Just getting into the spirit of the thing.

–|PW|–

Sorry for the time lag. You said ’simple’ and then basically argued thats its not simple. And you didn’t define when life begins and said you couln’t define a choice for others. Thats a cop out. Does a “woman’s right to choose” extend to killing a bothersome 2 -year old? 1-year old? Head out of the womb? Thrashing about in the womb? Tell me many things and I might believe, tell me its “simple” and I know you’re blowing smoke.

Dugger, Abort! Abort!

While I strongly disagree with the statement that “the vast majority of abortion opponents believe life begins at conception,” I’m sure that most reasonable people will agree that life begins somewhere between conception and the moment the child enters the world. Doesn’t the determination as to when that point in time is (to the extent we are even capable of making such a determination) require the same moral authority?

And doesn’t the primary argument against the death penalty (i.e., the taking of one innocent life …) also favor erring on the side of being overly restrictive when it comes to abortion (i.e., the taking of one innocent life)?

Simple, Dugger: There are people who support a woman’s right to choose–some of us, anyhow–who do not consider abortion to be the taking of a human life.

There are scenarios–abortions performed past the first trimester for example–that serisouly push the envelope between a medical proceedure and taking a life. In my opinion, anyway.

However, 88% of abortions performed in the US are done at less than 8 weeks gestation–that’s two months. Abortions performed at greater than five months gestation (ie 21+ weeks, the earliest point at which a fetus may be viable outside the womb) account for less than 1.5% of abortions, nationwide.

Short of banning abortion in its entirety, should there be a “cut-off”, a limit to how far a pregnancy can advance before abortion is no longer an option? Perhaps. But I don’t feel comfortable making that decision for other women–it comes back, once more, the the question of when life begins.

A 20-something, 30-something, etc convict, who may or may not be guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced to death, very clearly has been alive for some time.

Oliver: “Please list the innocent people killed by the death penalty.”

Oliver, I’m surprised at you–what kind of question is that? You’re intelligent enough to know that there’s very, very little support for or interest in re-examining a conviction once the accused has been executed–no one in power likes to have innocent blood on their hands for the world to see… it’s embarassing.

The volunteer lawyers and law students who re-examine death-row cases, of whom there are precious few, are more apt to focus on the ones they can save–the ones who are still alive.

I can provide you, I’m sure, with the number of executed innocents posthumously exonerated–and to that I’ll add persons proven innocent due to the efforts of the volunteers mentioned above (these are cases wherein the wrongfully convicted person WOULD HAVE been executed–it excludes cases in which convictions were overturned as a process of the “normal” judiciary system of appeals, etc.)

The numbers might impress you, they might not, but isn’t ONE person wrongfully convicted and killed too many?

Oliver: “I believe that some crimes are so heinous - murder, mass murder, child rape, rape - that the only worthy penalty is the ending of one s life.”

Whoa. That’s quite a viewpoint. I mean, I appreciate its honesty and straightforward tack–at least you’re owning up to the fact that the death penalty is an act of vengance and not trying to pass it off as a deterent-example–but it’s really a bit surprising to hear something so lacking in compassion and self-righteous from a liberal.

There is simply no one alive with the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies. But I digress–back with what statistics I can find in a bit.

I know you’re not making the argument — just putting it out there — but distinguishing between abortion and the death penalty — if one agrees that they are both the ending of an actual life (this is crutial) — based on whether a state supports the killing or not, is arbitrary.

Someone brought up China’s forced abortion policies. What if a State (in the broad sense) considered force-abortions to be legal (as it justifiably controls overpopulation in a time of resource shortage), but considers the death penalty a moral disaster, and as such, outlaws the practice? My point is not to bring to the forefront any postion; rather, to note that the notion of legality (if this is the crux of the argument) is not helpful in any logical debate.

Seems the core issue is the taking of life (and when life begins) or the permitting of the same - not the state’s power. I wouldn’t give libs or cons a bye. Libs say no death penalty, but would allow an infant in the womb to be killed (I don’t know when ‘life’ begins). Conservatives would save the infant in the womb because life is sacred, but permit the state to kill bad people. And I suppose 9/10s of both sides would have a military whose ultimate job is to kill other military - human beings. Hmm, maybe the total pacifist and the Nazi/Commies (lots of war, executions and abortions) are the only ones not hypocritical.

Dugger

Dugger

While I do not support the death penalty, I wonder why the issue of criminality is difficult to understand.

Baby: committed no crime
Death Row Inmate: convicted criminal

No one is calling for infanticide, which is what you insinuate by saying the “baby” never commited a crime. Being that the vast majority of abortion opponents believe life begins at conception and are even against the morning after pill, does that make an embryo a baby? The point is, most abortions occur with 6 weeks of conception, at which point the fetus is not yet a sentient being. So much of the pro-life’s crowd argument lies on the emotional appeal of “killing a baby” when that isnt the case.

So the question becomes how does any rational person justify fighting so fanatically for this man s right to be born, then killing him a couple of decades later? At what point did his life become less sacred?

While I do not support the death penalty, I wonder why the issue of criminality is difficult to understand.

Baby: committed no crime
Death Row Inmate: convicted criminal

At what point did  Thou Shalt Not Kill become optional?

The reason usually given is that the literal translation actually reads “murder” rather than “kill” implying a difference between unlawful and lawful killing. This is further supported by many passages in the Old Testament calling for the legal execution of certain criminals by Man.

The Catholic Church even accepts the death penalty under certain circumstances. However, it always condemns abortion.

Well, I’m Liberal…Pro-Choice, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-Republican Sterilization. Less people, the better. So, not everyone fits into the same narrow mold.

I believe that some crimes are so heinous - murder, mass murder, child rape, rape - that the only worthy penalty is the ending of one’s life.

“I don t know how conservatives can be anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. Simply hypocritical. Culture of life my ass. ”

Are you equaly puzzled as to how liberals can be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty?
Are they also simply hypocritical?

Dugger, just askin’

Eveybody loves babies, so of course there’s a ton of moral outrage at what conservatives view as ‘baby killing’.

However, let’s assume said baby is a minority male.

Flash forward twenty years or so–it’s an election year, and the Mayor is leaning on the police to find the person responsible for the abduction, rape, and murder of a little white girl.

The young man who was once our hypothetical unborn baby is indicted, tried, and convicted based on:

1) the testimony of a man who was “rewarded” $10,000 by police for a handful of sketchy statments, suppositions, and fabrications

2) testimony of acqaintances who stated the accused revealed ‘intimate details’ of the crime to them

3) testimony of the arresting officers, who claimed the accused had made (never specified) “incriminating statements”

4) testimony of two detectives who asserted that the accused had experienced “visions” in which he related details of the crime scene that were not public knowledge (there’s no audio or video to corroborate these strange claims, not even a transcript)

Condemned by the lack of a solid alibi and the inability to purchase adequate legal counsel–in the complete absence of physical evidence or even an eye witness–the young man is sentenced to death.

True story: http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_profile.php?id=07

So the question becomes–how does any rational person justify fighting so fanatically for this man’s right to be born, then killing him a couple of decades later? At what point did his life become less sacred? At what point did “Thou Shalt Not Kill” become optional?

Or did God really mean: “Thou shalt not kill unless it’s a minority adult male you’re reasonably sure did something wrong and it’s an election year?”

I gotta tell ya–I’m baffled.

I don’t know how conservatives can be anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. Simply hypocritical. Culture of life my ass.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199807/24_newsroom_election98/images/ventura.mov