Abortion and Capital Punishment

[The Shadow Brotherhood]

No abortion means that stupid minors will be having babies all the time. (Unless contraceptives are made available to them.) No death penalty means that U.S. Citizens will be paying for murderers and rapists to be clothed, fed, and given a bed.

And the 'pro-life' crowd seem to be against birth control, condoms, and sex education as well.
At this point I'm entirely convinced that these 'pro-lifers' are actually trying to create poor people.

I am not against any of these, and in fact believe that an abortion should be watched along with a childbirth.

[Spoder]

No abortion means that stupid minors will be having babies all the time. (Unless contraceptives are made available to them.) No death penalty means that U.S. Citizens will be paying for murderers and rapists to be clothed, fed, and given a bed.

And the 'pro-life' crowd seem to be against birth control, condoms, and sex education as well.
At this point I'm entirely convinced that these 'pro-lifers' are actually trying to create poor people.

They're probably Obama sympathizers trying to give him more poor people to vote for him.

[Mavorpen]

It gives the fetus superpowers.

It's how god communicates to the fetus and implants it with the true knowledge of the lizard people.

"Hello? Fetus ID # 4-99083792? I have a mission for you."

"God!?"

"Yes, my child. It is me. You must be born. Only you can prevent the impeding lizardmen invasion."

"I will do my be- Wait...what's that!? OH GOD, SAVE ME!"

This program brought to you by Rick Santorum. Remember kids, Impeach abortion.

[Aethrys]

I believe I've stated that I believe in giving defendants, human waste included, their fair opportunity to present their case, but I've certainly never mentioned anything about supporting sham trials. You can continue to say things that aren't true, or you can respond constructively to the discussion.

If you don't believe in the right to appeal, as you apparently don't based on your posts here, then you believe in sham trials and summary executions.

I'd ask you to quote that apparent belief of mine, but you can't because you're making it up, like everything else. I do believe that excessive appeals are unnecessary and a way that criminals may maliciously abuse the legal system to drain as much resources from society as possible before they are executed, however. One appeal is plenty, but short of overwhelming evidence that demonstrates innocence or that the original trial and subsequent appeal were criminally flawed, no more are needed.

Sentencing someone to life i prison is the same as saying that they have no value to society, and never will have value to society. Any funds put towards attempting to rehabilitate such individuals is therefore wasted. Your alternative continues to drain funds that execution does not, and is therefore not a viable alternative. If you find some habitable land not used by society and not occupied by another society to dump them, then you would have a viable alternative.

See my previous post about saying things that are not true vs being constructive.

Perhaps you should do such, as we're done here based on your intellectual dishonesty.

No, it's your inability to hold a civil discussion without lashing out. If you can't control your emotions enough to maintain basic politeness and civility in a simple discussion, you probably shouldn't choose to involve yourself in them.

[Genivaria]

And the 'pro-life' crowd seem to be against birth control, condoms, and sex education as well.
At this point I'm entirely convinced that these 'pro-lifers' are actually trying to create poor people.

I am not against any of these, and in fact believe that an abortion should be watched along with a childbirth.

Whyyyyyyy?

[Mavorpen]

Aww, thats a sweet opinion. Now can someone provide a single source proving that a baby isn't conscious, or self aware, within the timeframe I stated?

5. "Fetuses become conscious at 8 weeks."
False. Fetuses begin to develop a minimal brain stem at 7 weeks, but are not capable of consciousness until the third trimester and most likely remain unconscious until birth. As one brain scientist puts it: "the fetus and neonate appears incapable of ... experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."

[Sociobiology]

1. it costs more to execute a criminal
2. you lose the ability to analyse them to determine how their deviancy arises if you execute them, everyone has worth, even if only to teach us how not to let more people like them happen.
3.just because they cannot be rehabilitated now does not mean they can never be, hence parole hearings.
4. The US system at least invests so little towards rehabilitation it is pointless to speculate about whether someone can be rehabilitated.

1. Due to inefficiency present in the system which can be improved. The solution is to fix the process, not scrap it entirely.

but your claim is false until this is done. If your premise is false so is the rest.

2. Those interested in such things have case notes, court records, and witness testimonies and the like to review, and from the time a death sentence is issued to the time it is carried out to conduct interviews, which may be recorded and preserved for future use.

which are much, much, MUCH less useful than having the actual person to question and analyse.

3. Parole hearings go against the spirit of the sentence of life imprisonment. If someone is determined to be rehabilitated and paroled after being sentenced to life, they shouldn't have gotten a life sentence in the first place.

and whats your point, you admit the means to determine guilt and rehabilitation potential is flawed yet you proposes changes based on the assumption they are perfect.

