Poll: Do you support capital punishment?

[starlashine]

I oppose the death penalty. I am in favor of permanent life sentences for murder, child abuse, rape, and acts of wanton destruction. I also wish those that were sentenced to life were forced to dig their own hole and lie in it. I believe this country's judicial and jail system is seriously out of whack though. I also wish that petty crimes-drug possession, theft, etc.-were handled on a community level rather than a state or federal level. I do not believe these crimes should result in jail time. I don't believe any crime that only harms the individual committing it should be legislated. The government has too much say in how we run our own lives, never mind the attempts to legislate morality.

[SFP]

To compare applying the death penalty for a person who of their own choosing and enjoyment chose to be a vicious serial murderer (for example) with the murder of a baby for convience is comparing apples and broccolli. And yes, I believe an embryo is a baby and abortion is wrong.

 

 

 

Do you believe a woman who's had an abortion belongs on death row? Is the man who encouraged her/gave her money to have the abortion an assessory to murder? Should he receive the death penalty as well?

[Phred]

Do you believe a woman who's had an abortion belongs on death row? Is the man who encouraged her/gave her money to have the abortion an assessory to murder? Should he receive the death penalty as well?

Don't forget, that makes the doctor a serial killer. Does the doctor belong there too?

[SFP]

I was ignoring the doctor because the original intent lies in the parent(s), but yes, for those who believe abortion is murder, does the doctor deserve the death penalty?

[PrairieAir]

I can't quite grasp it either. These are the same people that vehemently oppose abortion of any kind. In the responses the word "innocent" comes up more often than not. I simply can't reconcile the "Christian" values of save embryos at all costs and kill criminals. In between there's the issue of gun ownership with the express purpose of killing another human being. And it's not, "I'm afraid, I need to have a gun..." It's almost, "Comon bad guys, I dare ya!"

 

I dunno. Perhaps Australia has it right. Minus the spiders.

 

"These are the people who..." I don't know that you have that right. "Some of these people are also people who..." perhaps. I know Christians who support the death penalty on different levels and who oppose abortion to varying degrees and very few who own a gun with the idea of "Comon bad guys, I dare ya".

 

For example:

*Until the other day, I (a Christian) was pretty sure that I supported the death penalty. Now I am not so sure. I am willing to re-examine what I believe and why to see if it really does line up with that moral compass of mine. I think many Christians are willing to do this as well.

*I have always thought abortion was a horrible thing BUT that in some situations the individual woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy and no one should condemn her for it. That has to be a very hard choice to make, but I can see how it might seem or actually be necessary in some situations.

*We own guns. Currently we only own guns for hunting, but we did own a handgun at one time and I support the right of others to own a handgun for self defense. In our case, we owned a small, lightweight handgun (sorry, I'm not into guns and I don't know what kind) for when we went backpacking. We had very small children and we wanted to be able to protect them from mountain lions which have been known to stalk and attack small children. Dh also felt better having that gun when we stopped at a very scary looking motel in Arizona. It was a place we would not have chosen except that we were both dead tired, there were no other accomodations for over an hour in either direction, and it was not safe to pull over to the side of the road for a short nap.

 

You could say I am an exception to the rule except that I know so many other exceptions that I don't see how it can really be a rule. Isn't it like this with most things though? I'm not going to start ass-uming that all atheists are the same or even that all atheists who oppose the death penalty, are pro-choice, and are in favor of stricter gun control are the same or have the same reasons and motives for their beliefs.

[beansprouts]

Do you believe a woman who's had an abortion belongs on death row? Is the man who encouraged her/gave her money to have the abortion an assessory to murder? Should he receive the death penalty as well?

 

 

There is a clear difference between a young woman feeling hopeless and abandoned making a desperate choice, and a depraved mind who kills and destroys lives for the sheer thrill of it.

[SFP]

So you don't think abortion is murder, Cindy?

[nancypants]

The key difference is that it's more *likely*, rather than more common. About 74% of the US population is white, and about 12% of the population is black, but the proportion of blacks receiving the death penalty is far higher than that.

 

More info at

http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10389pub20030226.html

 

From the same department there are some more interesting figures that come into play here.

 

It has less, of course, to do with the percentage of blacks and whites in the general population than it does with blacks and whites in the criminal population. And sadly, probably based mostly on the fact that more blacks live in inner city and often impoverished conditions, the percentages change quite substantially. So as far as determining the fairness of the death penalty it's more important to look at the statistics involving only criminals and not the general population of law abiding citizens. Do you know what I mean?

 

(The site breaks it down much further than this but this is the most pertinent info. to this conversation, I thought.)

All homicides

 

Victims

White 50.9%

Black 46.9%

Other 2.1%

Offenders

White 45.8%

Black 52.2%

Other 2.0%

 

Here, again, are the death penalty statistics (unfortunately not in percentages... Full statistics from 1968-2006 based on race can be found here.)

 

Of persons under sentence of death in 2006:

-- 1,802 were white

-- 1,352 were black

-- 28 were American Indian

-- 35 were Asian

-- 11 were of unknown race.

