So somebody please explain the hypocrisy on both sides of the execution of Paul Hill in Florida.

I've always been a bit perplexed at the rationalizations of firebrands on both sides of the coin. Oddly, the same people who oppose abortion are typically the ones gung-ho about executing people that actually made it to adulthood. And I've noticed a startling correlation between the Leftists; its OK to kill the unborn, but not OK to kill a convicted serial killer.

Interested to hear how anyone can resolve these two conflicted camps. I don't know how people can avoid extreme dissonance in maintaining such diametrically opposed views. Its always made more sense to me that people should be "all or nothing" on BOTH of these issues.

And there are certainly many "true" Christians that oppose all death, even in capital punishment. There are also some on my side of the fence that say, "fetus ain't human til its out of the womb (so its meat, basically), and Mr. Axe Murderer surrendered his life when he took three others."

Still, the plurality of America seems stuck in the conflicted zone; kill some from this group, but none from this group.

Give me your take, and don't suck (sorry Romie)!

Color me pro-death (I'm a Texan locked in a Liberal's body). I'm OK with the death penalty (an eye for an eye) and I think a woman should have the right to make her own choice (even though abortion is not a pretty picture).

This is an interesting topic.

I do not think any of us have a right to take another person's life. You cannot kill someone for killing someone. It is not right, from my moral viewpoint.

The abortion issue is a tougher one for me. I do not feel that I have any type of authority about when life begins and when it does not. And I do not feel that I have the right to tell a woman how she should view the conception of a fetus either. So, to me it is not an issue about no killing at all. For me, the two issues are not dealing with the same situations. (I do not have a particularly strong view on abortion.)

I know many disagree with that viewpoint, but that is how it falls for me.

Interesting, charlie. Seriously.

If there is doubt in your mind, why not err on the side of humanity for the unborn child? I fully understand your not being sure.

If I'm given a gun and told to shoot it into a darkened room for some money, but I was also told there may or may not be people in it, would I then do it? No. Any doubt to me has to go in favor of life being present. Similarly, if you're conflicted about a woman's right compared to if the unborn is life, shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be given to life, which seems to be the more critical of the two? Just a thought.

You should be confused. It is hypocrisy. Let me just point out two things:

1. The Catholic Church is quite consistent, being against both abortion and the death penalty. Both are viewed as the improper taking of a human life. (Please please please just don't make me have to explain the theory of the "just war," though.)

2. The explanation given by the Protestant conservatives who are simulataneously anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is that abortion is taking an "innocent" life, while with the death penalty, a guilty person's life is forfeited. I have slightly less of a problem with that than the doctrinaire liberal position of "kill the innocent, spare the criminal," but only slightly because the death penalty is not limited to the 100 percent, absolutely, beyond-the-shadow-of-doubt guilty.

We execute the retarded. We execute the innocent. If you're a Christian, and believe in God, you must believe that someone will be held accountable for the state executing the innocent and the mentally infirm. Who will God hold to account? The jurors? The judge? The governor? Maybe, just maybe, all of us who live in the state who puts those people to death.

[ September 04, 2003, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

With the exception of my Left-Coast politics I guess I am a true Texan, too, (even though I moved here just 5 years ago) when it comes to death because I am pro-death penalty AND pro-Choice about abortion. A former classmate's mom was murdered the Christmas after our high school graduation...ever since then, I have been pro-death penalty.

[ September 04, 2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

I am pro-choice and pro death penalty.

Abortion is legal.

Imposing death penalty for a convicted murderer is legal (in some places).

I believe in an eye-for-an-eye!

See how easy that was?!

I have a hard time supporting the death penalty because it is administered by the government, and generally the government f^#&s everything up. But I know if the left had its way jails would be emptied out and ex-cons given 500 electoral votes and free crack and (for the ladies) gratis abortions for life. So I have to admit I'm torn.

Noelle Bush would like to speak to you about the free crack and Bob Barr would like more information on the free abortions.

Don't know Noelle Bush. Can't stand Bob Barr. But if their into drugs and abortions they should definitely be Democrats.

My two cents. Abortion is wrong, I believe immoral, but legal. The choice issue concerns when it comes to the Government's right to intercede into what are very personal decisions. So we shouldn't confuse societal ethics with morals. I cannot understand as a parent why most abortions are done in cases where a healthy baby would be born and is instead sacrificed for selfish reasons.

The death penanlt I believe is wrong because it is administered poorly and sometimes innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit.

