<p>It seems painfully obvious...capital punishment kills off a person who is found guilty of doing really terrible things, whereas the fetus is completely innocent. Why is it hard to grasp that the former has violated one or more of our most basic laws (e.g., don't kill an innocent person) while the latter IS an innocent entity? It would be hypocritical if both parties were equally innocent or equally guilty. But that isn't the case. </p>
<p>When I said they were a tad hypocritical, I meant because they call themselves "pro-lifers" when they are pro-killing some people. I know fetuses are innocent and I know their stance isn't hypocritical. But the title they give themself is.</p>
<p>hrm a person kills somebody or worse, and they get death penalty.</p>
<p>A child is inocent and has done nothing wrong, and will be killed</p>
<p>Do you not see a difference? </p>
<p>yes, I do. Good god. I wasn't even being completely serious. I was listening to a song by Immortal technique where he mentioned pro-lifers who support the death penalty, and I made a thread about it. sheesh.</p>
<p>I'm against the death penalty. Reasons I'm against it - essentially punishes people for being poor, has no deterrent value, the terrible court system in terms of actually determining innocence/guilt b/c many people who get onto death row are poor - falliability of justice system. But there are always exceptions to the rule. For example, Nazi officials at the Nuremberg Trials definitely deserved the death penalty. People who conduct genocides and crimes against humanity - with a proven track record - like Sadaam and such definitely deserve it. I'm very iffy on Moussaoui (making him a martyr in the process might not be worth it). I'm also pro-choice. People sometimes think this is contradictory but this is my stance:</p>
<p>Pro-choice because banning abortion is useless b/c women will still get abortions. Is empirically proven - b4 Roe v. Wade, over 500,000 abortions happened a year illegaly (a lot more socially unacceptable then too) & backyard/illegal abortions are one of the number one killers of women in Latin America, highly Catholic (thus v. against abortion) countries where is illegal. They'll still get abortions, but they'll be in dirty clinics, with scissors or wires - abortions in safe clinics by licensed doctors & under govt regulation is preferable to backyard abortions with scissors and HCl, unlicensed doctors (if w/ doctors at all), unsanitary facilities that can lead to infertility, death, etc. In this case, I believe keeping abortion legal actually saves more lives because preserves life of the mother when govt. cannot possibly dictate individual action and save the life of the baby/fetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it. Also, illegal abortions also punish women for being poor b/c wealthy ones can get "therapeutic" abortions or go to clinics in European countries for them. </p>
<p>Against death penalty because causes more loss of life, especially of innocent lives and has about equivalent deterrent value as life in prison. You can argue monetary costs but that's not worth an innocent human life. Also because punishes people for being poor. Making it illegal also improves our international reputation (most of the other Western countries think it is a human rights violation) and might speed up extradition of really really bad criminals back to US (serial rapists, serial killers, & even proven terrorists - Germany & other Euro countries were reluctant to extradite ppl suspected of involvement in 9/11 b/c we have death penalty). I like to say that I'll only support the death penalty when "All the people on death row are criminals and all criminals are on death row." By criminals, I mean people truly guilty of a crime for which the death penalty can be justly given (not like you were caught stealing thrice, but serial murder, etc.). Referencing fact rich people can get better lawyers and easier sentences, poor get amateurs/public defenders who have a lot on their hands or no experience and thus more likely to get death penalty.</p>
<p>Forget you guys, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty, and I'm Democrat. Eat it liberals.</p>
<p>That's great, I believe that people shouldn't feel entitled to have a certain opinion because they're a 'republican' or a 'democrat'. In fact, I feel that's mostly whats wrong with the current state of politics in the US. That type of thinking has eliminated the individual.</p>
<p>Ebony, I understand most of what you said except for this: "Against death penalty because causes more loss of life, especially of innocent lives..." What "innocent" lives are you referring to?</p>
<p>I don't get the concept where you can be pro-life and pro-war at the same time.</p>
<p>Prolifers believe that abortion is tantamount to murder. Fine. That's their belief. I'm not going to dispute it.</p>
<p>War, on the other hand, is not tantamount to murder, but IS murder. In fact, war is the massive murder of hordes of grown, innocent people who are capable of feeling and expressing pain. This is the indisputable truth. When country A goes to war with country B, people on both sides, military or civilian it doesn't matter, die. Period. 99.999999% of people on Earth will not dispute the fact that people die in warfare.</p>
<p>So then, they claim that they are prolife, and are against something that is ARGUABLY tantamount to murder of an unborn infant, but are in support of something that is clearly and indisputably a common cause of death among all of humanity. Someone please explain this to me. :)</p>
<p>I'm pro-choice because:
a) it's none of my business
b) I don't consider a fetus dependent on its mother an independent life form.</p>
<p>I'm against the death penalty because:
a) it's more expensive than life in prison
b) it does NOT accomplish anything other than end another person's life, and
c) it seems hypocritical to me.</p>
<p>I'm against warfare in general because:
a) it causes deaths, BOTH military AND civilian, on both sides.
b) it does NOT accomplish anything, and
c) diplomacy is MUCH cheaper (airfare is always cheaper than weaponry).</p>
<p>I'm a conservative but I don't agree with the death penalty as I don't think that we as humans have the right to choose who lives and who dies. This is one reason why I am also pro-life. In addition, I am pro-life because I don't think that it is ethical for people to be irresponsible just because they know they can get an abortion...the leading reason why women get abortions is because it is inconvenient in their life to have the child...however, I think that if you are responsible enough to be having sex then you should be ready for the consequences arising from your actions. With the exception of a few cases (i.e. rape or when the mother's life is at risk), I think that any abortion is wrong and the woman having the abortion (or man forcing the woman to have one)should be prosecuted...they should take responsibility for their actions and not just have abortions because of convenience issues...</p>
<p>"I would rather have a woman get an abortion than have that woman have a child, then have the child dumped into the foster system."</p>
<p>to that i say if you're responsible enough to have sex you should be responsible enough to take care of the child...tough luck all actions have consequences.</p>
<p>It's rarely clarified that a lot of pro-lifers aren't trying to force unwanted babies on people, they merely want to see is a situation where the unwanted pregnancy never happens in the first place. In other words, when it comes to deciding whether to have sex or not, if the possible consequences were dire enough (i.e., no nice sterile drive-thru abortion clinics), then we would be giving people MUCH more of a reason not to have the ONE type of sex that can result in pregnancy in the first place (though they could do ORAL or whatever all they want). That is, pushing the "choice" back to whether or not to have THAT sort of sex, not whether or not to have an abortion. </p>
<p>When pro-choice people refer to all the unsafe back-alley abortions that would result from abortion being illegal, they are conceeding the fight to keep the pregnancies from happening in the first place. It's sort of like saying that too many bank robbers get hurt driving away from bank robberies really fast, so the answer is to provide them with crash helmets, instead of making it clear that the consequences for robbing a bank are bad, so don't do it (do oral instead).</p>
<p>Well it would be a lot easier for many people not to have kids if a certain somebody would allow condom use now wouldnt it?</p>
<p>And I think that there is a great distinction between an abortion before the 8th-12th week, in which 70% of abortions take place, than later term abortions...</p>
<p>Also on the death penalty issues, two massive independent studies in Texas and Pennsylvania both concluded that there is both a racial and socioeconomic bias when giving out the death penalty. I cannot support a death penalty in which a black man is more likely to get the death penalty than a white man who commits the same crime.</p>
<p>so burden the mother the rest of her life with an unwanted child or subject the child to the lovely child services dept for the child's first 18 years?</p>
<p>that sounds absolutely great on both sides doesnt it?</p>