 

Of persons executed in 2007:

-- 28 were white

-- 14 were black

 

So among murderers, as opposed to the general population (who really have no place in the statistics about capital punishment) you can see that the death penalty is not really more likely to be carried out on minorities. In fact they seem to square quite well with the murder rates, leaning more heavily to the white side in actual sentencings and executions, probably because it seems that more often murders committed by white people (and this is purely my own observation from watching and reading the news) are more brutal and on a larger scale and therefore more likely to receive a death sentence.

 

Just some more stuff to chew on.

[Phred]

You could say I am an exception to the rule except that I know so many other exceptions that I don't see how it can really be a rule. Isn't it like this with most things though? I'm not going to start ass-uming that all atheists are the same or even that all atheists who oppose the death penalty, are pro-choice, and are in favor of stricter gun control are the same or have the same reasons and motives for their beliefs.

Oh... you could do that... but since atheists aren't a group in any sense of the word we wouldn't much care. Atheists, by definition, have one thing in common... we don't believe in God. You're an atheist... I just believe in one less god than you do.

 

As to what I said... I don't think that all Christians think the same about anything. There are so many denominations and cults that it's impossible to discuss anything about what "Christians" think. Which says something... but, back on topic. I was simply pointing out that there are a large subgroup of "Christians" that are anti-choice, pro-death penalty and pro-gun. Those seem to be a strange set of values to reconcile.

[beansprouts]

So you don't think abortion is murder, Cindy?

 

Even as I posted that I was rethinking it. Abortion kills a child. Biological evidence proves this to be the case, and there really is no arguing it. You are asking me how it should be defined and treated from a legal standpoint, and my answer is "I don't know". I think intent is important. I think the motive and reason for killing define whether a person can ever be reintroduced into society. However, moments after I wrote that last post I wondered how legally the same hopeless, desperate and abandoned woman would be treated if her child were, say two years old when she killed him. I think it would take a cold-hearted person to look into a baby's eyes and end his life. That part is definitely missing when the child is unseen.

 

Abortion is a complex issue, and I have such compassion for the mothers as well as their babies. It can be tough for me to sort through it sometimes. I can only say that abortion is wrong on many, many levels.

[SusanG]

So you don't think abortion is murder, Cindy?

 

 

She didn't say that. Clearly, not all murders are eligible for capital sentencing - capital murder is rather stringently defined - so her saying people that have abortions shouldn't receive the death penalty in no way indicates that she feels abortion is not murder.

[Phred]

Even as I posted that I was rethinking it. Abortion kills a child. Biological evidence proves this to be the case, and there really is no arguing it. You are asking me how it should be defined and treated from a legal standpoint, and my answer is "I don't know". I think intent is important. I think the motive and reason for killing define whether a person can ever be reintroduced into society. However, moments after I wrote that last post I wondered how legally the same hopeless, desperate and abandoned woman would be treated if her child were, say two years old when she killed him. I think it would take a cold-hearted person to look into a baby's eyes and end his life. That part is definitely missing when the child is unseen.

 

Abortion is a complex issue, and I have such compassion for the mothers as well as their babies. It can be tough for me to sort through it sometimes. I can only say that abortion is wrong on many, many levels.

So complex in fact that I can disagree with your entire post. But that's off topic for this thread. Leave it to be said, it can be argued and needs to be argued.

[SFP]

For those who believe abortion is murder, what should the punishment be for the ones who commit the murder? Should it be classified as, say, fifth degree murder? Should mother/father/doctor serve a jail sentence, pay a fine, do community service?

[beansprouts]

For those who believe abortion is murder, what should the punishment be for the ones who commit the murder? Should it be classified as, say, fifth degree murder? Should mother/father/doctor serve a jail sentence, pay a fine, do community service?

 

 

I don't believe in punishment or retribution. I think approaching the issue from this standpoint only leads to confusion. The question here is can he who has broken the law be rehabilitated? What is necessary and how long will it take? And if he can not, what is the most ethical and effective means for removing him from society permanently so he is no longer a danger to others?

[SFP]

I am specifically trying to get an answer from those who believe abortion is murder. Peek and several others have been calling it that for several weeks in various threads. I am trying to understand what the people who believe abortion is murder think is an appropriate punishment for those who commit it.

[beansprouts]

I am specifically trying to get an answer from those who believe abortion is murder. Peek and several others have been calling it that for several weeks in various threads. I am trying to understand what the people who believe abortion is murder think is an appropriate punishment for those who commit it.

 

 

I was trying to steer the discussion back to the topic of capital punishment. I think our views about "punishment" and "retribution" for criminals are unproductive, and confusing. How exactly can a person "pay" for taking a life? They can't. That person with all his unique gifts is now gone from the world forever. No person can ever "work off" that debt. It is dehumanizing to quantify the value of a human life in years behind bars. I think if we start asking the right questions about rehabilitation we will find ourselves with a more effective system for dealing with our criminals.

 

Another problem that bothers me is that of violent men continuing to commit violent crimes once incarcerated. How can we stop this?

[PrairieAir]

I was simply pointing out that there are a large subgroup of "Christians" that are anti-choice, pro-death penalty and pro-gun. Those seem to be a strange set of values to reconcile.

 

And I am saying that I don't even think you can make generalizations about that group. Many in that group are for or against those things on varying levels, and they have a wide variety of reasons behind how they see each of these issues. Your comment about gun ownership in particular was a gross generalization of your specific subgroup of Christians, a generalization based, I'm sure, on anecdotal evidence and the odd quote picked up here and there. My examples were anecdotal as well, but they were about me only and not an entire group or subgroup.