My personal opinion is this: I was raised Catholic and I would hope had I ever gotten a girl pregnant or if my brother did- that we had a strong enough relationship with the woman we were with that there would be a way to resolve the situation without an abortion.

However, I don't think, especially as a male, that I have the right to take away the option for a woman to have that right to choose. I may disagree- but I can't say my right for someone not to choose it supercedes their right not too...

Death penalty- I think its circumstantial and too difficult to assess on a grand scale. Although I believe that if someone is found to have killed, maybe they should be killed by the same method they killed....

I'm with HornFan on this. As a Texas Democrat, I believe in the death penalty and a women's right to choose. Personally, I'd like to see less of both, but I believe there are always cases in either circumstance where the death is necessary.

--HOOK EM!--

Me too. I say throw the switch and break out the wire hangers!

Charlie in the Trees wrote; "We execute the retarded. We execute the innocent. If you're a Christian, and believe in God, you must believe that someone will be held accountable for the state executing the innocent and the mentally infirm. Who will God hold to account? The jurors? The judge? The governor? Maybe, just maybe, all of us who live in the state who puts those people to death."

CITT, I'd love to meet you sometime. Your posts have always been thoughtful, and usually spin the conversation into areas I hadn't even considered, in this case the execution of the mentally challenged.

However, Bill Maher is my psychological twin (I love that man), and I happen to NOT believe in God, so the idea of this non-existant God holding me (or you) accountable for the execution of an innocent, well, that just doesn't hold water.

Still, the concept at its core is highly relevant. I hadn't considered the angle of the retarded when I threw out this challenge. Damn you, CITT, for throwing a monkey wrench into my tidy little world! wink

Personally, I'd have to admit that I hold a soft spot for those who don't possess the same mental acuity as the rest of us, and find it troubling that they can be executed. My guess is Texas is frying them like flapjacks.

So in summation;

* He has a brain, he knew right from wrong, and he committed a premetitated murder? Fry him!

* Fetus isn't human, so Mother's rights take precedence over the unborn. Its her choice.

* A mentally challenged person kills someone, and can be proven to be incapable of understanding the results of his/her actions or the difference between right and wrong? A really long jail sentence separated from normal prison crowds seems quite justified to me, at least as long as someone works in helping him/her to understand these differences. If the concept can't sink in, then the sad reality is that lifetime imprisonment is required. But I don't think we can hold the mentally challenged to the same rules as the rest of society.

[ September 04, 2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: AU Tiger in LA ]

If a woman decides she wants to give birth to the child, then she can come after you for monetary support. But if she decides to dispose of the child in an abortion, you have NO say-so whatsoever. Something is wrong here.

What is it then? Either it is human from the time of its creation--and forever thereafter--or it is not, and cannot ever "become" human at any given point in time.

This is the perplexing dilemma.

No, its not a dilemma at all. I believe that the human brain is what makes you human. Throughout the first year of life this organ develops pathways/nueral connections that allow the creature to interact with its environment. And one day the brain reaches a point of self consciousness, then an understanding of past, present and future, as well as a whole buncha shit that other animals cannot do.

But while it is in the womb (and even months after the womb), the human animal is not anyhting close to what it WILL become. The religious view is that we are all human while we are in the womb. My definition of human, however, involves thought, memory and emotion. When's the last time you had a memory of a thought or emotion BEFORE you were born?

Pause for silence.

Unless you believe in the pseudo-quack field of pre-birth existance, you have NO memories from that time. My first memory is from the age of three and a half. If you ask most folks, their first memories are sometime between three and five.
Everything before that is nothingnethness. That doesn't mean you are NOT human. You've made it out of the womb, and the first years are all about the development of the organ that makes you human.

I happen to believe the idea of a "soul" is merely the quirky stuff that goes on inside the brain - an organ. Prior to birth, the fetus is merely meat with a potential to become a viable being. But that's just my opinion.

This topic has divided perfectly rational people. I'm not besmirching anyone that holds religious views that have led them to the idea of "life at conception." I just happen to not agree with the concept, but that's because I'm a humanist. I'm not a believer in faith-based idealogy - Science is my God.

Why are you bringing religion into this? I never did. I was intending to speak strictly from a biomedical point of view.

Your notion of having a brain, or memories, to be human is frightening. One's brain actually begins to function within a couple weeks of fertilization.

Also, if we adapt your logic, then it would be OK to kill those who were but 6 or 12 months old. After all, babies have a memory span of only a very short time--usually an hour or so when their but a few months old. Must be OK to kill them then.

