| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - State Killing
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


State Killing

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2015 at 04:54
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:


Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 
Here the political arguments show their teeth. The same person who has qualms over killing a convicted murderer can't make a clear decision about abortion because the schism in their thinking becomes clear.

A fetus may be destroyed but not as a form of birth control. It rather is birth control what ever the rational given by political groups. The schism is caused by social and political conditioning. It doesn't have to make sense to be politically correct.


The qualm over killing convicted murderers arises indirectly and not from the actual right of the state to execute.  There are many reasons to be leary of execution including false convictions, mental competency questions, devaluation of human life to name a few.  The same is true for abortion as it is not simply the case that we can establish at what point in development a fetus becomes a human life.  While it is certainly true that the most uncontroversial form of birth control is abstinence it is not an option in the case of rape or incest.  The complexity of the abortion issue is not limited however just to rape and incest but may also include lack of access to birth control or mental incompetence.  To be against abortion as a form of birth control does not mean that there are no exceptions it only implies that when other options are available they are preferable.  The same is true of execution for murderers in so far as it need not be the most desirable option under certain circumstances. 

Many people dislike moral relativism but it is simply a recognition of the complexity of circumstances relative to the application of more universal principles.  Even when we agree on the basic principles a series of compromises is required in all social interactions as no two minds are ever in complete agreement nor is knowledge ever complete.           


You're aware that the living are separated from existence without all these complexities and circular arguments having any effect on the conditions that create killing.

Why is the distinction between rape and birth control made? Killing the unborn is legal, end of story no need to justify why you support abortion.

There does seem to be a need to justify state sanctioned killing in some instances but not others. All the extenuating circumstances in the world won't change that these are largely political arguments.
By design they are used to confound and divide the living. Compassion for the victim who needs an abortion, compassion for the family who needs retribution.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2015 at 23:42
"Killing the unborn is legal, end of story no need to justify why you support abortion."

There is simply no way to support such a statement.  If it were true that life begins at fertilization then unprotected sex for purposes other than reproduction would be negligent homicide.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 03:57
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 
Here the political arguments show their teeth. The same person who has qualms over killing a convicted murderer can't make a clear decision about abortion because the schism in their thinking becomes clear.

A fetus may be destroyed but not as a form of birth control. It rather is birth control what ever the rational given by political groups. The schism is caused by social and political conditioning. It doesn't have to make sense to be politically correct.

The qualm over killing convicted murderers arises indirectly and not from the actual right of the state to execute.  There are many reasons to be leary of execution including false convictions, mental competency questions, devaluation of human life to name a few.  The same is true for abortion as it is not simply the case that we can establish at what point in development a fetus becomes a human life.  While it is certainly true that the most uncontroversial form of birth control is abstinence it is not an option in the case of rape or incest.  The complexity of the abortion issue is not limited however just to rape and incest but may also include lack of access to birth control or mental incompetence.  To be against abortion as a form of birth control does not mean that there are no exceptions it only implies that when other options are available they are preferable.  The same is true of execution for murderers in so far as it need not be the most desirable option under certain circumstances. 

Many people dislike moral relativism but it is simply a recognition of the complexity of circumstances relative to the application of more universal principles.  Even when we agree on the basic principles a series of compromises is required in all social interactions as no two minds are ever in complete agreement nor is knowledge ever complete.           
 
I agree with the first part of your post.
 
The State reserves for itself the responsibility for enforcing the laws that it has made. This includes punishment of people who contravene those laws.
 
Modern thought is that ofenders should be rehabilitated, educated and released where possible, but some people are hard wired to continue offending.
 
In the case of the death penalty, it is the ultimate sanction, the offender will not offend again, but, as has been shown over many years, the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a punishment pure and simple.
 
Who was it who said"Better a guilty man walks free than an innocent man dies"?
 
 
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 05:50
There is a small group for which death penalty is deterrent, those in prison who murder either through ordering assassinations on the outside, or through murdering other inmates.  

