), unwanted pregnancies are more common; not surprisingly, there is a higher proportion of abortions to pregnancies than in, for example, the U.S. The simple fact is that women with unwanted or imposed pregnancies would have preferred not to need abortions.
-
To state that laws are made without regard to consequences is astoundingly stupid.
Thank you for that generous distortion of what I said. Ends do not justify means. One does not do the wrong thing even if it might have good consequences; one does not avoid doing the right thing even the consequences are difficult. Do you oppose the death penalty? If someone could prove that imposing the dealth penalty with rigor resulted in less crime, would you then support the death penalty? If not, why not?
-
Do you oppose the death penalty? If someone could prove that imposing the dealth penalty with rigor resulted in less crime, would you then support the death penalty? If not, why not?
Show me that it results in less crime. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, as usual.
ps: I enjoyed how you disregarded the consequences of abortion being illegal in Latin America.
-
Bottom line: if I were on a jury, I would say innocent unless I could really have not the shadow of a doubt that the accused was guilty. Couldn't we avoid all this horror just by remembering that basic principle?
What if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused committed a horrible crime, for example it was recorded on video? Or someone like Timothy McVeigh who admits, without remorse, he killed 168 men, women and children in the Oklahoma City bombing?
-
Show me that it results in less crime. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, as usual.
No comment. I answered every one of your questions, you evade mine. You stated a general principle that we make laws with their consequences in view. I asked you hypothetically if a good law (abolishing the death penalty in the example) had a bad consequence, whether that would make the law less good.
-
No comment. I answered every one of your questions, you evade mine. You stated a general principle that we make laws with their consequences in view. I asked you hypothetically if a good law (abolishing the death penalty in the example) had a bad consequence, whether that would make the law less good.
There's no reason for me to answer your hypothetical -- I don't live in the made up world of Nestorland. I presented a real world consequence, you can't do the same. You fail.
-
What if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused committed a horrible crime, for example it was recorded on video? Or someone like Timothy McVeigh who admits, without remorse, he killed 168 men, women and children in the Oklahoma City bombing?
It doesn't matter. You either believe in the death penalty or you don't. No caveats.
-
Some of the main purposes of this forum are exposure to new ideas and information, open and free flowing (but respectful) discussion, and opportunities to find support. This, however, is a very loaded topic about which debate seems rarely to result in changed minds. If, based on your religious or moral beliefs, abortion is tantamount to murder, then nothing anyone says is likely to change your position. Debate about the death penalty, is also frequently difficult and rarely changes people's minds.
I won't ask you guys not to get into this debate, but I will ask you to refrain from getting personal, and I will lock the discussion if it gets out of hand.
David
-
What if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused committed a horrible crime, for example it was recorded on video? Or someone like Timothy McVeigh who admits, without remorse, he killed 168 men, women and children in the Oklahoma City bombing?
Well, then I would say guilty. The point is, that we recognize that in a lot of cases we simply will not know, finally, whether the person on trial is innocent or guilty. In those cases it is better to let a guilty person go free than to put an innocent person behind bars. That's where the "innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in. Tednlou began this thread by showing how many innocent people are, sickeningly, found guilty and put in jail--even killed in some cases. I assumed that some of this comes from juries saying "guilty" in cases where there ought to have been a reasonable doubt, and they therefore ought to have said "innocent". But since TednLou went further and pointed to prosecutors going so far as even to fabricate evidence, perhaps our problems go even deeper than we knew.
-
It doesn't matter. You either believe in the death penalty or you don't. No caveats.
I think this is true. However one can believe in the death penalty but not agree with how it is handed out.
I believe in the death penalty...If it can be shown unequivocally (not beyond a reasonable doubt as that threshold is not absolute) that he person commited a capitol offense with overwhelming eyewitness evidence (Mc veigh, Hassan, etc..), or in the case that a prisoner has shown that he continues to be a threat to human life such as the prisoner that continues to kill in prison.
I do not believe in the death penalty on "taintable" evidence alone, such as blood evidence only.
I think we need to tighten the death penalty eligibility to only those that have overwhelming eyewitness evidence.
TO Philly and NEstors earlier points on abortion:
Very good points raised by Philly and Nestor.