Again, we don't "become" human. Either we are or we aren't. A human being either exists in an instant or he/she does not. If one does not, then no problem exists in disposing of such. If one does exist, then that's a different story.

One thing to consider in abortion, BTW: If the unborn baby is not alive--as many believe--then why does it have to be killed in an abortion?

Do you find the question of whether a seed is a tree or a fertilized egg is a bird also a perplexing dilemma?

Historically, fetuses have clearly not been considered human. If they were, doctors that committed abortions, and the women who had them would have been routinely executed, and there would never have been any laws specifically covering abortion.

Can a fetus get a tax cut?

Well, he or she doesn't pay taxes. So Republicans would say no, but Democrats would say yes.

Those deadbeat fetuses need to pull themselves up by their 'lil bootstraps and start contributing to society.

OH NO WAIT!

Let's say you have your kid on the 31st of December.... The kid is considered whole, and a tax deduction, for the entire year. So, if you go back 9 months.. that is... March. So, according to the govt 2 months earlier in January.. you had a kid.

Hence, if you are one of the lucky duckies who dont pay taxes in the first place... you have a tax deduction before the kid is even born. FREE money for any welfare mom who wants to put her legs in the air at the beg of the year.

Ted Kennedy is so happy right now.

Here's a peripheral development -- many Mormons (strongly anti-abortion) are in favor of execution by firing squad, believing that blood must be shed (man, I thought they were wacko enough just believing that Jesus came to visit the New World after his resurrection).

Utah is trying to change its state laws: "Hoping to clear the way for eliminating the firing squad as a means of execution, a Utah commission asked for and received a statement from the Mormon church saying it does not oppose the change.

In a one-sentence statement provided Wednesday to the Utah Sentencing Commission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it 'has no objection to the elimination of the firing squad in Utah.'

The clarification was needed, according to one commission member, because of a purported church doctrine that held that justice was not done unless a murderer's blood was shed."

A drop for drop ...

Are you happy too? You and he are both pro choice, and he was against DOMA.

You are forgetting something... He's a socialist/commie pinko-- i'm a patriotic american.

I believe in the the "true" american way, capitalism, not a welfare state.

Why is there a conflict here? How can you believe abortion to be immoral unless you also believe you are killing a child? That's what makes this such a polar topic. The only legitimate reason to judge abortion to be wrong is because it is the murder of an unborn child. If not, where is the harm? And if abortion is murder of an unborn child, then it should be illegal. Anything short of that is complicity in infanticide.

It frustrates me to no end when people say, "I believe abortion is wrong and immoral, but I respect a woman's right to choose." NO! NO! NO! If you believe abortion is wrong, you believe it is murder and must be stamped out. The only middle ground is the belief that abortion MAY or MAY NOT be murder, and you are willing to accept the view that it is not in order to afford women greater liberty.

If you do not believe abortion is the murder of a child, there is no issue at all. A woman should have free reign to have an abortion or continue her pregnancy. Any prohibition would be an infringement of her liberty.

The heart of the problem is we can't agree on when human life begins. Everything else flows from that and is very straightforward.

[ September 05, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: beachjock73 ]

Wow, and you two have so much in common.

I believe abortion is wrong because what's being aborted is something with the probable eventuality of being a human being. Whether or not it's a human being at that time is not clearly defined. It varies based on people's beliefs.

If a woman believes that aborting the baby is justifiable for her, who am I to say it's not? Whether or not she aborts the fetus has no noticeable effect on my life, so I think it's unjustifiable for me to deny her an abortion.

Abortion is an issue for the woman, her family and her god (if she believes there is a god), not for random bystanders or the government.

Absolutely not. A seed is analagous to a human egg just expelled by a female. A seed is nothing until it is planted into soil, receives water and other nutrients, etc. In that case, and the case of a bird's egg, neither is a human being and worthy of the highest protection. There's a reason why human beings are the highest on the evolutionary scale.

Not true. Feti have historically been considered fully human and deserving of protection. Take a look at the Hippocratic Oath itself. It opposes abortion. Of course, how convenient this is totally ignored by doctors nowadays.

Laws changed as people adopted a more care-free, aloof attitude, one with less reponsibility. Furthermore, as the money became more and more attractive--it's always about the money--abortion laws were loosened under the guise of "rights" and other feel-good bases.

