• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Sorry, LG, but I can't reconcile the two halves of your view. If one life is too precious to take willfully, then all life must be seen in the same way.
  
  I find it remarkable that so many who believe in the death penalty also believe that we will all be judged later for our sins by a higher power. Not sure if that includes you or not, but it's a very common pairing.

• hidufel said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I am not pro life, nor am I pro abortion. I am really unclear how i can fully state my view on this.
  
  I dislike the Death penalty, but only from the perspective that i cannot believe it can be implemented without error. There is a chance that an innocent person wrongly accused can be put to death using this method of justice, and that gives me the cold sweats.
  
  I don't approve of abortion. However i will not take away a womans right to choose this. I dislike the very idea of abortion, but i cannot find myself taking the viewpoint of forcing a woman to have a child, especially in cases of rape or incest. However applying just those conditions are unfair for everyone.
  
  
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I'm afraid that I have to take a fence sitting position on this.  I support the death penalty for sociopathic, unrepentant killers and I also support abortion for women who risk health of self or child, even going so far as to say aborting down syndrom babies if the parents can or will not support the child.  So yes I believe in both sides of the arguement.  I don't think you kill a human who has murdered if there is a possibility of them serving a useful purpose in society, even if it's behind bars.  I also don't think you use abortion as a convenience.

• LadyGamer said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I disagree, LJ. I don't think that one MUST view all life in the same way. I DO think there is a difference between someone who chooses to do bad things and someone who is never given a choice.

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  LG, yes there is a difference between those two polar opposites. But I don't see how the death penalty accomplishes anything worth accomplishing. And I don't think that vengeance is worth accomplishing.
  
  Sure, there are people whose crimes make them worthy of high punishment. But I don't see where capital punishment provides society with any benefit that cannot also be had with a lifetime sentence without possibility of parole. And it puts the rest of us in the position of being murderers, of sinking to the level of those whom we claim to judge from a position of moral superiority.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  So LJ, do you think that it's wrong to put down a vicious dog?  I'm curious.

• vacantmind said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I don't believe in abortion. It is one thing I don't accept there to be a justified reason for. However, I wouldn't take away anyone's right to choose. As for the death penalty, I am for it. I think there is some people who have lost all humanity.

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  UI, I don't see behavior towards animals and behavior towards other human beings in the same light. I don't believe that animals have rights that are equivalent to our own.
  
  Now, before you go off on me here, let me point out that we have owned two dogs in our family, for a total of 23 years between them. I was the one who had to take our first to the vet to be euthanized because his liver was failing. I cried. But I still don't believe that one can equate the two cases. Prisons already exist and systems for keeping prisoners there already exist. Would you create a prison system for dogs that cannot be rehabilitated?
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  LJ - aren't human prisons nothing more than the equivilant to the dog pound?  Caging humans and covering their basic needs until they are released or die?

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  This discussion has taken an interesting turn.  I just want to follow along and see if someone finds a way for the prison system to be combined with the dog pounds of America and save us some tax dollars!  :)

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  UI, there are major differences between the human being and the dog and I think that it's ludicrous to bring animal treatment into a discussion of how we view human life. It's a distraction from the real issue on the table.
  

• the_infernal_optimist said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty (and I'm not sure how I feel about consenting euthanasia-type stuff, although it does seem to me to be a form of suicide, which I have strong feelings on).
  
  All life is sacred (and I don't stand in the conservative Christian camp often at ALL). The life of someone with a string of heinous crimes to his/her name is still a life I can't separate from that core principle - and I speak with some authority there, as my life was closely and irrevocably altered by one such person. Besides, death is simply too good, too easy, for those rotten souls who are guilty of everything they're accused of and probably more.
  
  Above that, even, is that I don't think that we as imperfect beings have the right or the wisdom to decide who lives and who dies. How can we say for certain that this person is guilty, or that baby would be "better off" never having been born?
  
  Tangentially, I would never support an official ban on abortion.
  
  ~Infernal
  

• PassionTraveler said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I'm pro-choice. In my mind, that's different than pro-life, or anti-abortion or even pro-death. I believe it's the woman's choice, it's her body, whether or not she should keep her baby.
  
  Mind you, I would hope she does, or finds another alternative to difficult situations, but I respect her right to choose.
  
  My ordained minister ex-husband was of course, very pro-life/anti-abortion.
  
  When I was pregnant with my first child, I developed pre-eclampsia that escalated. I was put on bed rest, and eventually sent to the hospital. Doctors told me that the condition, if it escalated further could kill me. My husband and I discussed vehemently what hard decisions would need to be made in the event that it came to that.
  
  The irony? His pro-life/anti-abortion mentality said he would abort the baby to save my life if such a crisis arose. My pro-choice choice was to sacrifice myself to save the baby if such a crisis arose. The baby made the choice for us. She died in-utero -- a still birth.
  
  Despite all, I'm still pro-choice, and I would still make the same choice if put in that situation again.
  
  I've not fully pondered or decided the death penalty yet. I'll get back to you on that one.
  
  PT
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  LJ - I disagree that you can value human life and not value animal life.  I think the way a society treats it's animals does reflect on how it views human life as well.
   
  I know I'll catch shit for this, but you could make the comparison of a severely impaired human to a very smart dog.  Both know pain, love, loyalty, kindness, etc.  If you treat an animal inhumanely it learns to hate you.  Same is true for humans.

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  UI, it looks like you missed my point. From this last post it seems that you believe that if I object to the death penalty for humans then I must, a priori, object to euthanizing dogs. Sorry, but I just don't see a direct correlation there.
  
  My objection to the death penalty has little to do with compassion and much more to do with refusing to believe that I can make final judgment on my fellow man. Punish him for crimes against society? Sure, but that does not include murderng him. Why should I (or my appointed representatives in our judicial system) sink to his level? Besides, it doesn't seem to provide any greater deterrance than life imprisonment so why bother? The only answer is vengeance and I don't think that vengeance is in man's best interests.
  