4. I agree, more should be spent on rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated. Those who have received sentences short of life, from a year to five or whatever. Money can be diverted from the amount saved by not supporting those impossible to rehabilitate to go towards helping those that can be helped.

as has been pointed out, no money is saved.

[Spoder]

It's how god communicates to the fetus and implants it with the true knowledge of the lizard people.

"Hello? Fetus ID # 4-99083792? I have a mission for you."

"God!?"

"Yes, my child. It is me. You must be born. Only you can prevent the impeding lizardmen invasion."

"I will do my be- Wait...what's that!? OH GOD, SAVE ME!"

This program brought to you by Rick Santorum. Remember kids, Impeach abortion.

I remember that guy! He was an extremist. I remember how none of my friends, nor I could say his name without accidentally calling him "Dick Santorum." So we just took to calling him that.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Your point? The USSR and USA both claimed that the other was evil. Evil, again cannot be seen in absolutes. Was Brutus evil for killing Caeser, for the better of Rome? Is America evil for promoting the freedom of capitalism, despite greed? Is abortion evil, even though it is a personal freedom? You cannot answer these questions by using fact, and must refer to morality for a truth.

[Blakk Metal]

Life imprisonment as a penalty is an idiotic sentence. And a horrible waste of resources.

Why? Have you heard of this thing called 'parole'?

The sensible thing to do is abolish it, and rewrite laws to substitute former life penalties for execution.

Also, ex post facto punishments are very, very illegal.

People complain about how "But death penalties cost more money" but that's not a real excuse, as it's just a problem of the way we handle executions being inefficient. Just need to cut out the fat present in the system, and find every possible way to save resources from the time a prosecutor seeks the death penalty, to the time the sentence is handed down, and the time til it is carried out.

Any suggestions?

It might be worth investigating whether it would be more cost effective to do group executions rather than one at a time, weigh the cost of holding the human refuse until there are a sufficient number to eliminate vs the cost of doing it one at a time.

California is the state that can execute the most people at the same time. Guess how people it can execute?

Three (One on the gurney, two in the gas chamber).

Life imprisonment as a penalty is an idiotic sentence. And a horrible waste of resources. The sensible thing to do is abolish it, and rewrite laws to substitute former life penalties for execution. People complain about how "But death penalties cost more money" but that's not a real excuse, as it's just a problem of the way we handle executions being inefficient. Just need to cut out the fat present in the system, and find every possible way to save resources from the time a prosecutor seeks the death penalty, to the time the sentence is handed down, and the time til it is carried out.

It might be worth investigating whether it would be more cost effective to do group executions rather than one at a time, weigh the cost of holding the human refuse until there are a sufficient number to eliminate vs the cost of doing it one at a time.

Quicker executions means innocents will be thrown into the pot. Fuck that noise, I'm not dying to sate your bloodlust.

Most miscarriages of justice are very easy to find.

Quicker executions means innocents will be thrown into the pot. Fuck that noise, I'm not dying to sate your bloodlust.

It's not bloodlust, it's keeping society safe while also adhering to fiscally responsible practices. The ultimate goal is to remove those who cannot be rehabilitated permanently in a way that doesn't result in more wasted resources than those they have already destroyed through their crimes.

So why don't you execute everyone? Lawrence Bittaker mainly committed auto theft before he committed felony murder.

And to avoid being executed, you just have to not be a murderer/serial rapist/other equally heinous individual.

Or a shoplifter.

It's not bloodlust, it's keeping society safe while also adhering to fiscally responsible practices. The ultimate goal is to remove those who cannot be rehabilitated permanently in a way that doesn't result in more wasted resources than those they have already destroyed through their crimes.

And to avoid being executed, you just have to not be a murderer/serial rapist/other equally heinous individual.

Or be wrongfully convicted of being such.

There's an easy way to solve, which, although I don't support executing people for ordinary crimes, I completely support: Kill all the arrogant assholes in the government. All of them. The conservative activist judges, the forensic 'scientists' who abhor the trappings of real science, etc. All miscarriages of justice I know of were caused by those kinds of cunts.

It is not Ironic.

There are completely different questions involved. Children have pain impulses and can even be taught games inside of the womb at 23 weeks.

Children can't be taught anything inside the womb, children are not found in wombs..

What if you shove a child into an elephant womb?

I know how it fails to work, and how it should work.

Law is something far too many people get into for a cushy job and to make a lot of money. It should be for those who wish to assist in carrying out the laws that keep society functional. DAs should be people that wish to ensure a defendant has their side fairly presented, while Prosecutors should wish to contribute to the health of society by cutting out the cancer within it.

No, you don't, if you think summary executions after a sham trial are a good idea.

He didn't even imply that.

It is bloodlust; Unless you wish for innocents to be culled along with the "heinous", as will inevitably happen due to the imperfect nature of the courts, life imprisonment is a cheaper choice, thus throwing your "fiscally responsible" and "safe society" bullshit out the window. Resources won't be wasted; They will go towards rehabilitation efforts. That isn't wasting.