Lesson 3: In Latin America, as everywhere else, the best way to stop abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
(and to Nestors point)
As Ive said repeatedly, Condoms, Condoms, Condoms. The best way to address the abortion problem is to have a change in the way we view condoms. We need to have a change in thought in that...instead of condoms being an option, condoms need to be a required part of sex. We need to get to the mindset that sex=the absolute use of condoms. How do we achieve this goal? We start them young, the younger the better. Parents need to take the lead in this effort as well as schools. So many parents are afraid to broach the subject of condoms because they fear they "will have to talk about sex" or that it would mean their children would think it was carte blanche to have sex. Newsflash...kids are having sex younger and younger these days, its not unusual at all these days to hear about 12 and 13y/o having sex (and getting pregnant). A simplistic example of this would be the Birds and bees discussion. When a child asks "how are babies made?" the response should be centered heavily on condom usage ie." a baby is made when a man and a woman choose not to use a condom" then go into the actual mechanics of it. A child should enter the sexual age KNOWING that sex is only sex when a condom is used (sex= condoms). How many times does this critical discussion occur without even a mention of condoms, or merely tacking it on as a sidenote?? America needs to get over it's stuffiness over sex and make it a requirement that condoms are available in schools (IMHO beginning around 6th grade), THe pill should also be available, without the need of parental consent in High School. Every child should have a condom in their backpack by High School. Drill this condom issue repeatedly into these young minds (hit them young and hit them hard) and the new mindset of the young generation has a real chance to change. Will this eliminate all need for abortions as birth control? Of course not. However I propose that it will drastically reduce the need in the long run. It's all about the mindset.
Regarding adoption. I agree. Adoption needs to be seen as a viable and real alternative to abortion. Again it'a all about the mindset of the populace. We need to get to the point that instead of immediatley jumping to an abortion we need to realize that although for whatever reason a child "would not be right for me right now" It would be right for someone else, who cannot have a child and is looking desperately for a child. Nestor brings up a good point about gay couples wanting to adopt. The US needs to make it easier for gay couples to adopt (perhaps they are the most captive audience in wanting to adopt). Similar story to NEstor's, I have a lesbian couple in the family, they were unable to adopt an American child so they adopted a child from China, they are now in the process of adopting twins in India. While the majority of states Allow or do not blatantly deny a LGBT couple from adopting, a few do such as Florida. Even in those states that allow it they make it covertly difficult for LGBT's to adopt. Not to mention the red tape and bureacracy, and costs invloved for any US adoption.
However, in speaking to the difficulty of Adoptions in the US, they do not always have to occur through a state agency. I knew of a girl that found a couple that wanted a child, I beleive they found each other in the newspaper(I could be wrong). The couple entered into a contract with this girl and the girl was compensated greatly, was even given a new car to drive, and worked for the couple for a time. The birth occured and both the couple and the mother were happy, there were no problems (yes, im aware that some of these scenarios turn bad with the birth mother having second thoughts before or after the birth, however I believe they are in the minority.
-W
-
I believe in the death penalty...If it can be shown unequivocally (not beyond a reasonable doubt as that threshold is not absolute) that he person commited a capitol offense with overwhelming eyewitness evidence (Mc veigh, Hassan, etc..), or in the case that a prisoner has shown that he continues to be a threat to human life such as the prisoner that continues to kill in prison.
What is gained by society with the death penalty versus life imprisonment?
-
What is gained by society with the death penalty versus life imprisonment?
With life imprisonment society:
1) has to provide food, housing, clothing, exercise, legal services, medical care and 24 hour supervision for someone for the rest of their life-- services that we don't always provide our own citizens.
2) cannot be guaranteed that the prisoner will not harm staff or other prisoners
3) cannot be guaranteed that the prisoner will not escape and harm someone else
Life imprisonment is nothing but an expenditure.
-
What is gained by society with the death penalty versus life imprisonment?
Nothing other than a masturbatory sense of retribution. Some people believe in that "eye for an eye" philosophy and nothing can change their way of thinking.
I'm finna bust some heads to the white meat based on some of the stuff that has been written within this thread. From this point I'm just gonna mark it as read so that I see no more of it.
-
Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, as usual.
Philly, cool your jets. The comment from you above is bordering on flamebait. If you can't be polite/diplomatic in your responses, don't respond.
Same goes for everyone else participating in this thread. If you cannot play nice, go read another thread instead of responding to this one. If we continue to get borderline flamebait responses, this thread will be locked.
Ann
-
With life imprisonment society:
1) has to provide food, housing, clothing, exercise, legal services, medical care and 24 hour supervision for someone for the rest of their life-- services that we don't always provide our own citizens.
2) cannot be guaranteed that the prisoner will not harm staff or other prisoners
3) cannot be guaranteed that the prisoner will not escape and harm someone else
Life imprisonment is nothing but an expenditure.
source (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts)
The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought.
...
The death penalty in the U.S. is an enormously expensive and wasteful program with no clear benefits. All of the studies on the cost of capital punishment conclude it is much more expensive than a system with life sentences as the maximum penalty. In a time of painful budget cutbacks, states are pouring money into a system that results in a declining number of death sentences and executions that are almost exclusively carried out in just one area of the country. As many states face further deficits, it is an appropriate time to consider whether maintaining the costly death penalty system is being smart on crime.