As far as whether or not it is a deterrent otherwise, I don't think we can really honestly say, because in the United States, people are trying so hard to make sure it doesn't work, that we don't know what it would look like if it was what was normal in these cases.  I bet that people are discouraged from bringing drugs to Indonesia.  James Holmes got armored up when he went on his spree because he was scared of being hurt.  Maybe if the death penalty was more real to him, he would not have done it.  But, I believe that some time before Holmes did it, the governor of the state (Hickenlooper) gave clemency to Nathan Dunlap.  Maybe Holmes heard that, and figured, 'heck, even if I do this heinous crime, they won't execute me, they may say so and make big noises about it, but I know it won't happen.'  Now it is not questioned whether Dunlap or Holmes massacred people, so it is not about innocent men walking free.

I think that the United States has the worst of all possible worlds with this issue, We have capital punishment.  But the laws regarding it are twisted out of shape, causing an undermining of law in general.  The liberals on this issue, thinking the ends justifies the means, are operating out of bad
faith.  When an activist complains about how long someone has been on deathrow and how hard that is, but at the time, they have done everything they can to drag out the process as long as possible,
that's operating out bad faith.  When they do everything they can to stop it, and complain that it is unusual, that is bad faith.

Of course, Mexico doesn't have the death penalty nor life in prison, then again, look at how brutal Mexican gangs are.  As they say about Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.


Edited by franciscosan - 08 May 2015 at 05:51
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 07:00
Where there is no question of quilt, the murder was premeditated and unprovoked the death penalty does seem acceptable.  In those cases as  franciscosan  points out there is no other reasonable way to be sure they will not kill again in prison.  Those case are however so few in number that they are of little practical concern.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 13:38
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">"Killing the unborn is legal, end of story no need to justify why you support abortion."</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">
</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">There is simply no way to support such a statement.  If it were true that life begins at fertilization then unprotected sex for purposes other than reproduction would be negligent homicide.</span>


Sorry, no. Killing the unborn is what occurs during the abortion. You may qualify it any way you like. The deliberate destruction of a fetus in the womb is killing the unborn.

If you insist that its negligent homicide, ok then we are committing negligent homicide on a mass scale. Semantics don't change what killing a fetus in the womb actually is, we are killing the unborn.

Who exactly decided when life begins? The Feminine Movement? Jane Fonda? Did you decide that Wolfie? Sorry hope you have a sense of humor/the absurd.


Edited by Vanuatu - 08 May 2015 at 15:45
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 16:15
I think the problem with the abortion issue is that there is so much grey area. When does a life begin, in a pragmatic sense? It's hard to say exactly. Does anyone here have fond memories of ma and pa's egg and sperm cells coming together? 

Indeed, most pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion at an early date. Slight imperfections in cell growth can be critical early on, and almost always end up death of the potential individual. 

It's one of those issues that calls for a tough decision, but there are no easy guideposts. 
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 16:35
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.-Wiki

Also Abraham;

Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?[3] ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."[4]

Also the British and American legal system, point taken. And that may have been appropriate for the historical period to put emphasis on a human rights axiom.

Retribution is more than punishment. Its a balance that favors the criminal in fact. Its the mercy killing that would be afforded any beast that is out of its mind. That sounds hideous. I remember when we used to look for lost kids on milk cartons. Now there are so many they need a multiple international networks to keep track of them all. Such brazen slaughter of those we hold most dear requires a severity that will compensate for the good intent of jurists. The good intent that must be adjusted with current circumstances in consideration.

Edited by Vanuatu - 08 May 2015 at 16:53
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2015 at 20:07
franciscosan has helped me clarify my thinking on the issue of the death penalty.  For those convicts so violent that they cannot have any social contact even in the controlled environment of prison then killing them seems appropriate.  Living in permanent isolation is so unnatural it must be considered a cruel and unusual sentence.  At some point I think that sending someone to rot in total isolation degrades our sense of the value of human life as much as execution. 






Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2015 at 18:53
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

franciscosan has helped me clarify my thinking on the issue of the death penalty.  For those convicts so violent that they cannot have any social contact even in the controlled environment of prison then killing them seems appropriate.  Living in permanent isolation is so unnatural it must be considered a cruel and unusual sentence.  At some point I think that sending someone to rot in total isolation degrades our sense of the value of human life as much as execution. 







Do you imagine that the life of a young couple who kill the fetus they have created will result in an unnatural isolation?
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2015 at 23:23
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 
Do you imagine that the life of a young couple who kill the fetus they have created will result in an unnatural isolation?

First of all I don't think abortion is murder and second I have no idea what a theoretical "young couple" is let alone what they experience.

Since abortion is not murder it can only indirectly devalue human life.  We have more important things to consider in the way of what devalues human life such as unremediated poverty, disease and war.  State execution falls into a similar category as it is certainly not a priority issue.

Most views on abortion are colored by religious bigotry so in general no rational objective discussion is possible on the subject.  I only mentioned it for perspective on how behavior that is general considered moral can have some relatively minor effect on the value we place on human life.  I would suggest that calling abortion murder may in fact do more harm than good.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2015 at 00:35
You never see women coming up to a pregnant woman, patting her on the belly and saying, "oh, look at the fetus!"  
Murder is a convention, and so whether or not that convention extends to the unborn, is part of society.
As a convention, what soldiers do is not murder, what executioners do, is not murder.  But it is interesting that people who get worked up about a black hearted murderer dying, have no qualms about making abortion common.  If you believe that "necessary" killing devalues human life, then what about unnecessary killing of the unborn?
I had a friend who argued that having abortion actually raised the number of unplanned pregnancies.  I mean think about it.  I woman has sex and doesn't use protection because she always figures (in an abstract way), that she can get an abortion.  Then all of a sudden, she's pregnant (well, not _all_ of a sudden), and she is fully faced with the choice, and its moral implications, and cannot go through with it.  I don't know if that would happen enough to raise the number, but it is a plausible scenario.

Two things, America, from what I understand, has quite "liberal" abortion laws, and maybe we should tighten them up some.  Do women under age have the right to an abortion, or do they need parent consent?  What about third term abortions, abortions made after the "fetus" is viable?....
second thing, this is a moral problem for our society, but it is a personal issue for women, and so while us men should give our two cents, we should understand that our involvement is limited to being brothers, fathers and uncles, not bearing the children ourselves.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2015 at 02:26
I'm reminded of the slightly tacky joke: When does a Jewish fetus first become viable? When he finishes medical school. There is a bit of a message in that for us, however.

Murder is only murder when it is done so in contravention of societal values and norms. Doctors and family members will decide when an elderly patient no longer should be on a ventilator. Right now, pilots and military specialists are deciding where bombs will drop, and who will be killed, in the Islamic Crazy territories in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Paramedics and nurses and others in disaster areas are, at this moment somewhere in the world, deciding which casualties will receive further care, and which will be left to die. Somewhere at this moment, a police officer is no doubt holding a gun in a critical stand off, and feverishly trying to decide, is this law enforcement, or is it something else? When you next drive your car to the mall, and decide to stop at the red light, rather than plowing ahead through the pedestrians, you are making a decision about life and death.

So I have little in agreement with those that speculate that an unformed human life, one not viable outside the womb, one not yet conscious, one not yet separate in any meaningful physical way from its mother, is sacrosanct, a gem that must never be tarnished.

Sorry, but life and death are dismaying but unavoidable choices we must make at various stage of life.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2015 at 04:45
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:


Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 
Do you imagine that the life of a young couple who kill the fetus they have created will result in an unnatural isolation?


First of all I don't think abortion is murder and second I have no idea what a theoretical "young couple" is let alone what they experience.

Since abortion is not murder it can only indirectly devalue human life.  We have more important things to consider in the way of what devalues human life such as unremediated poverty, disease and war.  State execution falls into a similar category as it is certainly not a priority issue.