  That said, I am compassionate toward people and animals. I just don't believe that we have to bestow all human rights on all animals. If we did, we wouldn't be able to survive.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  LJ - I think I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  lioneljay:  "I just don't believe that we have to bestow all human rights on all animals. If we did, we wouldn't be able to survive."  Could you be a bit more explicit?  How would honoring animals endanger our lives?  

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Kruuyai, do you ever consume animal products in your diet or wear leather? Do you refuse to use medicines that include organic compounds derived from animals or that were tested on animals? Do you use cosmetics that were tested on animals?
  
  My point is that we regularly assert our place above most animals for our own purposes. If we accorded them all the same rights that we accord all humans, we would not be able to feed our families nor would we have all the medicines and other personal products that we have.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  LJ - you could concievably remove meat from your diet and wear non leather clothes, use makeup developed by non animal testing companies and most medicines are derived from plants not animals.  I would imagine if society made a big enough stink they'd severely reduce animal testing.

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  lioneljay:  I don't use cosmetics at all, much less those that have been tested on animals.  And I actively try to dissuade others from using products that have been tested on animals.  I rarely eat meat or use leather products and am now making a conscious effort to eliminate these products (including meat) from my life as I am becoming more and more conscious of how we force so many animals to live only to be slaughtered for our convenience.  I wasn't raised as a vegetarian, so this doesn't come naturally to me, but it's been years since I've bought meat at the supermarket to prepare a meal at home.  I'd say just in the last month or so, my conscious has been nagging at me more and more about this issue, and within just the last week or so, I made a conscious decision to eliminate from my life products made by the death of an animal.  As far as medicines, I use aspirin, ibuprofen, and some antihistamines.  I'm not aware of any animal products in those. 
  
  I absolutely disagree that we wouldn't be able to feed our families without asserting "our place" above animals.  In fact, I disagree that we even have a place above animals to assert.  Just because we're the neighborhood bully and have power over these creatures doesn't mean that we have the right to do what we want.  Perhaps we were really given a responsibility for the earth's creatures rather than a right to use them for our benefit, and we have sorely abused that responsibility.  Lately, every time I go to the supermarket and look at meat in the plastic packages, I see a pig being led to the slaughter house, fully aware of what awaits him, and screaming in terror.  I can't cope with it.  After having lived with three animals in my house for 17 years, I know that they are every bit as conscious as we are.  If you don't see that after having lived with animals in your home, it's because you don't want to see it. Because you don't want to change your lifestyle.  Not because you would die if you changed it... you wouldn't die.  You'd probably even be healthier.  But it doesn't appeal to you.
  

• TinSoldier said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Interestingly enough, my views coincide with LadyGamer's. I don't have much else to add to it.
  
  I do have concerns with inequities in the justice system. Unlike some, I think those inequities can be overcome. But I do find the idea of executing an innocent person to be abhorrent.
  
  Regarding euthanasia, while I have some reservations, Oregon seems to have managed to walk a pretty good path.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  TinSoldier:  What are they doing in Oregon?

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  i'm pro-choice. IMHO, the decision of what is/isn't a human life is not something that should be trusted to the government to decide.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Oct 11, 2007....

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Death_with_Dignity_Act
  
  Quoting Wikipedia:
  
  Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness by a physician may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time.
  
  The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy."
  
  
  It's been used, but less frequently than detractors believe it would be. As of 2006, only 292 people have used this.
  
  

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  UI, I don't disagree with you, nor do I fully disagree with Kruuyai. However, as our society has presently arranged itself, there would not be enough food or medicine to go around if we suddenly gave animals the same rights that we accord to all human beings. I'm speaking strictly from a practical standpoint here. It would take a remarkably immense effort to change all of human society so that no animals were ever used for any human purposes. Would you deny the poor third-world farmer his mule or his plough-ox simply because he cannot afford a tractor? Or would you insist that he "pay" his work animals because, after all, they deserve the same rights as humans?
  
  That said, we've wandered far off the reservation from the original post.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 11, 2007....

  LJ, a working animal would reap "wages" of being groomed and fed, so that is not in any way impacting the poor farmer.  It would take a lot of change in society to reduce if not eliminate the use of leather and meat, but who knows?

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  lioneljay:  How do you figure that there wouldn't be enough food or medicine to go around if we afforded animals the same rights as humans?  I'll still have to challenge that.  And who said anything about "suddenly."  No change happens overnight.  Even my own personal move toward vegetarianism isn't happening overnight... I certainly can't expect the whole world to move faster.  And affording rights to animals does not mean that they would never be used for human purposes.  Even having them as companions in our homes is using them for human purposes, and I certainly wouldn't outlaw that, and I don't think the animals would necessarily want to outlaw it either.  Looking at that third world farmer... humans work for their upkeep, and it may not be unreasonable to expect animals to work for their upkeep as well.  But there's a huge difference between working and overworking.  And i believe that we can work toward having better relations with the animals in our midst.... especially those that are doing us the favor of making our lives easier.  That includes, not only treating them well, not beating them, feeding them well, but also, developing a system of communication with them, and honoring their needs and desires.... letting them have a life that is about more than just working for us.... living in harmony with them.  Would our lives slow down?  Sure.. but what's so bad about that.  We're living far too fast anyway. 
  
  TinSoldier:  I was unaware of this new development in Oregon.  I think it's wonderful.  They seem to have covered all the bases, and finally, there's someplace in the country where humans can be treated as humanely as we treat our animals.
  

• bloc said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Well, we have two issues that I'm very opinionated about.
  
  1. Abortion
  I consider myself pro-life but I do not believe that life begins at conception. 4 cells is not a human being! To me this is the disconnect. We've allowed a specific religious view to frame our discussion and I think that is a mistake.
  
