Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not so much about supporting it only being used in special circumstances. My concerns are innocent people being executed as well as the cost of the appeals process (which actually makes a death sentence more expensive than a sentence of life without parole) and that it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
Punishment IS partially about retribution and I don't think it's inherently wrong when speaking of incredibly heinous acts for society to want vengeance and, yes, for the state to seek it and carry it out.
"You killed someone and that's bad and we will show you how bad killing someone is by killing you".
If you believe that life is a gift from god, you cannot have the opinion that man can take that life at the same time.
A consistent view is god is the only one who gives life and god is the only one who can take it away.
The irony we always see play out here is that all these religious "don't hurt the babies" types tend to be the same ones who are expressing hatred for various minorities and talking excitedly of how many guns they have and how ready they are to kill anyone at the drop of a hat. Violence against people different than themselves seems to be a perpetual fantasy for them. So it's obviously all a crock; they don't have any particular respect for life.
The irony we always see play out here is that all these religious "don't hurt the babies" types tend to be the same ones who are expressing hatred for various minorities and talking excitedly of how many guns they have and how ready they are to kill anyone at the drop of a hat. Violence against people different than themselves seems to be a perpetual fantasy for them. So it's obviously all a crock; they don't have any particular respect for life.
When one is left with no argument demonize others with vast generalizations. After all a vast generalization cant argue back.
Nobody has the right to take the life of another outside of self defense.
This is the gist of my problem with abortion. My right to anything stops where someone else's right to life begins. If the pregnancy is threatening my life, then I have the right to choose to survive but if I can carry to term and then get rid of the unwanted baby, the baby's right to life trumps my right to not have my body used as an incubator. Think about the consequences. For me the consequences are going through a pregnancy and giving birth and going through the recovery. I get out of this by aborting. The baby however loses its life. There is no contest here. In the tug of war between my convenience and someone else's life, the baby wins.
And since this thread also includes the death penalty, look at the consequences here. A murderer loses his life and society is protected from him ever committing another murder. There is a huge difference between killing an innocent baby for your own convenience and preventing a killer from ever killing again by taking his life. Now, I'm not arguing for the death penalty. I've already stated I'm against the death penalty because of the need to have someone kill the convicted killer who is sentenced to death and the enormous costs of death penalty cases. It's so much cheaper to just lock them up for life and no one has to have as their job description killing prisoners on death row. Unless I was in a life or death situation, I just could not take the life of another no matter how much they deserved to die. I think doing so would damage my soul so I would not wish that job on anyone, however, I don't think it's a contradiction to be anti abortion and pro the death penalty. My concerns are not for the killer here. They are for the person whose job it now becomes to kill the killer. That person must now take a life. Granted it's the life of a killer who has proven he has no right to live but a life none the less and it isn't being taken in self defense.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 02-23-2014 at 04:43 AM..
When one is left with no argument demonize others with vast generalizations. After all a vast generalization cant argue back.
I'd rep you but I can't. You know someone is losing the debate when they have to resort to pulling in unrelated things and forming connections that simply are not there. It's a sign of a weak argument.
It's not so much about supporting it only being used in special circumstances. My concerns are innocent people being executed as well as the cost of the appeals process (which actually makes a death sentence more expensive than a sentence of life without parole) and that it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
Punishment IS partially about retribution and I don't think it's inherently wrong when speaking of incredibly heinous acts for society to want vengeance and, yes, for the state to seek it and carry it out.
Punishment is also about protecting society. If one of my girls were murdered and their killer sentenced to death (not going to happen as Michigan doesn't have the death penalty), the execution would end everything. It would eliminate any possibility of my daughter's killer escaping and killing again.
The State has the right, as punishment for the crime of murder, and as prescribed by God in scripture.
I would argue that in biblical times, the death penalty was needed to protect society but that times have changed. Today we have the means to put someone away for the rest of their life and make sure it's the rest of their life. Back then the resources needed to take care of the murderer were too much. Life in prison would have resulted in too many prisons and they didn't have super max facilities back then so breaking out was a little easier. Death was the only way to insure that the killer never killed again.
Far too easy to abuse. We saw what the government in Kiev did.
What happened in Kiev cannot be compared to a criminal being sentenced to death for murder, according to law. Please. Think before you write something so ridiculous!
[quote=Ivorytickler;33596660] For me the consequences are going through a pregnancy and giving birth and going through the recovery. I get out of this by aborting. The baby however loses its life. There is no contest here. In the tug of war between my convenience and someone else's life, the baby wins.
This is how I see it....competing rights. For one, the right to not have to carry a baby to term and the other the right to life. Right to life should trump the right to not carry a baby to term. Glad my wife chose life for my kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the gist of my problem with abortion. My right to anything stops where someone else's right to life begins. If the pregnancy is threatening my life, then I have the right to choose to survive but if I can carry to term and then get rid of the unwanted baby, the baby's right to life trumps my right to not have my body used as an incubator. Think about the consequences. For me the consequences are going through a pregnancy and giving birth and going through the recovery. I get out of this by aborting. The baby however loses its life. There is no contest here. In the tug of war between my convenience and someone else's life, the baby wins.