Most views on abortion are colored by religious bigotry so in general no rational objective discussion is possible on the subject.  I only mentioned it for perspective on how behavior that is general considered moral can have some relatively minor effect on the value we place on human life.  I would suggest that calling abortion murder may in fact do more harm than good.  


I never called abortion murder but you continually do call it murder.
You care about the devaluation of life caused by killing convicted murders.
Killing, and sorry that's what it is, a fetus is not just a medical procedure. If you care about society then think about what the random couple who gets an abortion will go through.
Including isolation, regret, self hate and usually divorce. Then the juveniles having abortions, multiple abortions before age 21 are shut down psychologically removed from consequences and the whole rest of their lives repressing guilt. Which manifests in so many ways -lack of empathy, easily manipulated and disassociated from themselves.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2015 at 09:16
"Killing, and sorry that's what it is, a fetus is not just a medical procedure."

Terminating a potential to develop is not killing if it were abortion would be murder.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2015 at 20:03
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:


Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 
Do you imagine that the life of a young couple who kill the fetus they have created will result in an unnatural isolation?


First of all I don't think abortion is murder and second I have no idea what a theoretical "young couple" is let alone what they experience.

Since abortion is not murder it can only indirectly devalue human life.  We have more important things to consider in the way of what devalues human life such as unremediated poverty, disease and war.  State execution falls into a similar category as it is certainly not a priority issue.

Most views on abortion are colored by religious bigotry so in general no rational objective discussion is possible on the subject.  I only mentioned it for perspective on how behavior that is general considered moral can have some relatively minor effect on the value we place on human life.  I would suggest that calling abortion murder may in fact do more harm than good.  


How about some statistics to go with your rhetoric. This "bigotry" turns out to be generally consistent with religious people and the death penalty. In fact the less you go to church the more likely you are to support the death penalty which is the subject.

Church Attendance

"Americans who attend religious services on a regular basis are slightly less likely to support the death penalty than those who attend less frequently. Although a majority of frequent and infrequent churchgoers support the death penalty, the data show that 65% of those who attend services weekly or nearly weekly favor capital punishment, compared with 69% of those who attend services monthly and 71% of those who seldom or never attend."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14050/who-supports-death-penalty.aspx

Edited by Vanuatu - 10 May 2015 at 20:04
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2015 at 20:09
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">"Killing, and sorry that's what it is, a fetus is not just a medical procedure."</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">
</span>
<span style=": rgb231, 228, 216;">Terminating a potential to develop is not killing if it were abortion would be murder.</span>


You admit that prisoners doing life in prison can and will kill again.

Therefore you are ok with executing them.

In executing rather that giving life prison terms, the state is aborting the potential of the killer. The killer won't be allowed to develop a new, unrestrained type of killing.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2015 at 01:03
There was a conservative in the 1980s who must have been doing something right, because he made nobody happy (on both sides of the fence).  He said that a woman does not want an abortion like she wants a new coat (his example), she wants an abortion in that she is trapped and wants out.  Therefore, his response was that society should take care of the conditions under which a woman wanted to have an abortion, and, I assume, see from there, whether abortion was still needed.  Like I said, no one on either side seemed happy with his proposal, which says to me that he was perhaps on the right track.
It really doesn't matter whether you think that "terminating a fetus" is not killing, the question is what will the woman think, not only now, but in the future, and what will her boyfriend, present or future, think.  She will have to live with it, and it will affect her life and relationships probably in some way, no matter what.  Of course, it will affect her life and relationships also if she doesn't get an abortion.  Either way, the moral decision ultimately rests on her.  I would hope that whatever she decides is well thought, and aware that, while it might not be a moral decision now, she is not just deciding for now.  It should be a difficult issue, whichever way it is decided.
There is a wide range here from morning after pill to third term abortions.  American abortion law is based on Justice Stevens arbitrarily dividing up pregnancy into three trimesters.  I seem to remember that third trimester abortions are restricted to those for the sake of the life of the mother, but I am not sure of that.  Point though, is that medical science is pushing back what is a viable pregnancy, whereas the trimester division is still the law.  If a pregnancy is viable due to medical science, then should abortion be allowed??  If it is not allowed, well then can you induce birth of a viable but severely pre-mature baby?  Or maybe the artificial distinctions made by the law, are good enough for government work, God and the Supreme Court gave women the right to privacy (that's what it falls under, a "right" nowhere located in Constitution, but okay let's say a right), and far be it from facts of fetus viability infringing on women's choice.  Choice is sacrosanct, life less so.  Is that the message we want to give,
I mean any murderer will give a _reason_ why he killed who he killed, I wouldn't be surprised if he (most murderers are 'he') said, hey at least I had a reason? (Do you know how many murderers report that the last thing the victim said was, "go ahead an shoot!"?)  Don't give a killer an excuse, and maybe you should give him an excuse, by painting a picture of guilt free, no consequence abortion.
but yes, if a women is trapped by a pregnancy, abortion is one way of getting out.  It might, however, be going from the frying pan to the fire.  But that is something that I hope she looks at when she considers the possibilities.