 

I can see how it might be hard to pin such a diverse group (or non-group) as atheists down well enough to make generalizations. I have heard one generalized phrase which is said (by several atheists) to be particularly irksome: "There are no atheists in foxholes." I'd agree that can't be said--surely not with any degree of certainty or method for proving it. However, I'd also say that it may only be a generalization that this generalization irritates atheists since we haven't heard from all atheists on the subject.:001_huh: It's my experience that people, no matter to what group they or others feel they belong, never fit so tidily into the boxes in which we try to place them. We are a most puzzling species.;)

[SusanG]

Another problem that bothers me is that of violent men continuing to commit violent crimes once incarcerated. How can we stop this?

 

 

Solitary confinement. I have toured Angola in Louisiana several times, and it seems their system works rather well. I also met and spoke to some lifers that could have ended up on death row, and I have to say - people CAN change, CAN be rehabilitated, no matter WHAT they have done in the past.

[Phred]

Solitary confinement. I have toured Angola in Louisiana several times, and it seems their system works rather well. I also met and spoke to some lifers that could have ended up on death row, and I have to say - people CAN change, CAN be rehabilitated, no matter WHAT they have done in the past.

Sadly... our society doesn't much care that people can change, that they can be rehabilitated. Prisons are not places of rehabilitation. They are places of punishment. You are to go there and suffer. Those that find their way to a better place are not the norm. I hear Angola is a hellish place. If you don't mind, would you tell us more?

[Colleen]

I am specifically trying to get an answer from those who believe abortion is murder. Peek and several others have been calling it that for several weeks in various threads. I am trying to understand what the people who believe abortion is murder think is an appropriate punishment for those who commit it.

 

This thread is developing a number of tangents ~ and while I don't mind tangents, it makes it more difficult for people to discover new questions that are posed. You might get more response if you posted a new thread altogether.

[Colleen]

Sadly... our society doesn't much care that people can change, that they can be rehabilitated. Prisons are not places of rehabilitation. They are places of punishment. You are to go there and suffer.

 

I can't agree with you here. Much depends on the particular prison, but for the most part, many rehabilitative programs are available to today's prison inmates. As I said elsewhere in this thread, my indirect experience hasn't provided evidence of prisons being places of suffering.

[Pajama Mama]

I do support it but I don't think it can be a blanket punishment. I think it should be reserved for the worst cases. I think that most cases should consider all of the facts and try for rehabilatating the prisoner. But there are some beyond help. I disagree that r*ping a child isn't worthy of the death penalty. I think that the child has died in a way. That person has killed their trust in people and their innocence. They create more predators like themselves and the cycle of violence continues.

[Colleen]

Phred observed:

 

I was simply pointing out that there are a large subgroup of "Christians" that are anti-choice, pro-death penalty and pro-gun. Those seem to be a strange set of values to reconcile.

 

You responded:

 

And I am saying that I don't even think you can make generalizations about that group.

 

I don't agree that Phred's generalizing. He's making an observation ~ and in my experience, it's simply matter-of-fact. I am surrounded by conservative Christians who are anti-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-gun. They wouldn't balk at that description; they proudly, fiercely hold to those positions. It's hard for me, as a Christian, to reconcile those values with one another and with my understanding of our shared faith ~ and my positions are equally difficult for them to fathom.

[Colleen]

in my local circle, the most support I've heard for the death penalty comes from Christians. I do not mean to start any argument; just my observations.

 

That's my reality, too. I am Christian, but the vast majority of my Christian friends and acquaintances don't share my set of "political" values. (I'm referring to my position on issues such as gun control, capital punishment, the environment.) Makes life interesting, anyway.;)

[Colleen]

Yes, it would. I am often amazed when this issue comes up that so many people apparently support it.

I don't think you would get anything like a majority supporting it here in Australia. Like the gun issue. We don't have the death penalty and we don't have guns. And we (by far a majority) prefer it that way, and from this position it looks barbaric to have laws that support guns or the death penalty. But would we feel the same if we were born and raised in a different culture? I think there is probably less independent thinking and more cultural influence than we generally realise or would like to admit- both for and against.

 

I agree.

 

I don't think I have to tell you that I often feel like a fish out of water in my own country. There are many, many aspects of America that I embrace with gratitude, and of course there's nothing like coming back home after having traveled to a country that doesn't offer the freedoms we enjoy. Having said that, had we been able to settle down in Canada, as we'd hoped, I would likely have become a Canadian citizen. I have a sentimental attachment to my American citizenship. My mother was willing to become a U.S. citizen. My father served this nation's military for 20 years. But the older I get the more disturbed I feel, living in a society that embraces so many values which are anathema to me. Capital punishment is one such example.

 

I'm not surprised by the results here, because polls of the general U.S. population tend to show that 2/3 of the public supports the death penalty. It's so, so interesting to me that this is one of the only "Western" nations that still considers capital punishment a legal form of punishment. I know many Americans ~ including many close friends of mine ~ who take pride in that, who don't care one iota what the norm is in the rest of the world. But I do. It speaks to me ~ and not in a positive manner.

