Darth Penalty and abortion ethical question

Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

29 Mar 2013, 9:23 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

trollcatman wrote:

pawelk1986 wrote:

YippySkippy wrote:

Actually, incidences of child abuse have skyrocketed since the legalization of abortion. This is because any devaluation of life devalues all life. That is the same reason why I oppose the death penalty.

Me too while support death penalty, because it has a deterrent effect. But I am strongly opposed to the killing of innocent children who are not even have chance to be born

Abortion around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#M ... ortion_law
The light orange countries don't even allow abortion for rape.

And here are the laws on the death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_pena ... stribution

Seems there is some correlation there. Many places seem to have abortion and no death penalty, or death penalty and no abortion.

You should also post a link to a map of the world's religions.

Any such map would show the green of Islam spreading across north africa, the middle east, Afganistan, and pakistan, in a way that correlates dramatically with that orange of extreme anti abortion color on that map. Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, are all deep orange - all adamantly pro life.

So all of you Right-to-lifers would have to agree that the moral beacon of the world must be Mecca.

All of you pro-death and pro-life folks should lead the way in making nice with the Islamic world because -they are obviously the most civilized folks in the world! And you should be the first westerners to recognize that.

OH!

There is that TINY little blue pin prick in that big swath of orange. That blemish would be...Israel!

Apparently Israel is a den of abortion allowing inequity in the heart of the moral middle east.

So why do all those American Evangelicals travel to, and actively support. the only nation in the middle east that allows abortion? Seems like yet another contradiction.

I agree it is mainly islam, but also other very religious nations (Ireland, many christian nations in Africa). Another interesting map would be the number of atheists/non-religious.
It seems that the countries that are most against abortion and most in favour of the death penalty are run by crazy religious nuts.

Sosiologismus
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 34

29 Mar 2013, 11:00 pm

Yeah. Religion isn't rational and shouldn't be given much weight when considering what is right and wrong. Same with traditions.
As fueledbycoffee said there are many reasons for the right of abortion being supported, which outweigh the alternative. Mainly because of the fetus' consciousness, but also for full individual choice for women with issues concering their own future and their own body. Female liberation, in other words.

The death penalty legitimize murder, practiced by the court - a system with considerable flaws - and by government, which can be unreliant. The better choice when facing this question is to respect life and try to treat instead of kill. I don't approve of life sentences either, the better option is to decrease the maximum number of years in prison, so that you show more respect to life. Which also is a constructive choice for the sake of society and its qualities. In Europe there are countries with 21 years maximum time in prison, with possible extension. I approve of that.

Mike1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 710

30 Mar 2013, 9:46 am

I'm pro-choice and support the death penalty. I see ethical problems with both allowing and disallowing abortion, so I figure the best way to handle it is to cast the decision off myself and onto the people involved. I support the death penalty because it would be more costly to keep someone is prison for life. It would also eliminate the possibility of them ever murdering another person, and spare them from spending the rest of their life in prison. Not that they deserve the luxury of being mercy killed, but punishment would only serve as a form of revenge in this situation, which would be pretty much useless. The benefits of it would also make it worth doing. Their organs could also be used to save the lives of other people. This would help them to repay their debt to society.

My beliefs about the afterlife are unconventional. Most people either believe that either all "good" people go to heaven and all "bad" people go to hell, or that everyone just ceases to exist. I believe in a "heaven", but don't believe in "hell" as an inferno. I believe that people will be tormented for their bad decisions in one way or another in the afterlife, but not through physical torture, unless maybe that's the fate that their sub-conscious minds think they deserve.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

30 Mar 2013, 10:38 am

Mike1 wrote:

If you're gonna sound off about this issue you have to become aware of one counterintuitive fact about the death penalty.

In the industrialized world it is actually CHEAPER to house and feed someone for sixty years in a prison than it is to execute them.

Hard to believe but true.

Before they allow the state to kill someone the state has to allow appeals, and more appeals. They have to spend the tax payers money on their own case- and sometimes on the defendants case as well. And they have to house the guy in prison for the years that that takes. And so by the time they finnally execute the guy- theyve spent more of the your money than they wouldve to house and feed the twenty year old perp until he dies of old age in prison at 80.

The death penalty is more, not less, expensive than life imprisonment. It does not "save money".