I think that religious conservatives should change their view of contraception, if you have contraception (which we do), and people use it, then they won't have to use, as contraception after the fact.


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2015 at 04:11
I'm somewhat sorry I brought up abortion because it has become a distraction.  That said I fill justified in my belief that abortion is not killing when it concerns a non viable fetus.  When I say non viable I mean viable without extraordinary medical intervention.  You may not agree which is find but the arguments on both sides have been so thoroughly worked out and it is clear that reasonable people can disagree on the issue.  Reasonable people may also disagree about the death sentence.  What I cannot agree with is a claim of special knowledge derived not by objective observation and reason but from a religious or philosophical claim to moral superiority.   The only connection between state executions and abortion is the is the need to honestly admit our own intellectual limitations.  We can no more know with certainty in many cases who is truly guilty than we can know when a fetus becomes a human being.  All that morality dictates is that we not be cavalier about either decision.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2015 at 06:34
There are a lot of emotions surrounding both the death penalty and abortion.  I would suggest, don't forget empathy concerning both sides of the fence, on either issue.  Humans are usually not really rational animals, we are rationalizing animals.  We often start with our conclusion and backtrack, filling our argument in afterward.  I am tempted to say that is more of a characteristic of men, myself included.  And abortion is a women's issue, not solely a women's issue, but an issue that men should take a backseat on, still with a voice to be heard, but not ultimately responsible for the final decision.
Fortunately our society is getting away from it, but ultimately men can be wham! bam! Thank you mam'! here one day and gone tomorrow.  It's not the ideal for society, but it is often the reality.  Women have to live with the results, no matter what the decision, their decision is.  Now I am not saying that they should let us men off the hook.  It takes two to get in the family way, and so we should also participate, umm, after the fact.  But I find it funny when a friend and his wife come up to me, and he says, "we're having a baby!"  I smile inside, and refrain from saying, "no, she's having a baby, she's the one that has to do the heavy lifting."
I have not read this book, but from what I understand 'Freakonomics' correlates the rise of abortion with a drop in crime, because probably the number one thing determining whether a kid goes bad or not, is whether he was wanted.  I am not saying that is true, and I am not saying that lower crime rate justifies abortion, but if that is an interesting argument that some people want to pursue, then you now have a source for it and what you do with it, is your business.  obtw, I am not citing special knowledge, I'm just giving you all the arguments on the issue, pro or con, so that you can judge for yourself.  


Edited by franciscosan - 11 May 2015 at 06:39
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2015 at 14:00
Right no special knowledge based on philosophical or religious belief. I haven't seen that here expect in the quotes regarding the devaluation of human life during execution.

I read Feakanomics and it was quite a good book except that the idea was discredited about the drop in crime rate after Roe v Wade was passed. How are statistics discredited?

The author asked -what good can possibly come from making a woman have a baby if she doesn't want to?

One thing I must mention is a chapter dedicated to the importance of a name. One father named his first son "Winner" and his second son "Loser." Winner ended up a dependent alcoholic, broke and alone. Loser became a well respected Police Captain and family man. Go figure.