  2. The Death Penalty
  I can't support killing a human when we know that all human run institutions make mistakes and that we are going to kill the wrong people from time to time. What seals the deal is that I don't believe the death penalty makes us any safer than true life sentences. Why risk killing an innocent person in this case?
  

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  bloc: vis a vis abortion, the problem however is that as there's no magic spot during fetal development at which one can point and unambiguously say "that's human!", most religion-based opposition to abortion chooses to call conception the magic point as at least that point is unambiguous. if that weren't the case, where might one draw that line?
  
  ed

• carmachu said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Pretty much teh same. Anti-abortion and pro-death penalty....

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  bloc:  lol.. haven't you been following this discussion?  We're talking about animal rights now... get with the program!  ;p

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  [looks up from steak]
  
  huh?
  
  :D
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Kruu, don't you think that the dividing line is in the word "use." If we use animals for our purposes, whatever they might be, then isn't that conceptually the same thing as using other people for our own purposes? How do you distinguish between the two?

• bloc said on Oct 11, 2007....

  @kru
  sorry, I was trying to be a good samaritan and stick the the topic ;)
  
  @sw
  This isn't any different than deciding at which point a person is an adult. There isn't an magic line for many things in life. In fact, even conception falls into this category. If you look at it close enough (i.e. zoom in) and slow down time at what point exactly does conception take place and why is that significantly different than a millisecond prior to that point?
  

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  bloc: you're right, there isn't such a point re: adulthood. indeed, it seems that some people take well into conventional definitions of adulthood to behave like adults, and sometimes not even then. however, in the sense of "having reached full development", that's pretty straightforward, isn't it? ditto, conception: sperm reaches egg, it's fertilized, mitosis commences. seriously, i think that either you're complicating this part unnecessarily, or i'm just not understanding you correctly.
  
  ed

• kruuyai said on Oct 11, 2007....

  lioneljay: But we do use people for our own purposes all the time.  When you hire someone to work for you, you're using him for your own purposes and you compensate him for it.  So should you compensate an animal who works for you.  Money, of course, is of no use to an animal, but you have to spend money to feed and groom him and give him a warm safe and dry place to sleep (unless he's a fish), and maybe a filly or two to keep him company in his free time.  A little paid vacation time wouldn't do no harm either.  ;-)
  
  bloc:  Now what fun is there in that?
  

• polarheart said on Oct 11, 2007....

  How come does everyone get to choose, except the victims?
   
  How about letting the victims of crimes choose the punishment for the guilty? 

• bloc said on Oct 11, 2007....

  "I absolutely disagree that we wouldn't be able to feed our families without asserting "our place" above animals.  In fact, I disagree that we even have a place above animals to assert. "
  
  I couldn't agree more. In fact, it's easily proven that food from animals is far less efficient than food from plants. I forget the exact numbers but it takes something like 12 lbs of grains to product 1 lb of beef. If we used that land to produce vegetables for human consumption we'd have more food than we have now.
  
  And, yes, I am a vegetarian.
  

• bloc said on Oct 11, 2007....

  @sw
  "ditto, conception: sperm reaches egg, it's fertilized, mitosis commences. seriously, i think that either you're complicating this part unnecessarily, or i'm just not understanding you correctly."
  
  Think of watching a video of the actual process. Forget the labels. Now walk through the video frame by frame. I don't believe that you can find a point at which any given frame is significantly different from the previous frame. Does that make better sense?
  

• dyingman said on Oct 11, 2007....

  When I learned that prosecuting a death penalty case usually costs so much more than a mere life sentence without parole that it would cost less to feed, clothe and shelter the human weed for the rest of his life the only motive for killing was vengeance. I'm not interested in paying for the privilege of a vice we're supposed to avoid. When you save money killing inmates, THEN I'll worry about the morals. For now, I see it as a favored cause of the ignorant and the bloodthirsty and no one else.
  
  On the other side, I am pro-choice. Pro-abortion people live in red China where they make women abort. The surgeon general under Ronald Reagan determined that abortion was safer, statistically, than childbirth. I wonder what other risks to our health government might demand of us someday for the sake of other citizens' benefit. We have two kidneys and can live with one. Can we be forced by the state to save another citizen's life by requiring us to provide the needed organ? If not? Why not? Can we be put to death if our organ transplants will save 2 or more lives? Suppose they are on death row and slated to die anyway?  The state yields more human lives that way. Isn't that a far more pro-life stance?
  
  Perhaps that's going too far... Perhaps we'd be okay with making organ donation mandatory. All those people who selfishly worry doctors don't try as hard to save the lives of organ donors will just have to take their chances with the more altruistic among us. Religious objections to organ harvests will be exempted. Or maybe not since dead people are no longer citizens and don't have constitutional rights any more. Or do they? We won't even go into the question of whether birth control makes sense for a state so interested in birthing babies. What part in the Genesis verse commanding man to "be fruitful and multiply" suggests God made this optional? Fear theocracy.

• confuzzledwife said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I have 5 kids- I'm pro life.. I'm sure that was pretty easy to figure out :)

  Now- as for the death penalty- I always felt they should die the way their victim's died- seems to me serial killers can rape,  strangle, behead, or chop up their victims - well then they should die the same way- why give them the easy way out through lethal injection or some other easier way.. just my opinion.

• simplyklo said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Okay, I am definitely for the death penalty though our justice system scares me in that people have been wrongfully committed before ... that being said, I can't wait to hear that is Scott Petersen's last night living!

  As for abortion, I'm pro-choice and I think that there are times when this may be the only choice or the best choice for all involved.  I was raped at the age of 16 ... yes, my first time having sex, what a joy ... anyway, if I'd ended up pregnant from that experience I'm pretty certain I would have ended the pregnancy as soon as possible and asked for God's forgiveness and understanding!