BTW, this has always baffled me: A doctor is customarily referred to a specialist in his/her field by the suffix "-ist" in his/her title. For example: Cardiologist, neurologist, psychologist, gastroenterologist, etc. Why is it that those who perform abortions loathe being called "abortionists"? I'm sure it's rather difficult to be proud of ripping apart a human being for money.

[ September 05, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Hogwash. Of course the baby is human. If not, what is it? I've said it before, I'll say it again: One does not--cannot--\"become\" human. Either a creature is human or is not at any given point in time. An unborn human is clearly human; this is undeniable, undebatable, and irrefutable. If the child is not human, then the burden of proof is on those who believe this to prove what the child IS.

Is it a chair? An ant? A dog? Even an answer like \"mass of tissue\" is incorrect. Everything you and I have today was determined at the instant of fertilization. We are no different except in size and intelligence.

Even the Supreme Court in Roe admitted they had no idea when human life began. Well, duh! Then what the hell are they doing forcing their opinion on a nation that was attempting to determine this? Perhaps they should have left it to scientists and ethicists. Instead, they didn't follow their own stated beliefs and told all 50 states that no debate on this would be permitted. After all, the Supremes have spoken.

If a woman wants to beat the living crap out of her screaming 5-year-old in the privacy of her own home, does this have a \"noticeable effect\" on your life? Of course not. But it's still wrong.

Should not the government get involved whenever an innocent life is threatened? Is this not one of the primary purposes of government, to protect the most vulnerable among us from those who wish to harm such?

[ September 05, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

A seed needs nothing that an adult plant does not also need--if anything it is nearer development into a plant than a fetus.

I repeat: if it were clear that a fetus were a human being, there would never have been any need to outlaw "abortion", because it would simply be covered by homicide laws. In fact, the word "abortion" might not even exist. In actual fact, abortion is a separately described crime where it is outlawed, and the penalties are generally less stringent, clearly indicating that legally, the fetus is being regarded as at least somewhat less than a full human being.

And PhillyFan's discussion of tax law, though tongue-in-cheek, brings up some significant issues which arise if you really consider fetuses human beings. If a woman conceives in the U.S., her fetus should be a U.S. citizen. If she has a drink of alcohol or smokes a cigarette while pregnant (even if she doesn't know she's pregnant), she should be prosecuted under the same legislation that I would be if I gave alcoholic beverages or cigarettes to an infant.

This is absurd. There's no way an infant could smoke. I doubt a toddler could even hold a cigarette, much less light it, inhale, etc. And an infant would have no clue about how to wave a cigarette around while he's talking. Come on...

I hope you're not serious when you spout such nonsense. A fetus is so much more complex than a seed or plant ever is or could be. Besides, as I mentioned above, a plant is nowhere near deserving of protection as we are.

But that's just it: It IS clear a fetus is human. It cannot be anything else. Your allusions to the various laws have come as a result OF legal abortion and are an attempt to provide legal protection for feti in cases other than abortion. Logically, they usually make no sense, for how can an intentional attempt to harm a fetus be punished by law when abortion is not?

This is a very valid issue, and one that should be debated if abortion was, indeed, prohibited. Until it is, it's irrelevant, unfortunately.

Do we currently prosecute nursing mothers who drink or smoke for giving booze or cigarettes to their child? Don't think so. But that's what they're doing as they pass along mother's milk.

Yet another place where your analogies break down.

This is a great and thought-provoking thread, with so many different takes on the issues. To me, capital punishment is the easier of the two. Having represented a defendant charged with capital murder, I saw the hyprocacy of the death penalty. My client had very limited intelligence, probably an IQ in the 70s, and guilty of killing a drunk friend and taking $2 for beer money. I was just out of law school, was court-appointed by the judge without giving me an option, had no clue what to do to prevent my client from being executed, and was co-counsel with an older lawyer who was not a very good attorney. What I saw was that money for experts, money for psychologists, and yes money for excellent attorneys would have kept my client off death row. I also saw the incredible cost to the legal system to execute someone. Did you know there are studies that show that it is cheaper to keep a person incarcerated for life than it is to execute the person, given the cost of appeals and tying up the court schedules? Based on that case and the inequities I saw I became a vocal opponent of the death penalty. My case ended, after an original sentence of death and years of appeals and hearings, with the prosecutor agreeing to a life sentence without parole. And my name was used in front of the US Supreme Court! Of course it was used saying I was incompetent, but hey, all publicity is good publicity, right?