The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2015 at 06:30
Did people hear that in the sentencing section of the Tsarnyaev trial (where it is decided death or life in prison), the judge allowed the nun who was represented by Susan Sarandon in "Dead Man Walking" to speak?  She was limited in what she could say, to the extent that the _defense_ would tell her to stop, when she wandered from what was allowed.  The prosecution was also objecting to certain things.  The nun met with Tsarnyaev, and apparently he is remorseful (although would be nice if he actually showed in public that he was).  The judge allowed her because in the appeals process, it usually the sentencing section which is challenged.

part of my reaction, is that she is such a heavy hitter/pro on the topic that I would be tempted to do the opposite just to be contrarian.  I don't quite trust someone who could pull on the heartstrings with a great amount of skill on such an issue.  But I wouldn't be in the jury in the first place.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2015 at 15:53
It's good that the Sister Helen Prejean was heard. For the record we included dissent. He maybe even has remorse but he didn't steal candy. It's a huge price for what he did.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2015 at 00:08
Hey look!  "My Name is Earl" for at least this second.  ;)  (TV show)

I imagine that neither Tsarnyaev or Holmes will speak at their trials.
Sister Helen Prejean said that it is easier to condemn when they are "monsters," harder to condemn
when they are viewed as human beings, I wonder what would happen if they testified?  would that make them look like more or less of a monster??  I am not sure I see an upside for the defence in having them testify, then again, I haven't paid attention to Capital trials much in the past.  There might be a little more empathy towards them if they remain passive throughout all that is happening.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 684
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2015 at 14:26
Well sure they are Sister Helen. Its much easier to view them as monsters when you see body parts blown off children. However she must be who she is, a person devoted to those detested by society.


Here is the lad I'll remember.


Gary Leon Ridgway, also known as "The Green River Killer", confessed to 48 murders, police suspect he was involved with at least 60. He did not testify in his defense. Ridgway was moved to tears and broke his robot like persona when first a father of one of his victims expressed his loss. Then another parent forgave him. I remember it happening at the time, Ridgway cried like a baby.


NY Times article describes Tsarnyaev looking "bored." Holmes on the other had may be smart enough to fake it. What's your impression?

Ridgeway video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2_OOaP763k
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2015 at 22:23
One aspect of this issue I don't think we have covered thoroughly is how forcing society to support a murderer for life devalues the lives of those that must care for them.  Those resources could go to other worthy individuals. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2015 at 03:49
The jury has returned and rendered a verdict in the Boston Marathon case: the dreaded needle in the arm, ushering in oblivion.

Or is it so dreaded? Your captain has observed that humanity all experiences life in different ways. At one end of the scale, those flooded with  lurid perception and high degrees of angst, to the state that they would rather not leave their house, except in dire emergency, see things one way. At the other end of our yardstick, some cannot find even minimal sensation outside of roller coaster rides, serious drugs, or perhaps bank robberies and murders.

Observers in the courtroom suggested that this particular offender was unmoved by the sentence, at least outwardly. And perhaps he wasn't. 

To turn things around, suppose a lenient sentence was imposed. How much angst and turmoil would that have caused to thousands of family members and friends of the injured/killed, how much soul searching, and perhaps eventual rebellion or disobedience against the system, in various subtle ways, would that have encouraged? 

Which, in the long run, is better for society?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32757790


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2015 at 04:50
We seem to be assuming that morality means the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people possible with the caveat that no individual is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice toward that goal?
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2015 at 06:19
Sister Helen said he expressed some regret, and who doesn't flip off cctv cameras?  Does anyone know whether Tsarnaeyev ever testified?  I think the court system usually works on a duty ethics (deontological), not a utiltarian ethics (greatest happiness, greatest number).
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2015 at 06:29
"I think the court system usually works on a duty ethics (deontological), not a utiltarian ethics (greatest happiness, greatest number)."

The question of how laws are formulated is dependent on the world view of their authors.  What is our world view relative to the discussion? 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.