 

Ya know, I told my husband after reading your descrition of Perth that I need to go check it out sooner rather than later...;)

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I am trying to understand what the people who believe abortion is murder think is an appropriate punishment for those who commit it.

 

What is appropriate punishment for a parent or doctor who takes the life of a newborn? An infant? A child? An older person? The only thing that distinguishes these is age. As one who does believe that abortion is murder (assuming that murder is defined as the taking of life), my logic is that whatever might be appropriate punishment for the the person who takes the life of any of the above mentioned subjects would also be appropriate for one who takes the life of an unborn child, since the only things that distinguishes a pre-born person from a born person is age and locale.

 

If you wish to argue that an embryo (or even a near-term infant) is not a pre-born person, then I ask, "What is it?" My answer to that question is that it is a person in a different state of development than you or I. Yet genetically, you and I have not changed since our embryonic days. Were we once something other than human?

 

I oppose the death penalty, for both the guilty and the innocent.

 

---

(I edited this post to add this part)

 

After posting initially, I went away thinking and it occurred to me that I was speaking theoretically--IF abortion were illegal, then what should the punishment be? However, there may be people reading this post who have themselves had abortions or close dealings with it, who would take my answer as a condemnation of their choice. It goes without saying that we live in a society where abortion IS legal, and most of us have grown up with that as a given. This inherently affects the culpability, on some level, for participating in abortion. And too, the very fact that it is legal makes it an alternative for people who might not have otherwise taken this route--meaning that many people would not have had abortions had it been illegal. That may seem self-evident, but I hope my meaning is clear. If not, I'd be glad to try and speak more to the point. At any rate, I apologize for speaking hastily and without thought for those who may have had personal experience--regretfully or not.

 

And I agree with Colleen--make a new post! I'd rather have a wide discussion. :001_smile:

[HRAAB]

I don't agree that Phred's generalizing. He's making an observation ~ and in my experience, it's simply matter-of-fact. I am surrounded by conservative Christians who are anti-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-gun. They wouldn't balk at that description; they proudly, fiercely hold to those positions. It's hard for me, as a Christian, to reconcile those values with one another and with my understanding of our shared faith ~ and my positions are equally difficult for them to fathom.

 

Yes!

 

That's my reality, too. I am Christian, but the vast majority of my Christian friends and acquaintances don't share my set of "political" values. (I'm referring to my position on issues such as gun control, capital punishment, the environment.) Makes life interesting, anyway.;)

 

Again, yes.

 

I don't think I have to tell you that I often feel like a fish out of water in my own country.

 

And again, yes. And that I feel like a fish out of water among many Christians. Which leads to many questions and musings.

 

I finally figured out how to do that multi-quote thing....

 

Janet

[Murphy101]

Do you believe a woman who's had an abortion belongs on death row? Is the man who encouraged her/gave her money to have the abortion an assessory to murder? Should he receive the death penalty as well?

 

Don't forget, that makes the doctor a serial killer. Does the doctor belong there too?

 

There is a clear difference between a young woman feeling hopeless and abandoned making a desperate choice, and a depraved mind who kills and destroys lives for the sheer thrill of it.

 

I am specifically trying to get an answer from those who believe abortion is murder. Peek and several others have been calling it that for several weeks in various threads. I am trying to understand what the people who believe abortion is murder think is an appropriate punishment for those who commit it.

 

As another posted, intent matters in regards to the death penalty. As I've posted several times, there's specific and tight requirements for what qualifies as a capital offense.

 

And our laws show a disparity as well. There are laws that prosecute a dr for purposely harming a fetus against the parents' wishes. For that matter there are laws in many states that would prosecute a drunk driver the death of the mother and her unborn baby in a collision. For example, a mother might be permitted to legally kill the fetus for ANY or NO reason, but if a dr does so because he doesn't think downs babys should be born - that's murder and it's highly likely he'll spend a very long time in jail. I find that in error. Isn't it far more horrific a thing for a parent to will the death of their own child?:confused:

 

Now compassion is and should be offerred to ignorant and or scared women. For example, I'm against all abortions, but that doesn't mean I can't have compassion and understanding for how a rape victim may turn to it out of fear or dispair. I don't think they need an abortion anymore than a mother with ppd needs to have her baby killed. I think they need mental and emotional health assistance. It's not the baby's fault and if they truely can't bring themselves to want the child, adoption is an option.

 

Not all murder gets or should get the death penalty.

 

I, for one, would like to see this on another thread as well...

 

simply because it's far off this topic, imho.

[HSMom2One]

After a number of years of not being sure about capital punishment I finally came to the conclusion that if I'm Pro-Life and believe in the sanctity of life, then I cannot support capital punishment. I am opposed to violence; agressive warfare, gang viloence, domestic violence, abortion, etc. etc. I'm also in favor or compassionate counseling, healing, ministering to and reaching out to the oppressed, many of whom have committed acts of violence.

 

The bottom line is that I can't justify murder for murder. Lock them up for life, away from society, but don't kill. We must protect our communities, but God is the final judge and He says that revenge belongs to Him.

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[Phred]

but God is the final judge and He says that revenge belongs to Him.

I feel the need to address this line of thought.

 

Somewhere in the world right now... or soon... a child is about to be murdered. Statistics say that statement is true. That child will be killed by a man who does it for kicks. He may be caught, he may not be. But no god bothered to step in and do a ****ed thing about it. I know all the arguments about why a just deity would allow this to happen and I don't care. I care that this god would dare to claim the right of revenge but not the right to step in and save the child in the first place.

 

There is no God and no revenge will be had after death. We need to do a better job here, now.

 

(before you all start on me about my statements, I'm just speaking about my beliefs as surely as the above quote did.)

[Laurie4b]

The way to see whether the death penalty is imposed disproportionately is to see whether, when it is available, it is given more often to minority than to white offenders. So you are comparing whites convicted of murder to blacks convicted of murder. I believe that is where the statistics saying it's disproportionate come from.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I feel the need to address this line of thought.

 

--I can respect that.

 

Somewhere in the world right now... or soon... a child is about to be murdered. Statistics say that statement is true. That child will be killed by a man who does it for kicks. He may be caught, he may not be. But no god bothered to step in and do a ****ed thing about it. I know all the arguments about why a just deity would allow this to happen and I don't care. I care that this god would dare to claim the right of revenge but not the right to step in and save the child in the first place.

 

There is no God and no revenge will be had after death. We need to do a better job here, now.

 

--I don't get it. The poster is for protecting society. It isn't her fault we're not doing a good job of it. As far as that goes, it is likely that she--as you--feels that "we need to do a better job here, now". She did not say "Turn all the criminals loose and God will eventually take vengeance." So where does your post come from? It seems you are angry that she believes in God and the idea of final judgement (even though she did not use her beliefs as an excuse for allowing injustice); the implication is that you are angry that you see no intervention from a deity and yet people like her still continue to have faith.

 

(before you all start on me about my statements, I'm just speaking about my beliefs as surely as the above quote did.)

 

--So you dislike her beliefs and disagree with them. You use her quote out of context as though she has washed her hands of the messy situation on earth and relinquished all responsibility to God in Heaven. And then you end by saying that you don't want any flak for "speaking about your beliefs"? Sure, you can believe or disbelieve all you want. You can argue your point of view, and dispute someone else's. But I didn't think your argument followed from her statement. It's not an argument against her. As I see it, you made an argument against belief in God.

 

(ok so I can't figure out how to multi-quote properly)

[Peek a Boo]

I feel the need to address this line of thought.

 

Somewhere in the world right now... or soon... a child is about to be murdered. Statistics say that statement is true. That child will be killed by a man who does it for kicks. He may be caught, he may not be. But no god bothered to step in and do a ****ed thing about it. I know all the arguments about why a just deity would allow this to happen and I don't care. I care that this god would dare to claim the right of revenge but not the right to step in and save the child in the first place.

 

There is no God and no revenge will be had after death. We need to do a better job here, now.

 

(before you all start on me about my statements, I'm just speaking about my beliefs as surely as the above quote did.)

 

yeah!!

 

we let innocent children ride around in cars. We all know that children are killed daily in cars --even when restrained properly and "legally." What kind of MORON would intentionally take their child somewhere IN A CAR!??!!

 

and trampolines!! motorcycles! skateboards! We should be doing a better job here-- now-- and step in and save these children from disaster. If someone is so much as taking a drink --hit them hard NOW before they have a chance to get intoxicated and take out a family. Those idiots doing distracting things on the road -radios. cell phones. eating. etc.-- take them off the road before something tragic happens.

 

so... just what kind of "better job" do you see being done? mind reading?

 

The whole God-revenge thing is dealing w/ an eternity vs the short term sight of us here on earth. The bigger picture [that you dismiss]. God's actions are based on allowing an absolute freedom for us in how we act. Your comments imply that you would rather we NOT have absolute freedom in whether to act, worship or acknowledge God. ok.

 

In the responses the word "innocent" comes up more often than not. I simply can't reconcile the "Christian" values of save embryos at all costs and kill criminals.

 

well gee, Phred... considering your absolute disregard for most things Christian, this doesn't really surprise me ;)

 

But you are right: there is a difference between innocent and guilty. That is pretty basic. What is NOT so basic is motive, intent, rehabilitation, and proportional punishment.

 

I can see a variety of "logical" positions:

innocent vs guilty.

life-all-around

volunteering to die vs being drafted/selected to die.

 

For the OP, I am anti-death penalty. I am also anti-death.

 

but like Phred,

"I oppose capital punishment.

 

Which doesn't mean I don't wish to see it used sometimes."

 

I find it interesting that those who are in favor of supporting a woman's right to kill the developing human inside her are often also in favor of killing off older humans they deem "worthless." Yet they want to work as hard as they can to keep criminals alive. So *I* don't see the logic there, and find it difficult to reconcile such a subjective, arbitrary, illogical stance.

 

From a secular perspective, i would absolutely support the death penalty in specific cases. People lose their rights -to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- when they intentionally deprive another of those same basic rights. skip ahead to Ms Riding Hood's statement in red below. i agree that our system sucks. The only reason it is more expensive to kill someone on death row than to house them for a lifetime is because of the red tape and lawyer fees. If someone is caught redhanded, a bullet is pretty darn cheap.