-
Willy, for what it's worth, I was moved by what you shared. I respect your stance on the matter even though I do not agree with it. My opinion of you will not change simply because of this, not fickle here homie.
Thomas
PS I learned a valuable lesson here last week after basically being called a racist in so many words due to my neutral stance on a subject. This, of course, after attending the forums for 5 years and having shown people very well who I am regarding such matters. Always remember everyone people who casually change their opinion of you, so easily, are not the type you really want to be around. Lucky for all of us they are few............
-
source (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts)
The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought.
...
The death penalty in the U.S. is an enormously expensive and wasteful program with no clear benefits. All of the studies on the cost of capital punishment conclude it is much more expensive than a system with life sentences as the maximum penalty. In a time of painful budget cutbacks, states are pouring money into a system that results in a declining number of death sentences and executions that are almost exclusively carried out in just one area of the country. As many states face further deficits, it is an appropriate time to consider whether maintaining the costly death penalty system is being smart on crime.
An excellent argument for making the death penalty process more efficient.
-
An excellent argument for making the death penalty process more efficient.
Yeah, it works so well in China, Iran, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. Such great friends we keep in this practice.
-
There's no reason for me to answer your hypothetical -- I don't live in the made up world of Nestorland. I presented a real world consequence, you can't do the same. You fail.
I really do not see how my question was unclear. I began by saying that to my eyes, the fetus is a person, and therefore has the right to life. Negative practical consequences of anti-abortion laws do not make the fetus less a person or the killing of that person less wrong.
As an analogy, I proposed my own opposition to the death penalty. I oppose it because it is wrong, in my view, not because I think abolishing it has beneficial consequences to society. In my view even the worst criminals remain human beings who have the right to life. Even if you could prove to me that having the death penalty led to major social benefits, greater safety, less crime, etc., that would do nothing to make me change my view. If it doesn't make the criminal less a person, or killing less a crime, why would it?
Hence my hypothetical question: I wanted to find out whether your oppostion to the death penalty, if you are opposed to it, was based only on practical considerations or on an absolute conviction of the human being's right to life. I regard that as a vital question; from your "made up world of Nestorland" comment you clearly do not.
Apparently the idea of doing what is right, because it is right, regardless of the consequences, is an unpopular one.
ps: I enjoyed how you disregarded the consequences of abortion being illegal in Latin America.
First, why should I have regarded it? You havent' responded to every one of my statements in this thread. If we all did every thread would quickly grow to encyclopaedic length.
Secondly, it is, as I tried to explain above, irrelevent. If it does not show that the fetus is not a human being, how can it change my view of the nature of abortion?
But since you want a comment, here goes. First, it mainly says that one consequence of abortion being illegal is that women get abortions anyway. That strikes me as both logically wrong and impractical. Logically wrong because women getting abortions anyway isn't a consequence of abortion being illegal, but rather something that happens despite abortion being illegal. There is a difference. Practically wrong because the implied advice is not followed in any other case. Stealing is illegal, yet theft still happens. That is not an argument for legalizing theft.
Secondly, it states that women get illegal abortions in gruesome ways. If a woman inserts a knife into herself, that is a consequence not primarily of abortion being illegal but of a whole host of social and moral problems which need to be solved before the root causes can be addressed. But you had already asked me whether society should take upon itself the responsibility of dealing humanely with the unwanted pregnancies that result from prohibiting abortion, and I said that it goes without saying that it should.
Finally, the article you cite concludes by laying the blame for the problem not on anti-abortion laws but on lack of contraception. Since I clearly stated above that I believe strongly in sex education and the availability of contraception, I fail to see how that is a meaningful response to my argument.
I respect people who say that the fetus, up until some certain point, does not look to them like a human being and that therefore they have no problem with abortions in early stages of pregnancy. In fact, just before you made your "out of your ass" and "Nestorland" comments I was on the point of saying that I appreciated your contribution to the question of ensoulment and the quickening. The people with whom I have a problem are those who champion the "right to choose" without appearing to have given hard, serious thought to the question of the humanity of the fetus.
On the death penalty, there is no question that the criminal remains a person. I suppose death-penalty proponents feel that by committing certain heinous crimes one can forfeit one's right to life. I do not, but I'm not sure that even I would maintain this in an absolutist way. Are there societies where there is not alternative to the death penalty? A small nomadic tribe, for example, is clearly not equipped to maintain a secure prison system. If a psychopath arises in their midst, what can they do? I would still hope that some alternative could be found to killing the person, but I cannot say with certainty that one can. We, however, do have clear alternatives to death, and I think we should use them.