Abortion is harder. I agree that the Supreme Court basically played twister with the Constitution to come up with the current law set out in Roe v. Wade. Morally and ethically I would oppose it, but I do not believe it is murder, instead it is a killing. Just as capital punishment and euthinasia (at least in Oregon) are not murder, instead they are killings. But I have to look at the practical side as well. When it was outlawed abortion still went on, but it just happened illegally, with a great threat to the health of the usually young and poor woman. Since it is not against the law most women obtain abortions from health professionals who offer proper medical services. I am sure I will catch some s*** for this, but I think that the current system of limited but legal abortions are the best compromise that this country can come up with, given the positions of the two opposing sides. We should work toward the day that no abortion is necessary through education and lots of condom distribution, with an added benefit of preventing STDs.

Brain wave activity can be detected in an unborn child (a.k.a., fetus) at around 50 days after conception. I'm willing to accept that point as a political compromise as being the precise point at which the fetus is entitled to full legal protections of personhood.

PS: Thanks for the kind words in the death penalty part of this discussion. I was blushing as I read it.

It's "Misspell Hypocrisy Day" at Outsports!

sorry William1865, should no bittre then to forgit to spelczek befor posting.

You spelled sorry, should and posting correctly.

I bet you could teach 'em William.

(Waving cigarette) You better believe it!

Sadly, I'm sure the word "abortion" would still be around. We have many words for violence that we shouldn't need, but do.

As for your other comments, citizenship is based upon where you are born. I don't see that ever changing.

You remind me of an interesting quirk with our legal system: In many places, murdering a woman who is pregnant often results in TWO counts of murder/homicide. I find this very duplicitous (no pun intended) for the government to treat fetuses so differently.

[ September 05, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: beachjock73 ]

So, then, is a fertilized egg human?
If so, is an unfertilized egg and a sperm right next to it human? If that's not human, then it can't become human the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, by your logic.
If you believe that the unfertilized egg and sperm is human, were the constituent atoms human when they were in the form of atmospheric gasses?
At some point, a human has to become human, or else it has always been human, and all of us here have been human since the beginning of the universe.


You're right, it has no noticeable effect on my life. But it does have an effect on the life of a child, which we as a society have agreed should be protected.
We have no such agreement on a fetus.

That's a perfectly valid argument if you assume the fetus is its own life, which we as a society haven't agreed upon.

No matter how strongly you believe something to be true, it does not necessarily make it true. It may very well be true, but until we come to an accord as to what exactly constitutes as human being there can be no true resolution to this argument, just camps of people yelling, "I'm right, and you're wrong!"

MIB, while I'm quite clear on where you stand on abortion, I seemed to have missed your views on the death penalty.

My, this is a spirited thread! Glad I started it. I understand your beliefs, MIB. I just happen to disagree 110%. But then again, they are BELIEFS. Not facts. Which is why the abortion topic divides perfectly rational people all the time.

No one can agree with any scientific certainty on the creation of a human. Here's where you and I disagree - I'm talking about a human fetus...not a human...but a fetus. If it were kicked out of the womb in the first trimester, it wouldn't survive on its own. Why? because its a FETUS. Not a human, but a human fetus.

I appreciate that several people here are convinced that all kinds of crazy thoughts and emotions and chess matches are going on in the gilled embryo's pre-brain. But it ain't human yet. It will become human, when it adopts the things that separate us from the stupid animals.

In the womb, it be animal. What is human? It is the animal that has achieved the higher purpose. It thinks, it solves problems, it creates interesting shit. That's a human, in my book. The human is an animal that has risen ABOVE the meat.

And the fetus is simply meat. When it can begin to assimilate things from its environment, wiring its own brain through experience, it is well on the way to humanhood. I believe that is a PROCESS. You belive that humans spontaneously flash into existence. That is where we disagree.

I respect your right to hold your BELIEF. But please don't confuse opinions with facts.

Yes.

No.

At the instant the sperm and egg unite, a human being exists. There is no \"becoming,\" or developing time period, or anything else.

Asked and answered.


A fetus is no different from this above child except in size. Both are deserving of our protection.

QUOTE

No matter how strongly you believe something to be true, it does not necessarily make it true.  It may very well be true, but until we come to an accord as to what exactly constitutes as human being there can be no true resolution to this argument, just camps of people yelling, \"I'm right, and you're wrong!\"

Hogwash. This is an excuse for accepting that which is wrong. It is a mathematical fact that 2+2=4. If you believe it is not, you are incorrect, and no "societal acceptance" of this will change it. It is a biomedical fact that a fetus is a human being, and alive, and no "societal nonacceptance" of this can change that.

[ September 06, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]