The rest is...interesting.
You jump to the conclusion that life imprisonment is worse than death. Most people assume the opposite. Never having tried either I couldnt say.

Organ doning a murderer is a nice idea. Trouble is- murderers are often crackheads, or methheads, who have badly worn parts under the hood. But ted bundy was pretty clean living. So it might work sometimes.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

30 Mar 2013, 3:37 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:

Me too while support death penalty, because it has a deterrent effect.

It doesn't. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discuss ... ce-studies

Mike1 wrote:

I support the death penalty because it would be more costly to keep someone is prison for life.

It isn't.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/20 ... s-20110620
http://ejusa.org/learn/cost

It also eliminates the possibility of innocent people being exonerated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 543613.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/je ... one-239793
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 67485.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocen ... -death-row

Sosiologismus
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 34

30 Mar 2013, 3:59 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Organ doning a murderer is a nice idea. Trouble is- murderers are often crackheads, or methheads, who have badly worn parts under the hood. But ted bundy was pretty clean living. So it might work sometimes.

Not to mention socially burdened.

I'd say that deciding to kill people or not based on issues like money/cost and possibility is a bad idea and a sign of bad character and bad values (objectively speaking). It's awful, actually.

Sylkat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,425

30 Mar 2013, 6:33 pm

From 1954 to 1986, Richard Kuklinski killed people.

He tortured and killed animals for fun, as a child, and began killing, for fun, for the 'thrill of the hunt', in 1954.

He became a hit man for a Mafioso named Roy De Meo.

He killed at least 100 people.

He was cared for, at public expense from 1988 until 2006, when he died from natural causes.

He terrified his children, brutally beat his wife, yet was cared for by the state for 18 years instead of being put to death.

I am not sure how this was better.

Sylkat

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

30 Mar 2013, 6:47 pm

Prison is not being cared for. Prison, quite frankly, is a horrible place.

Besides, even the very worst people deserve to be treated with love.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

30 Mar 2013, 6:50 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:

I wonder why so many people at the supports abortion while same time is against the execution of violent offenders (mass murders, rapists-murders, pedophile-murders etc)

I expected fair debate, what do you think.

I'm exactly the opposite.

Yes to flushing unwanted fetuses, no to giving the State power to execute criminals.

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

Sosiologismus
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 34

30 Mar 2013, 7:13 pm

It's an old dogma to not lower your own level to that of the bully/criminal/thief whatever. If you instead treat people with love, you keep a standard and a principal that is worth far more than playing dirty (maybe this is christian, actually). E.g. ideals, responsibility, role models and regulation.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Mar 2013, 10:31 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:

Why not?

Fetuses are things. People accused of being violent offenders are still people. The legal system is far from perfect and it is way too probable that someone would be convicted with death by mistake. To my knowledge death is an irreversible thing. So it would be terrible to allow the legal system to make this sort of mistake. Putting the violent criminals in jail with long sentences is good enough as a way to stop them from doing anything, but people that were wrongly sentenced can be released from jail when we find out that the sentence was wrong.

Quote:

He terrified his children, brutally beat his wife, yet was cared for by the state for 18 years instead of being put to death.

I am not sure how this was better.

so, he was in jail until he died. A threat to society successfully removed from it. I don't see why would anything else than that be necessary.

When you say "cared for by the state" you sound as if you think that max security prisons are comfortable places.

Nevertheless, I think prisons being an economic burden to society are a great way to demotivate the state from exceeding its hand in criminalization of things.

_________________
.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Mar 2013, 10:47 pm

YippySkippy wrote:

Actually, incidences of child abuse have skyrocketed since the legalization of abortion. This is because any devaluation of life devalues all life.

This reminds me of "vaccines cause autism".

In reality, Child abuse incidence has skyrocketed since 1970.

This means that:

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since man went to the moon".

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since civil rights".

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since Vietnam".

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since the eradication of small pox".

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since pocket calculators were invented".

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since Led Zeppeling".

"Child abuse has skyrocketed since Star Wars".
---
Could it actually be that reports have sky rocketed since the 1970s? We have a more progressive society, children are less likely not to talk about this. Families are less likely to hide or cover up for a family member when they catch him in the act. Etc, etc, etc.

_________________
.

Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

Darth Penalty and abortion ethical question Post Reply New Topic

Darth Penalty and abortion ethical question