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  polar: if you want to assume that a just-fertilized egg is human life, be my guest, but please don't expect that everyone will make the same assumption. that's always been the central issue on the matter, IMHO.
  
  bloc: as that isn't an argument i employ myself and moreover, seeing as there are others who do, perhaps they should answer that question, as i'm just playing devil's advocate here?
  
  ed

• polarheart said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Huh?  Sorry, you must have misunderstood, ed.  I was specifically talking about the punishment for crimes.

• TinSoldier said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Well, I would answer Polar and Confuzzled this way:
  
  While punishment, vengeance, and justice are all interrelated concepts, the reason we don't punish criminals that way is that one of the things that separates justice from vengeance is the that it is carried out by a neutral third party.
  
  Usually the government.
  
  Heh. Great topic, LG.
  

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  polar: beg pardon, thought you were speaking of abortion. please disregard my comment.
  
  ed

• polarheart said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Tin, you are right.  If we all could exact vengeance on those who wronged us there would be world wide turmoil, disorder, death and distruction. . .justice indeed needs to be overseen by a neutral party.  However, perhaps it would be good for the victims to have some say or choice in the punishment for those who have caused them harm and or loss(?)  This could be overseen by that neutral authority.

  Ed, its ok.  Anyway, yes we may have different views on when life begins and I do not assume that everyone else sees it that way too.  I happen to currently believe that the beginning of human life is at the point where the fertilized egg attaches to the lining of the womb.  Without that fertilized egg attaching to the womb it cannot continue to live and will be passed out of the woman's system.  I would be interested to know what others think when life begins.

• gingersoul said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I am pro-choice and anti death penalty. 

• secretlife said on Oct 11, 2007....

  i'm pro-choice.

  and against the death penalty.

   

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  polar, i think that merits a poll. :>
  
  ed

• Antimatter said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I don’t like terms like “pro-life” or “pro-choice” because they imply that the opposing position is “anti-life” or “anti-choice,” which clearly is not the case. I don’t like abortions. However, I think the right of the mother to control her own body is more significant. I would approve of legislation that restricted late-term abortions (at some admittedly arbitrary point), but I would oppose legislation that restricted abortions in general.

• the_infernal_optimist said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Well said, Antimatter. I believe that one can be "pro-life" and also stand for women's right to choose what happens to and within their bodies.
  
  ~Infernal
  

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  legalities have ever been and shall forever be quite distinct from ethics & morality. :>
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I don't know about distinct -- I see them as tightly interwoven concepts. Much like vengeance and justice in fact.

• hidufel said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Antimatter... thats about how i feel, but put into better words. thank you...

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  TS: they're related, but o boy are they ever distinct. if you doubt me: if i made my moral guideline that which was legal, what kind of person would i be?
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I would never peg you as lawful evil, sw.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2007....

  precisely, good sir.
  
  ed

• wombat said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I think there are circumstances to be considered in both issues--which is probably why this is such a hot-button, unsolvable question.  I don't support "abortions as birth control," but under certain circumstances, I believe it is a viable solution--and that the government shouldn't be in control.  As for the death penalty...I think murder is murder no matter what you call it.  I don't as a rule support the idea of the death penalty.  Then again, if someone hurt someone I loved, I might feel differently!  Still, what generally happens is our taxes support those on death row for too long after they have been sentenced.  If they are going to do it, then just do it.  Like Ron White the comedian said, "In Texas, we have an express line..."  I wouldn't want to be the one to "carry out" that kind of duty, though.  If I were in a position to decide the fate of a convict, I would most likely choose life in prison.  (And then our taxes go for paying for them to survive in over-crowded facililties while we work and follow the rules of society!) 

  Not much of an answer from me, is it?  I guess, like I said, there isn't one.  Does that mean that majority rules?  Which is why we have the priviledge of voting?

  Just rambling on the subject mostly.  I hope some of that made sense!

• dailyachesandpains said on Oct 11, 2007....

  I am pro-choice
  Against the death penalty. 
  
  Daily
  

• LadyGamer said on Oct 11, 2007....

  Alienated Said:

  "Anti-abortion, pro death penalty. However, I am not sure I would want to be on a jury that has to make that decision. I definitely believe in the shadow a doubt routine. The problem with life in prison instead of the death penalty is that over time evidence disappears and witnesses disappear and criminals just keep appealing and tieing up the system. Sometimes they get out when they should not and sometimes they escape. I am always amused that liberals are so afraid that innocent people are going to be put to death and millions of totally innocent babies are being put to death so as not to inconvenience their liberal parents. The whole when does it become a human being question is an exercise in stupidity. We have no business trying to set that time AT ALL. It is none of our business. If that is our business, then I want a say in your death. I want to decide when you have been here too long and give you a hand full of sleeping pills and send you on your merry way ... to hell. The answer is abortion should not happen at any time unless there is a damn good reason. And at least three doctors should sign off on that reason. A young mom that does not know her rear from a hole in the ground should not be able to walk in an abortion clinic without HER parent's concent (if she is a minor) and terminate the life of another human being. She is just the carrier of that person. That is not a tumor in there. It is her body, but she does not have cancer--she is with child. We do not have the right to make that decision at any point in the pregnancy. If you do not want the baby, do not implant it in the first place. Take the pill, wear a rubber, were a diaphram. Otherwise, take responsibility. Stop murdering your mistakes.

  This topic makes me sick. To hear PEOPLE spout liberal platitudes about when is a baby a baby when he has probably never had a baby makes me sick. People take sides on abortion as a matter of political correctness. Whatever their peers believe, they probably believe. Most approach it like they are deciding whether to wear jeans on casual Friday. It is not the same thing. It is a human life. Sorry LG. Did not mean to barf on your post. "

   

  Alien~ I liked what you had to say up to the point that you slipped into the name calling. I reposted MOST of it without the part that wasn't needed. I respect your point of view. I respect your passion. I apologise for nuking your post, but that was the rule. I have to treat everyone the same.