 

I do agree w/ Martha about penalties vs deterrents. However, there's plenty of evidence for it being a deterrent, too: there are quite a few bad guys who know the extent of the law and how to do as much damage as possible w/o incriminating themselves in a crime that carries the death penalty. "If you must shoot at a cop, shoot to disable him, not kill him." But i also agree that many bad guys won't be deterred --that's kinda why they are BREAKING THE LAW to begin with.

 

and I'm w/ Ms Riding Hood about the logical consequences --and subsequent questions to Y'ALL-- for abortion.

 

Not all murder gets or should get the death penalty.

 

Of course, those would only apply if abortion were indeed illegal. In which case, I would expect that organizations who were TRULY wanting to support women would create a plethora of places where women could receive confidential housing, treatment, and counseling for an unplanned pregnancy instead of waiting till women and doctors are jailed for breaking the law. Many churches and conservative organizations already run such centers -it's not a new concept.

 

 

...but from a scriptural standpoint, I have to go sit next to Prairie Air on this issue.

 

As for the NT scripture about the sword.... that does not necessarily mean DEATH. The context is talking about wrongdoers. We certainly don't kill every wrongdoer out there, but the sword is being born by the gvt anyway. So sword does not demand "death." It certainly implies a punishment to correct or remove though.

[Phred]

yeah!!

 

we let innocent children ride around in cars. We all know that children are killed daily in cars --even when restrained properly and "legally." What kind of MORON would intentionally take their child somewhere IN A CAR!??!!

 

and trampolines!! motorcycles! skateboards! We should be doing a better job here-- now-- and step in and save these children from disaster. If someone is so much as taking a drink --hit them hard NOW before they have a chance to get intoxicated and take out a family. Those idiots doing distracting things on the road -radios. cell phones. eating. etc.-- take them off the road before something tragic happens.

 

so... just what kind of "better job" do you see being done? mind reading?

You missed the point.

 

The whole God-revenge thing is dealing w/ an eternity vs the short term sight of us here on earth. The bigger picture [that you dismiss]. God's actions are based on allowing an absolute freedom for us in how we act. Your comments imply that you would rather we NOT have absolute freedom in whether to act, worship or acknowledge God. ok.

A bigger picture... Absolute freedom for us to act. There is no god. No bigger picture. There's just a dead kid. Every time this happens, and it happens far too often, you should be furious with the god you believe in. Instead you praise it. You pretend the kid is in a better place. If you think that prayers work, then you believe that your deity can interfere in the here and now. So why not save a child or two or three or all of them? And finally... why in the world does it bother you more when a woman has an abortion than when a child is killed?

 

I find it interesting that those who are in favor of supporting a woman's right to kill the developing human inside her are often also in favor of killing off older humans they deem "worthless." Yet they want to work as hard as they can to keep criminals alive. So *I* don't see the logic there, and find it difficult to reconcile such a subjective, arbitrary, illogical stance.

There's also a difference between "killing off" and helping to die with dignity. Maybe you want to live in diapers not knowing your own children or what day it is... but I don't. When my personality goes, I'm already dead. Why is it, according to the above, I have the free will to kill a child but not myself when I'm old and finished with this world? I don't believe in god so why do I have to wait for "him to take me"?

 

Of course, those would only apply if abortion were indeed illegal. In which case, I would expect that organizations who were TRULY wanting to support women would create a plethora of places where women could receive confidential housing, treatment, and counseling for an unplanned pregnancy instead of waiting till women and doctors are jailed for breaking the law. Many churches and conservative organizations already run such centers -it's not a new concept.

So the forty-year old executive who just doesn't want another child and can't stop at this point in her career to have another child should go to confidential housing for nine months?

[melmac]

Yes, to rid the world of these psychos, especially the ones who hurt children (I believe there is a special place in H*ll for them), but our system is too painless for them in my belief, I think they should be given a parachute and dropped from a plane into a wild uncivilized area where they might be torn to shreds by wild animals or something similar.

 

No because it costs so much more of the taxpayers dollars to carry out. My plan would be much more efficient.

 

So, I'm not really sure, but realistically I just want them to be much more uncomfortable than prisoners of a lesser crime and I think a life sentence at the least should be mandatory.

[Jenny in Atl]

I think they should be given a parachute and dropped from a plane into a wild uncivilized area where they might be torn to shreds by wild animals or something similar.

 

Sounds like a number of our prisons, though they are much nicer than say, the ones in Mexico or Thailand.

[melmac]

Well, I'm not an expert on prisons, but I feel they deserve much worse than their current punishments.

 

 

 

Sounds like a number of our prisons, though they are much nicer than say, the ones in Mexico or Thailand.

[Jenny in Atl]

Well, I'm not an expert on prisons, but I feel they deserve much worse than their current punishments.

 

Oh, I agree.

[SnowWhite]

There is no god. No bigger picture. There's just a dead kid. Every time this happens, and it happens far too often, you should be furious with the god you believe in. Instead you praise it. You pretend the kid is in a better place. If you think that prayers work, then you believe that your deity can interfere in the here and now. So why not save a child or two or three or all of them? And finally... why in the world does it bother you more when a woman has an abortion than when a child is killed?

 

You're a very confused and angry man, Phred, if you believe this twisted statement.