A sentence of life imprisonment says that the individual receiving it is too much of a risk to ever allow back into society. This means that they have a net negative value that can never be made positive through rehabilitation. Spending resources to support them are therefore wasted. The only sensible thing to do is to do what costs the minimal amount of resources to ensure society no longer has to support them. And that is of course execution, unless you have somewhere to offload human waste, aside from somewhere they'll likely starve to death slowly, as that would be an inhumane practice. The British had a good thing going with exiling criminals. Of course some people would still need to be executed if they'd just pose an external threat to society.

Parole exists. Until the late 1970's, California used to give life sentences to everybody, knowing they'd leave prison in a few years anyways.

Steal and kill everyone 2013!

Taxes are theft! (But that's okay, since nothing's prohibited anymore due to some dude's stupid comment.)

[Tlaceceyaya]

Your point? The USSR and USA both claimed that the other was evil. Evil, again cannot be seen in absolutes. Was Brutus evil for killing Caeser, for the better of Rome? Is America evil for promoting the freedom of capitalism, despite greed? Is abortion evil, even though it is a personal freedom? You cannot answer these questions by using fact, and must refer to morality for a truth.

Whose point?
Use the fucking quote button.

[Tlaceceyaya]

1. They don't deserve death.
2. No.
3. Source.
4. Source.
5. Most of them have severe developmental delays, underdeveloped organs, etc. And abortion isn't legal at that point in time so your "point" is moot.
6. No you haven't. Your sources have been the exact opposite of adequate.

"5. Most of them have severe developmental delays, underdeveloped organs, etc. And abortion isn't legal at that point in time so your "point" is moot."

My point is that babies a known to be conscious late in development, so unless it can be proven to the contrary, we must assume that they are conscious beginning at the formation of the brainstem, the closest we can get to a scientific hypothesis.

Several issues here.
First, the brainstem. Anencephalic babies have brainstems.
Second, a scientific hypothesis is just a hypothesis.
Third, define conscious.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

My "fucking quote button" does not function when a post is too long.

[Tlaceceyaya]

My "fucking quote button" does not function when a post is too long.

Which post? The first two responding to you prior to your contextless post are very short.

[Sociobiology]

I am not against any of these, and in fact believe that an abortion should be watched along with a childbirth.

Whyyyyyyy?

to encourage them, once people see how easy it is they will be more willing to have them. Once they see how disgusting and painful childbirth is they will be even more willing to have abortions.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

My "fucking quote button" does not function when a post is too long.

Which post? The first two responding to you prior to your contextless post are very short.

Yes, but when combined with my quote, it becomes to long, and the quote will be cut off; even before I type my response.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Which post? The first two responding to you prior to your contextless post are very short.

Yes, but when combined with my quote, it becomes to long, and the quote will be cut off; even before I type my response.

You mean in the adjustable size, scrollable text box?

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Yes, but when combined with my quote, it becomes to long, and the quote will be cut off; even before I type my response.

You mean in the adjustable size, scrollable text box?

Yes.

[James_xenoland_02]

Pretty much true. (with a few exceptions) It's a sad fact that so many people still can't comprehend or realize this.

------

Actually, don't kill me, but... I'm pro-life and for the death penalty. Criminals deserve to be killed, babies don't. And everyone's gonna launch into a long scientific explanation about how it isn't killing babies, and all that science I've heard a million times. To you, it seems okay. To me, no. Go ahead, have an abortion. I don't care. I can't stop you, it's a free country. But I still don't like it. As for capital punishment, well, obviously Hitler would be an exception... But anyways, an eye for an eye, buddy.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

Not really. Everyone just ends up with only one eye.

Logic/reality - 1
Nonsensical, feel-good ideological hyperbole - 0




Though I really don't know if I would call capital punishment 'revenge'. (at least not outright)

[Oswor]

Had a good run with this topic but know I find it a bad idea. All this does is piss everyone off and alow the few idiots to spout their biased views. I have a headache so im gonna lie down.

[Creativalsia]

I'm against capital punishment but I'm also pro choice. I think abortion is okay if the woman was raped and maybe if the woman can't find a family to adopt the baby, because for many people, growing up in foster homes is a bad experience. But I am against it if someone wants to get an abortion because they find out their child has Down syndrome or something, or if women use it as a means of birth control, or if someone was pressured to get an abortion by their parents or friends or teachers when they might not have wanted it themselves. But even though, like I said, I am against abortion in some cases, I am still pro choice. As for the death penalty, I think it should be illegal because for one thing, people are sometimes wrongfully convicted, and also because the convicted persons still have families and friends who would be saddened by their death.