• D6fer said on Oct 11, 2007....

  ladygamer.....I'm with you on this one.....murdering scumbags had their chance at life and they blew it.....as for the argument that it costs more to execute than incarcerate....I'd like to see the breakdown of that.....some fuzzy math there.

• lfbno7 said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I think of abortion (as long as it isn't at an advanced stage of the pregnancy) as the canceling of an appointment.  I think of a miscarriage as the canceling of the appointment by the baby, while abortion is canceling by the mother.  I don't think it is any big deal.  Someone wasn't ready, that's all.  I'm fine with abortion that is done early, while the fetus is undeveloped.  I don't think we need to protect the right to life of every sperm cell and embryo.  You don't want it, flush it.
  
  To me, the more difficult question is "how late is too late" for an abortion.  We shouldn't be ripping babies to shreds.
  
  I am in favor of the death penalty, but not the way it is handled today.  If someone is sentenced to death by a judge, the next step should be for a team of forensic scientists to rule whether guilt has been proven scientifically.  If not, no death sentence.  We kill too many innocent people.  One is too many.
  
  These life and death situations should not be decided by an idiot jury and a prick of a judge.  We aren't doing our best to protect the innocent.  We have to.
  
  I am also in favor of punitive torture, again after scientific review by forensic experts.  I have no problem at all with torturing someone who has done something so horrible without justification.  Like the guy who just came out of jail and immediately carjacked a woman with her baby, left the baby on the street, and then raped and murdered the woman.  I think death is far too good for that criminal, and he should have been tortured, his body kept alive, for as long as possible, every moment of his life a screaming agonizing hell.
  
  Sometimes you need to get angry and act on it.  Some deeds are so heinous that they call out for retribution.  I think of it as "sensitivity training".

• thenack said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Hello,

  The only time when pro-abortion or pro-choise people ever have a reasonable argument on this topic, is when things like rape or some kind of fetal problem (downs for ex) is brought up. This is a very small part of the amount of babies, human beings, being killed in the name of convenience.

  So for the sake of argument, lets leave those out. Even then, the USA kills 3500 babies a day, thats the same amount of lives ended in 9-11.

  So, I am anti abortion, if you wanna be pro-choise, give the mothers more choises to choose from.

  As far as the death penalty is concerned, I feel it should be applied very seldom, but should be there. And then it should happen like Sadam, verdict one day, cheerio the next.

  How in the .....can it cost more to excecute, just get it over with, its not that difficult.

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  ALIENated:  So you think a minor girl should have the permission of both her parents before she is "allowed" to have an abortion?  What about those cases where the girl has been impregnated as a result of being raped by the very parent on whose "permission:" she now has to rely to obtain an abortion?  Given the high incidence of incest, this is not a frivolous question.

• muckpar said on Oct 12, 2007....

  If a woman chooses to abort an unborn child, that is between her and God.  I am told by my savior Jesus Christ not to judge others.  The death penalty should be replaced by life in prision without any possibility of parole. 

• Antimatter said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Just wanted to inject a bit more controversy into this issue...

  Does anyone remember the rising crime rate in the 1980’s and early 1990’s? Experts were predicting that crime would continue to increase out of control. But then, to everyone’s surprise, crime suddenly began to decrease in 1992 — 19 years after Roe vs. Wade.

  Like it or not, legalized abortion has a documented impact on crime rates.

  Wikipedia has an interesting entry that further describes this effect and its criticism.

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  alien isn't capable of reasoned discussion. Even the part of his post that you left is full of childish name calling.
  
  "I am always amused that liberals are so afraid that innocent people are going to be put to death and millions of totally innocent babies are being put to death so as not to inconvenience their liberal parents."
  
  He asserts that it's "stupid" to ask when human life begins. This isn't stupid, it's the single most important aspect of the abortion debate. Rather than calling it stupid I would hope that he could have discussed it instead of calling people like me "baby killers" which he does on a regular basis.
  
  So I ask all of you the basic question. When is a human a human? Here is a question that I hope will illuminate the matter.
  
  Let's say you run into a burning building to try and save any that is there. On one side of the building are 10 human embryos and on the other side is an 8 year old girl. You can only save one or the other. Would you save the 8 year old girl or the 10 embryos?
  

• TinSoldier said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Maybe a little less abstract:
  
  Say you run into a burning building and there is a pregnant woman and an 8-year-old girl. Who do you save?
  
  Don't get me wrong -- I do think that we can determine that at some point a fetus is a human being with all the rights attendant to that.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  bloc & Tin:  This would make a good post in itself.  It'll be interesting to see what people say..  In bloc's scenario, it's obvious, save the girl.  In the second, I don't know, I guess for me, it's a toss-up.  And it would still be a toss up for me if the woman wasn't pregnant.  

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  your situation isn't the same since the woman would be saved as well. The question is if you would save a single child or many embryos. If someone argues that the moment of conception bestows full human rights then they can't logically choose the child over the embryos. 

• TinSoldier said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Right, bloc, and I don't necessarily disagree WRT the embryos.
  
  kruuyai said it would be a toss up between the woman and the child. What about you? Does the woman being pregnant make a difference?
  
  
  

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  it's a circular issue. logically we'd have to ask how pregnant the mother is and then we're right back where we started. At what point is the embryo a human? :)

• TinSoldier said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I'm not sure what a circular issue is, although I don't think that I would consider how pregnant the woman was if I was trying to save her.
  
  My point is this: you offered an easy hypothetical situation to illustrate your argument. I used a hard hypothetical situation to illustrate mine. People can play hypothetical all day, just like the terrorist and the bomb and torture.
  