 

Those of us who believe in God the way you describe do not PRETEND the child is in a better place. We are CERTAIN of it in a way that only faith can comprehend. We are CERTAIN that the reality we live in every day is less than a shadow of the reality of Eternity and the life of God and heaven. For God to interfere in the here and now it must serve an eternal purpose. Humanity's free will serves an eternal purpose. And yes, we do praise our all-knowing and soul-comforting God.

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that we would be *more* bothered by a woman aborting her child than a man killing a child for thrills? What bothers us *more* is that society is SANCTIONING the abortion.

[Murphy101]

You missed the point.

 

A bigger picture... Absolute freedom for us to act.

 

you missed several points.

yes, we have absolute freedom to act - be it good or evil.

you claim christians are mindless followers who do not think, yet that is exactly what you seem to think a god should have created so no one would ever have to develop a conscience and no one would ever have to suffer.

 

There's also a difference between "killing off" and helping to die with dignity. Maybe you want to live in diapers not knowing your own children or what day it is... but I don't. When my personality goes, I'm already dead. Why is it, according to the above, I have the free will to kill a child but not myself

 

ah but you are not for killing yourself. You are for other people doing the dirty deed for you. If you want to commit suicide, that's up to your free will. although suicide in and of itself is sign of mental disorder by every pyschological evaluation. euthaniasia is about other people, not the terminal one. When given a caring environment and proper medical care (for pain for example), many people who are given the option and ability of self-termination never use it.

 

My dh's grandmother died of alzheimers recently after dealng with it for over 5 years. Even when she didn't know us - we still knew and loved her. She was more than a shell with personality. She was a deeply loved person. And every act of care she received was an act of love freely given.

 

None of my children have been born potty trained or able to say my name. My love and the care I provide them is not based on what I get out of it. It simply is.

 

So the forty-year old executive who just doesn't want another child and can't stop at this point in her career to have another child should go to confidential housing for nine months?

 

or the dad could raise the baby (and no, many men are not the pigs feminists like to portray them as and are perfectly capable of caring for a child!)

or she could put the baby up for adoption

or she could decide to love ALL her children, even when they aren't convienent to her career (what ever happened to family being more important than career? geez, is she going to get rid of her other children if they get a sickness requiring her to miss too many days of work?:confused:)

or she could do something really wild and keep her legs together:glare:

 

why do people keep insisting that abortion is the only answer for so many women? It's not. It's just the easiest and quickest to hide answer and they can pretend it never happened.:( If someone is having sex, they need to accept that a pregnancy is possible. If they can't accept that risk, they should rethink having sex.

 

As my dh puts it:

It's not possible to have an accidental baby unless a man and woman are both naked, the guy slips on a banana peel and lands on her very strategicly. To our knowledge this has never happened.:tongue_smilie:

 

Again, abortion is a seperate issue than the death penalty, imo.

:lurk5:

[HRAAB]

As my dh puts it:

It's not possible to have an accidental baby unless a man and woman are both naked, the guy slips on a banana peel and lands on her very strategicly. To our knowledge this has never happened.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Oh, this is priceless.

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

You missed the point.

 

not really, but I know YOU missed the original point ;)

 

Every time this happens, and it happens far too often, you should be furious with the god you believe in. Instead you praise it. You pretend the kid is in a better place. If you think that prayers work, then you believe that your deity can interfere in the here and now. So why not save a child or two or three or all of them? And finally... why in the world does it bother you more when a woman has an abortion than when a child is killed?

 

you assume quite a bit here. you assume that we PRAISE the death of a child, you assume the purpose of a prayer, and you assume that we are bothered "more" when a woman has an abortion --if you'd been paying attention at all in the last several discussions, we-- I, at least-- have clarified that I see no difference between a human at any stage of development, and thus there is NO difference in sadness when one is killed. YOU are the one making some distinction of being bothered "more" by which human dies.

 

There's also a difference between "killing off" and helping to die with dignity. Maybe you want to live in diapers not knowing your own children or what day it is... but I don't. When my personality goes, I'm already dead. Why is it, according to the above, I have the free will to kill a child but not myself when I'm old and finished with this world? I don't believe in god so why do I have to wait for "him to take me"?

 

you can kill yourself off any time you want. You just can't ask someone else to do it for you. Be a man, do it yourself, and all that ;) BUT, you were the one bringing up the subject of "worth" of a human's life in an earlier discussion, so the ball is back in your court there.

 

So the forty-year old executive who just doesn't want another child and can't stop at this point in her career to have another child should go to confidential housing for nine months?

 

only if she wants to.

Nobody says you HAVE to go to confidential housing. That's just one option. But if one is willing to kill another human for a career, then there are more problems than a 9-month hiatus --considering it might not even BE a solid 9-month hiatus. Lots of career-minded women work while pregnant, give birth, and move on w/ their career. give it up for adoption if you don't want to parent. If you don't want to worry about getting pregnant, there are lots of steps you can take to permanently take care of that. Options abound. Life goes on. Flex or break. Use that brain to plan a course of action that doesn't mean you kill another. Other options that secure a right to life might not be EASY of CONVENIENT, but the beauty of being HUMAN is we have the capability to adjust to different situations.

[SnowWhite]

Thanks Peek. I had totally missed the disparagement of pregnant career mothers.

 

My single mother best girlfriend worked until the day before her induction and went back to work the day her son turned 6 weeks old.

 

I personally worked until the week prior to my due date.

