Democrats fight death penalty while pushing right to die. (CA) (state, California)

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I disagree, until you can demonstrate that people who have money are executed with the same frequency as the poor then I contend that the death penalty is in fact murder.

hogwash

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

This makes no sense.

Everyone is provided an adaquite defense during their trial and also provided defense throughout the appeal process. Not to mention a bunch of pro bono work for people on death row as well.

Everyone is provided an adequate defense? Seriously?!
Has nothing to do with wealth, power, influence, race?

[bmw335xi]

Money can buy the best lawyers unfortunately. I still support the death penalty though.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by theraven24

Right. Also, conservatives are against women having abortions, but don't want the government to spend money to offer services that help poor/struggling mothers with children.

It's not about the "right-to-life" or the children. It's all about subjugation of women, people of color, LGBTqwert, and other minorities by the WASP 1% Establishment. The lower class white man is just another tool in the belt, 1%ers don't care unless it serves their divide-and-conquer strategy.

Originally Posted by semispherical

And I'm not philosophically opposed to the idea of capital punishment. There are some (a few) humans, sadly, who are so depraved and dangerous that the planet would be significantly better off without them. Unfortunately, they don't usually end up being executed while those who can't afford fancy legal representation do. Until we can get our societal act together and make sure that executions aren't based on wealth or social standing there should be a moratorium on the death penalty.

You undermined your argument just now. Capital punishment dehumanizes all people into denominations of value, instead of respecting their inherent worth.

Originally Posted by cb73

Well, I'm one of the evil Conservatives. The "Conservatives want to outlaw abortion and want all poor people to die" is a talking point to keep you all on the straight and narrow and voting Democrat for life.

The late-term and pre-birth abortions are a slippery slope and will probably be argued about for years to come.

So are "Democrats want to kill more babies, raise your taxes, and take away God from public, confiscate your guns, and give gay people equal protection." is a talking point to keep you all on the straight and narrow and vote Republican for life.

Only problem with late-term and pre-birth abortions is that you would have to believe in the Roman theology about ensoulment from conception first. Only problem is that how do you baptize all those embryos from a discharge during a period?

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The logic is one made life choices that led to them being put to death, the other did not.

Some people have done some truely disturbing acts and have earned the ultimate punishment (after a substantial appeals process).

The problems isn't with the death penalty, it is the lack of funding to the appeals process that leaves people on death row for decades. It should not take more than 5 years from first conviction to through the appeals process and ultimately carrying out of the sentence.

If we can put millions of animals down a year without pain we can put to death a criminal without pain.

Speaking of which, John Hus and John Wycliffe also made life choices attacking The Church which resulted in their deaths. Heresy is a truly disturbing act and it should earn the ultimate punishment. Can't wait for those Jesuits to invade the South to start their re-Catholicizing the Anglosphere mission. I think America will be better off as a majority Catholic country.

What deserves the ultimate punishment? That list has been paired down through the centuries. Heresy (the example above) and sodomy (a.k.a. buggery) were capital crimes. It has been paired down to only murder thanks to Coker v. Georgia when the State tried to execute rapists. That's why it's arbitrary!

On the last point, why is it acceptable to pro-lifers that animals are euthanized but humans must suffer through until their appointed time? Look into The Church's doctrine about animals lacking souls and the Fundamentalist doctrine of humans having dominion over flora and fauna. It's also the same reason why animal cruelty laws should not exist.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

We're in a state contemplating legalizing euthanasia as a humane act while at the same time debating getting rid of the death penalty because it is inhumane.
So we are giving more consideration to murders and rapists than to the grievously ill? Where is the logic?

Mandy Vento LA Daily news 9/25

What's so hard to understand?

Democrats wants nobody but each person to decide whether he/she wants to dies unnaturally. No one else can make that decision but that person - not even the court of law. If Timmy doesn't want to die, the court cannot put him to death. But if Timmy does want to die, he can do so legally. Only Timmy can decide for himself, what's so hard to grasp?

The same way that no one else but you get to decide who you want to marry. No one can legally force you to marry someone you don't want to. Simple concept.

It's the ultimate individual responsibility and freedom - each individual and only that individual get to decide whether to live or die.
.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by slo1318

hogwash

LOL, Hogwash!
//www.city-data.com/forum/calif...d-saint-4.html
post #31 and 36 You have a short memory
I believe in the death penalty BTW and don't believe in multiple appeals. One and done.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by theraven24

Right. Also, conservatives are against women having abortions, but don't want the government to spend money to offer services that help poor/struggling mothers with children.

And lets not forget that conservatives squash every effort at providing contraception advice and services which make sure women don't get pregnant in the first place.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

We're in a state contemplating legalizing euthanasia as a humane act while at the same time debating getting rid of the death penalty because it is inhumane.
So we are giving more consideration to murders and rapists than to the grievously ill? Where is the logic?

Mandy Vento LA Daily news 9/25

So you don't know the difference between someone else killing you, and your right to kill yourself?

[Blimp]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

So we are giving more consideration to murders and rapists than to the grievously ill? Where is the logic?

Are you sure you are grasping the actual logic here?

We are giving every consideration to the grievously ill by allowing them the right to do as they please with their own life. How is denying them the right to die giving them consideration in your warped holier-than-thou Republican logic?

As for murders and rapists, the logic is that the state cannot say "thou shalt not murder" and then go and murder people itself. Either murder is wrong, or it's not. Which is it? Murdering a murderer is still murder for private citizens, so how is it any different when the state does it? We need to set a better example here, where murder is never right under any circumstance.

And before you say "unless it's self-defense," (1) that doesn't fit the definition of murder; and (2) it's never self-defense to kill someone who is unarmed and strapped down to a chair.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Blimp

Are you sure you are grasping the actual logic here?

We are giving every consideration to the grievously ill by allowing them the right to do as they please with their own life. How is denying them the right to die giving them consideration in your warped holier-than-thou Republican logic?

As for murders and rapists, the logic is that the state cannot say "thou shalt not murder" and then go and murder people itself. Either murder is wrong, or it's not. Which is it? Murdering a murderer is still murder for private citizens, so how is it any different when the state does it? We need to set a better example here, where murder is never right under any circumstance.

And before you say "unless it's self-defense," (1) that doesn't fit the definition of murder; and (2) it's never self-defense to kill someone who is unarmed and strapped down to a chair.

So you are against abortion then, since when is murder not murder?