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  my gut instinct would be to save the girl.
  
  A circular issue is one that refers back to itself or repeats itself.
  

• TinSoldier said on Oct 12, 2007....

  That sounds like a "circular argument", which I don't think mine was.
  
  But cool, you gave an answer. I don't know if I could have done.
  

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  hehe, your question led me to ask when human life begins which is what we were discussing early. That was the circular part, not your question itself.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 12, 2007....

  LG......Great Post! First to those of you I've had some rather heated debates with, I'm not here for any back & forth with you. I'm going to make my points as I see them,then leave. 1st: No matter what side of the arguement we take, there will always be specific cases to support our side. Those cases of a minor getting a abortion without parental consent should be handled by our legal system. The school or the abortion clinic should be required to notifiy the court if the girl tells them she can't tell her parents for what ever the reason. If the girl just has the abortion, she will be returned right back to the situtation from which she came. 2nd: Women, it takes two to tango, does the other half of the equation have a say in the matter? 3rd: Our whole legal system, which is part of our country's foundation is based on a person upon request having two basic things happen, one is a speedy trial & second is to be tried by twelve of their peers. These people make a decision based on the evidence as they see it. These juriors know at the start-(sometimes), if the state is seeking the death penalty. As far as I know I've never heard of anyone put to death that was proven innocent. I'm not saying there isn't a case, I've just never heard of it. I would think if there was such a case, then the Anti-death penalty people would be parading pictures of the innocent person excuted at every death sentence trial. What I find hard to understand is how people think by putting a human behind bars for the rest of their natural lives is more humane, then putting them out of their misery. I would ask anyone reading this,( can you even begin to think what would be going thru your mind, if you knew that you will never be free again in your life time.) Understand, only a very few people ever admit they are guilty, because there is always a chance they'll beat the RAP. Finally I won't even touch the debate over animals, I not only eat meat I buy in the store, I hunt & kill animals & I eat what ever I kill. Can anyone imagine what would happen in this world if not a single animal was killed by humans? Then mother nature would do the killing for us. We can't even feed every human now, how many people would worry about feeding animals over humans. Millions & Millions of people would be dumped on to welfare system, because they lost their jobs that were associated with animals. Does anyone really believe that enough Vegetables could be grown to not only feed humans but also animals, plus you have all those carnivors that we are keeping caged to save them, who is going to kill those animals to feed them? BST

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  you raise a lot of good questions each of which could be a long thread on it's own.
  
  There are cases of innocent people having been put to death. I don't have the time at the moment to look it up and provide sources so I'll stick with something related, but different, which I know off the top of my head.
  
  In 2000 the Republican governor of IL put a halt to all executions. He did this because they reviewed the cases of 26 death row inmates (a lot of it revolving around DNA) and 13 were found to be innocent. Let me say that again. 13 of 26 convicted death row inmates were actually innocent! Here is one of many sources.
  

• polarheart said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Bloc said "at what point is the embryo human"? 

  Would it not be right to believe that if it consists of human dna, that it is a human embryo?  The embryo cannot develop into anything other than a human being.

  Dont get me wrong I am not trying to stir up strife, but it interest me in what people believe and I also like to share my beliefs.

  What do people here believe constitutes the beginning of life?  I.e. at what point do we believe that killing / terminating the existance of the human embryo can be classified as murder?  Is it when they look human?  Is it when all their body parts are completely developed?

  I remember a tv documentary about a little girl who has a huge hole in her face.  Her face does not look at all human.  She is severely disfigured, but in all other aspects she is a normal little girl.  This is brought to rememberance when I think about the issues we are discussing here

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I would put it somewhere in the 2nd trimester, maybe the begging of the third.
  
  At the end of the day I don't believe that a 4 cell human embryo, which requires a microscope to see, has the same moral status as a week old baby.
  

• TinSoldier said on Oct 12, 2007....

  I'm with bloc actually -- once it has a heartbeat, a recognizable brain, and a form that is recognizable as a human baby to a layperson. Probably somewhere between 10 and 20 weeks.
  
  I know that's a big window but I'd have to research more to give a firmer answer.
  

• hidufel said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Blocs point about the death row inmates, 13 of 26 wrongly convicted, is the big reason i don't like the death penalty. I do not have a problem with t if we could guarantee the party is actually 100 percent guilty. But we cannot. 

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  bst:  "We can't even feed every human now, how many people would worry about feeding animals over humans."  We certainly can feed every human now.  We simply choose not to.  Perhaps that is something we should take a look at.  It seems to me that it's usually those that are so determined that every embryo make it into this world that are least interested in what happens to those embryos once they become human beings.  How many abortions worldwide could be prevented if mothers could be sure of feeding their children?

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  @kruuyai
  My latest post asks a similar question as your comment.
  

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Bloc.....I'm not going to disagree with you about the inmate number, but you know me by now, I would like to read each case on it's own to see how & why each person was found guilty, then see how DNA was used to prove they were innocent. In the old days before DNA almost became a sure bet to convict or exonerate the excused, we only had regular evidence. Maybe that's why they had such a lenghty appeal time. My big 64 dollar question for everyone on both sides of this Arguement is: If we all agree that no one wants an innocent person to be put to death or convicted of a crime they didn't do, then don't you think that like finger prints, everybody should agree to give samples of their DNA to be kept on file with the FBI & convicted criminals would not have a choice. Then no innocent person would ever be convicted again & there would be a starting point for the law to work from. In real life it's not really workable, so we will just have to keep doing what we're doing now-(arguing for & aganist the death penality). Do you know what I fear more then anything else, that one of these guilty person's or a person found not guilty on some technicality. Then goes out & kills another innocent person. If your the Father, Mother, Husband or Wife of the victim, who do you blame for letting this killer back on the streets to do the same thing again? That's where I'm coming from. BST 

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Kruuyai......You say "we could feed every human if we wanted to", who is We you are referring to? Who should be responsible to see every person in the world was fed three times a day or however many times it takes to maintain them? BST

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Requiring DNA wouldn't prevent wrongful convictions because DNA evidence isn't present in all cases. It's also possible to make mistakes with DNA or to outright lie about evidence (this has happened before).
  