 

Isn't the governor of Alaska pregnant? Methinks Phred lives in the dark ages with regard to women's ability to keep a career on track while pregnant.

 

If the business world villifies pregnant career women to the point they need to go to confidential housing for 9 months, fix the business world instead of offing the baby.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Great reply, Martha.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that Phred is more interested in getting a response than engaging in enlightening exchange. It's easy to hurl out a bunch of rather stale rhetoric; it actually requires thought to defend it--and I don't see that happening. If you want to bring up the issues, why not actually talk about them? :confused1: Phred, you sucked me in. I had higher hopes. It's so hard to find a decent argument these days. *sigh*

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

or the dad could raise the baby (and no, many men are not the pigs feminists like to portray them as and are perfectly capable of caring for a child!)

 

 

I'm not involving myself in this main conversation, but I do want to point out that as a feminist, I have never considered men in general "pigs" and that in fact, my dh provides full-time care for our 4 y/o. And he's wonderfully capable.

 

I will admit that I have met some men who are piggish. But I think they are piggish because they personally *act* piggish, not because I think that "all men are pigs."

 

Sweeping generalizations turn people off on *both* sides. And before you throw the term around derisively in the future, consider that many feminists share your own views on the abortion issue.

[Murphy101]

I'm not involving myself in this main conversation, but I do want to point out that as a feminist, I have never considered men in general "pigs" and that in fact, my dh provides full-time care for our 4 y/o. And he's wonderfully capable.

 

I will admit that I have met some men who are piggish. But I think they are piggish because they personally *act* piggish, not because I think that "all men are pigs."

 

Sweeping generalizations turn people off on *both* sides. And before you throw the term around derisively in the future, consider that many feminists share your own views on the abortion issue.

 

touche! :blush:

my point was simply that far too often the only opinion that seems to matter in regards to a pregnancy is the woman's, but a man was involved at some point and he should have some say too. I think there's more real men out there that would take on solo parenting if neccessary than are given credit.

and sadly I've meet far more than my share of women who think all men are pigs or incompetent at caring for a child.

[Fourmother]

touche! :blush:

my point was simply that far too often the only opinion that seems to matter in regards to a pregnancy is the woman's, but a man was involved at some point and he should have some say too. I think there's more real men out there that would take on solo parenting if neccessary than are given credit.

and sadly I've meet far more than my share of women who think all men are pigs or incompetent at caring for a child.

 

I think your argument has a big flaw. You seem to be assuming that men want pregnancies to continue, and unfortunately that's not always true. If you give a man the right to make decisions regarding a woman's pregnancy, he could choose to terminate it. I wouldn't want to see men forcing abortions on women any more than I would want to see them forcing women to carry to term. Where would the man's control over her body end? Should he be able to force her to take medication, be on bed rest, submit to an epidural, breast or bottle feed, etc? Gestation is not a 50/50 proposition. Until men start carrying babies, women will have more control over pregnancy. Biology isn't fair. However, men do have some say, before conception and after birth. That's the way it should be IMO.

[Murphy101]

I think your argument has a big flaw. You seem to be assuming that men want pregnancies to continue, and unfortunately that's not always true. If you give a man the right to make decisions regarding a woman's pregnancy, he could choose to terminate it. I wouldn't want to see men forcing abortions on women any more than I would want to see them forcing women to carry to term. Where would the man's control over her body end? Should he be able to force her to take medication, be on bed rest, submit to an epidural, breast or bottle feed, etc? Gestation is not a 50/50 proposition. Until men start carrying babies, women will have more control over pregnancy. Biology isn't fair. However, men do have some say, before conception and after birth. That's the way it should be IMO.

 

No I'm not assuming that at all. I'm well aware that some men, just like some women, aren't parent material.

 

I'm not advocating that men force women to do anything at all.

Only that they have a voice in what they want or do not want to contribute.

It may be that the man will be a jerk and want nothing to do with the baby. He should have that option. Why not? The woman can decide she wants nothing to do with it, why shouldn't he have the same choice?

It may be that the man will be fully willing to contribute or even take on solo parenting should the mother not want to raise a child. No, he can't force her to care enough about another life to give birth. But she could at least consider asking him if he cares?

 

Why is it women want the right to choose to be mothers but they are not willing to offer that same choice of whether to be a father or not men?

 

I'm not advocating forcing her to do anything.

If she wants to be a mother and keep the baby - great!

If she feels led to adoption - great!

But why is it no one ever cares whether the man feels he is ready to be a father?

 

This is now completely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

:lurk5:

[mom31257]

I decided that if I'm going to be Pro-Life, then I am going to be pro-life all the way. If it's wrong to kill a baby in the womb, then it's wrong to kill a person who's out. I am a Christian, but I would be pro-life even if I wasn't. I do believe people should receive life without parole when it is merited. I also am not sure that helps the victim's family heal. I see it as possibly leaving them with a feeling that revenge has been served, instead of forgiveness that, I believe, in the long run will serve them much better.

 

Amy of GA

Darin's wife for 17 years

11yo dd

5yo ds

[Peela]

I do believe people should receive life without parole when it is merited. I also am not sure that helps the victim's family heal. I see it as possibly leaving them with a feeling that revenge has been served, instead of forgiveness that, I believe, in the long run will serve them much better.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I like that.