GSOgymrat, you say:
Life imprisonment is nothing but an expenditure.
I see the ideal prison (not the dismal ones we actually have) as a place where criminals can become better people and, yes, do some useful work.
Rev. Moon says:
I'm finna bust some heads to the white meat based on some of the stuff that has been written within this thread.
This reaction surprises me. Some opinions sadden me, especially when they seem to me to indicate a low valuation of human life. But they do not make me want to commit violence. Only insults do that.
-
An excellent argument for making the death penalty process more efficient.
See, this is why I like to stick to moral, rather than practical, arguments. If you say the death penalty has killed innocents, the answer is simply to try harder only to convict the guilty. If you it's racially discriminatory, the answer is to get rid of the racial discrimination. If you say it's expensive, then just make it more efficient. The only good argument against the death penalty is that it is morally wrong, full stop. Same with abortion. Dealing with consequences comes later.
-
See, this is why I like to stick to moral, rather than practical, arguments.
In my opinion ignoring the practical application of a philosophy isn't very useful. We could say that it is a moral imperative that every person on this planet have enough to eat but if we don't have a plan, or the will, to accomplish that goal then nothing changes.
The only good argument against the death penalty is that it is morally wrong, full stop. Same with abortion. Dealing with consequences comes later.
Of course you would need to demonstrate that abortion and the death penalty are morally wrong. You could say they are morally wrong because the Bible says so, or because violence is never acceptable, or some other reason.
-
You could say they are morally wrong because the Bible says so
Personally I would hesitate to employ that argument seeing as how I take hot loads of cum up my ass, but hey that's just me.
-
In my opinion ignoring the practical application of a philosophy isn't very useful. We could say that it is a moral imperative that every person on this planet have enough to eat but if we don't have a plan, or the will, to accomplish that goal then nothing changes.
Good points, thank you. It would be going too far to say that we should ignore the practical application of a philosophy. What I was trying to say was, first determine what is right and wrong, and then deal with the practical aspects. I didn't say "practicality be damned". Often arguments around abortion and the death penalty revolve around secondary questions--does the death penalty deter crime? Does banning abortion lead to more poverty? I cannot engage in these arguments until it has first been determined what kind of act we're dealing with--the murder of a child, something morally benign, etc.
In the example you give, I think it would be silly to say that there is a moral imperative that everyone should have food, because in the end we do not have ultimate control over the food supply. We can say that when there is limited food, it is moral that that food should be somewhat equally distributed; nobody should starve while someone else lives in opulence. We can say there is a moral obligation to work as hard as possible to avoid a famine.
In terms of abortion, again, I agreed almost at the beginning that a society that comes out against abortion takes upon itself the responsibility to care for the mothers and children and to deal humanely with the other consequensces. What I emphatically am not saying is that we can all sit in ivory towers talking first principles, and who cares about real people facing real problems? But the first principles come first.
Of course you would need to demonstrate that abortion and the death penalty are morally wrong. You could say they are morally wrong because the Bible says so, or because violence is never acceptable, or some other reason.
But that's precisely what I'm saying we should be discussing, before getting to pragmatic questions. In the case of abortion, I suppose it all hinges on whether the fetus is a human being. If it is, I don't see how there can be any denial that it is an innocent human being, or that the abortion is killing "it". I assume we are all in agreement that killing is wrong!
As for the death penalty, it's a question of whether, with certain crimes, the criminal forfeits the right to life which I think we all agree most people have. For me, the answer is no; I see the right to life as so intrinsic to the human being that it can never (or almost never) be forfeited. For others the answer may well be yes. Some crimes are so horrific that, the argument goes, people who commit them put themselves beyond the pale and merit death. I do not support that position, but I respect it.
-
*kicks the skeleton of what was once a horse*
-
*kicks the skeleton of what was once a horse*
Fret not dear child, an activist judge has stepped in to halt Obama from killing more babies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303448.html?hpid=topnews).
-
I had a strange 'opportunity". We had the Fred Phelps folks here for a visit to send everyone to hell or some such thing. I was standing outside of a community center near their protest. You may have seen pictures of their work--the whole "God Hates Fags" posters et al.
I went up to one of the shrieking nimrods and said, "Are you prochoice?" and she spitted back at me, "absolutely not...babies (blahblahblah). I pointed to her sign--she had the "Death is the cure" (meaning death from AIDS is the cure for homosexuality) one, and said "what if the baby is gay?" The look on her face was priceless as she attempted to deal with the intellectual incongruity that she was trying to sort out. Must be difficult when you hate so many.