  However, we could change the law so that only people convicted with DNA or video evidence gets the death penalty. Something like this could be a good middle ground compromise.
  
  I'd still believe that life in prison keeps us equally safe and doesn't run the risk of killing innocent people, but at least we'd greatly reduce the chance of such a travesty occurring.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 12, 2007....

  bst:  By "we" I mean the governments of the world (in other words... all of us).  The money that the US is throwing away on the war in Iraq alone could have fed the world many times over.  I think we have to take a good, close look at our priorities.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 12, 2007....

  Bloc....i agree with you.

  Kruuyai....We-(the U.S) spends more on aid to other countries then practically the entire rest of the world combined. I saw the figures when I pulled up the U.S budget outlay to all countries. Japan is the number two contributor in aid. I just don't have much faith in many of the leaders in the world will do the right thing for their people!  Look at the mess the UN made of the Oil for food deals in Iraq. North Korea is allowing their own people to starve, just so they can maintain their military.  Any sane leader should know; if they at least pretend to buckle under to the U.S, they will be the (receiptents) of America's goodwill. Who can we trust to see that the needy will get the food? BST

• kruuyai said on Oct 13, 2007....

  bst:  I'm not saying that the world's leaders will do the right thing for their people, or for the people of the world.  I'm saying, they can if they want to.  It's not impossible.  Big difference.  As far as the US spending the most on aid, we also spend the most on destruction, and the amount spent on aid doesn't begin to balance that out.  Then add to that how much we take from other countries in terms of natural and human resources, and we don't look so terribly altruistic after all, do we?

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 13, 2007....

  Kruuyai.... Nothing is impossible, the problem is can you tell me (1) country that has tried to force another country to take care of their starving masses. We have gone so far as to bribe a leader of a third world country to allow the U.S to take food to his own people. I believe we had to pay him a $ 2.00 per bushel tarriff before he would allow the food to be given to his own people. I further would challenge you to show me one country where the Leader & his or her cronies don't live like Kings, while the majority of the country barely get by. Question: Would you rather have countries like France, Germany, Russia or China taking the resources from these countries & keeping them for themselves?? We may do things for our own selfish ways, but there is not a single country that has not received (ten times) more then any of the countries I've mentioned in Aid. This next question has nothing to do with our discussion. Can you tell me the name of ONE country that Russia, China or Cuba has sent a single Missionary,Job Corp person or a person that would teach the people to grow crops or get a better education. I can tell you a number of countries that received military advisors from those three countries. I know we do the same thing but I think I would rather have our military advisors in the country then their!! BST

• kruuyai said on Oct 13, 2007....

  bst:  I think you're getting way off the mark here.  The original point was that human beings can survive without killing animals.  You said that there wasn't enough food to feed the humans if we didn't kill animals.  I disagreed.  Just in terms of sheer agricultural production, there is enough food in the world to feed every human on the planet.  Yes, there are political problems that prevent that from happening.  My point was that the leaders of the world (all of them) could make it happen if they wanted to.  They don't want to.  I think we're in agreement about that.  But don't say that killing animals is necessary for the survival of the human species.  It's not.  As to your other questions, I have no idea how they fit in with this whole discussion.  You might want to start a new post on those topics.  It's funny enough that we got off on animal rights from a discussion on abortion and capital punishment.  :)

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 13, 2007....

  Kruuyai...... I started this comment twenty-five minutes ago, & as usual I ended up with a long winded reply, but then I went back thru the comments & low-in-behold, it was you who started us down this path. You were responding to Lioneljay two days ago. Then when I left my comment & it included a question what would happen if NO ANIMALS were killed in the world, it lead us further away from the basic points. Back to the issue at hand which by the way, No one answered my question about the rights of the partner in the Abortion issue? Another point I'd like answered is: What rights do parents have in raising their child & what happens if that child has an abortion, but she dies in the clinic & the parents are only advised of her death after the fact? A side issue, if an adult tries to take their own life & is stopped, they are required to seek medical help. Why then is it ok to have a late term abortion-(minus medical reasons) & no one requires the person to seek medical help. Yet, most states will file double murder charges aganist a person when they kill a pregnant mother?? BST  

• bloc said on Oct 13, 2007....

  "No one answered my question about the rights of the partner in the Abortion issue?"
  
  That's a great question, and a tough one. It seems odd to force the man to pay child support but then assert that he has no say in the decisions prior to that point.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 14, 2007....

  bloc:  The whole pro-choice argument is to give women control over their own bodies.  If you give the partner a legal right to say yay or nay, then you are taking that control out of the woman's hands as much as if the government were making the decision... even worse if the guy was a one-night stand or an embittered ex who might make the exact opposite choice of what the woman wants just to force his will on her.  And in the case that both partners don't agree, would you give the man the power to decide the woman's fate?  Pardon me, but I think that's going back to the middle ages.

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 14, 2007....

  Kruuyai..... You bring up those singlular cases to cover the entire populace. If a court was able to decide that a woman has a right to; as you put it, make a choice over her own body, then it  only seems natural, that a partner should have a right to help make the decision & if both parties disagree. Then the court should be the one to decide the issue. Just as I said about the parental right of a child that gets pregnant, Abortion clinics should not have the right to supersede the parents rights to be notified before the Abortion, unless the child declares the parent unfit to be envolved in the decision. Then it should be the Court to determine it, not the Abortion clinic nor the school. BST  

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2007....

  "The whole pro-choice argument is to give women control over their own bodies.  If you give the partner a legal right to say yay or nay, then you are taking that control out of the woman's hands as much as if the government were making the decision"
  
  I don't think it's black and white.
  
  "even worse if the guy was a one-night stand or an embittered ex who might make the exact opposite choice of what the woman wants just to force his will on her."
  
  Can't the woman do the same as it is now?
  
  "And in the case that both partners don't agree, would you give the man the power to decide the woman's fate?"
  
  Doesn't the woman have the power to decide some of the man's fate as it is? If the government is going to take money out of my check every month for 18 years  shouldn't I have some say in the matter?
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 14, 2007....

  bloc:  So, exactly what are you saying?  You think that if you knock some woman up, and you don't want to pay child support, you should have the right to force an abortion on her?  That is some kind of fucked up.  And how, exactly is the woman deciding the man's fate now?  You tell me how a man risks his life to put a child on this planet like a woman does every time she gives birth.
  

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2007....

  i never said the two sides are equivalent, but the man has zero say in the matter yet has his "fate" at the hands of the woman.
  
  Let me pose a hypothetical. 2 people have sex and realize that their contraception failed. The next day the man says, "I'd like you to take the morning after pill" and the woman refuses. Should the man then be obligated to pay child support for 18 years?
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 15, 2007....

  bloc:  Your last question is open to debate, and I don't have strong enough feelings about it either way to debate it (not being either a mother or a man or both... lol), but I certainly do have strong feelings about anyone trying to force me to do something one way or another with my body.  For myself, if I got pregnant, and for some reason (inconceivable to me... no pun intended), I decided to keep the baby, even though the "father" did not want to take on the responsibility of the child, then I would release him from the obligation, because obviously, I'd be making the choice for my own reasons.  It gets a little cloudier when you're dealing with a woman who has a strong conviction that abortion = murder.  In that case, the guy is telling her (in her mind) to either commit murder or live the life of a single mother, which in most cases, means extreme poverty and not enough time with her child.  Meanwhile, the guy gets to walk away, no matter what his personal convictions are (if he's not obligated to give financial support by law).  So, I guess the best solution is to get to know the people you have sex with really well so you can predict the future and plan for the outcome!  :)

• TinSoldier said on Oct 15, 2007....

  There's also adoption, kruuyai.

• kruuyai said on Oct 15, 2007....

  Tin:  That doesn't solve the problem of actually having to give birth, which, by the way, always carries a risk of death for the mother.  

• TinSoldier said on Oct 15, 2007....

  I know that. I was just saying -- you gave only two options: commit murder or live life as a single mother. I was throwing out a third option.
  
  Living every day carries with it a risk of dying as well, but I understand what you are saying.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 15, 2007....

  Tin: Fair enough.... by the way, another reason that a woman might not want to choose adoption is that many women don't feel that they could give the baby up once they've carried it to term.  I've never had a baby myself, but from friends who have, I understand that most of them have felt a very close bond with their baby before it was born.  It's pretty understandable when you have this living creature moving around inside of you, kicking you in the kidneys and responding to the way you talk to it and the other sounds around.  Among the women I know who have had abortions, and the women I know who have given babies up for adoption, the greater emotional trauma seems to go to the women who give their babies up, regardless of whether that adoption was voluntary or involuntary.  And then there's always the problem of the adopted child, always wondering why his real mommy didn't "love" him enough to keep him.
  

• lfbno7 said on Oct 15, 2007....

  Kruu, I think abortion is okay as long as the embryo is removed early.  I don't like the thought of ripping a tiny baby to shreds, but I don't mind vacuuming out some cells.  I can't tell you how many months the cutoff should be.  I don't know.  It's not really one of my big issues cause of this ambiguity.  An 8 month old fetus shouldn't be ripped to shreds.  A fetus of only a few months can be swept away.  Wish I had a better answer but I don't.

• kruuyai said on Oct 15, 2007....

  7:  I agree.  How do you respond to bloc's question about the woman's partner having a say over whether or not the baby is aborted?  

• lfbno7 said on Oct 15, 2007....

  I think it's her decision not his.  It's inside her. She's the caretaker.

• kruuyai said on Oct 16, 2007....

  7:  What about a man's financial responsibility (for child support) in cases where he would have opted for adoption, but she carried the pregnancy to term?
  
  By the way, does anyone besides me find it interesting that all of the other women seem to have lost interest in this debate, including, apparently, the one who posted this?
  

• lfbno7 said on Oct 16, 2007....

  When I envision the correct or ideal society, I don't envision it to be anything like what we have.  I think the economic system sucks.  I think the education system sucks.  I think the system by which we get jobs and money sucks.  So any solution like whether the father should pay child support for a baby he doesn't want has to be a lesser of two evils response, because we aren't doing anything right to begin with.
  
  I think all babies should be well taken care of, regardless of the financial position of their parents.  That should be a basic human right, but it isn't.  I think that all the necessities should be right there for the baby, no matter who the baby's parents are.
  
  I think that our society cuts the mega-wealthy way too much slack. There should be no mega-wealthy.  That should be against the law.  Our resources should be used more intelligently, more fairly, to keep all of us covered, and should not be hoarded by some greedy assholes.  I'd turn this society upside down if I could because it sucks.
  
  America the beautiful is really America the sucky.  The country is a piece of shit, and so are all the rest.  Western society is a piece of shit, but doesn't compare badly at all to the rest of the world.  We're doing a lousy job down here, and God gives us a D minus.  We all suck down here.
  

• crybabylu said on Nov 08, 2007....

  i think like hideful the second or third comment down from the top, can't remember which.

Comment on "Pro~Life?"

Currently tagged	perspective abortion Death Penalty abortion life death penalty Pro Choice Dogs pro-choice Pro-life (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously