| Abortion and the Death Penalty hypocrisies |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (2:20 pm) Well, I dont know about "forever winning your admiration," (as if I already hadnt ;) ) but I agree that its necessary to look into issues deeply before simplyfing things for a bumper sticker. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (2:59 pm) It's not fair to say that one side is based on morality and the other is not. Many people support abortion rights and oppose the death penalty both on moral grounds. If you examine what makes killing a person immoral, it's based on the fact that it's a sentient being, and there are strong effects both on that person, and on society in general if you consider the effects on people who knew the person who was killed. In the case of a fetus or embryo, especially one early enough in term that it is indistinguishable by appearance from the fetus of many other animals, and in a case where the pregnancy is not known to somebody other than the mother, the arguments based on "moral" grounds are not based on the effects of an abortion having immoral outcomes per se, but on a specific religious interpretation. The reality is that the discussion turns to "potential" human life, but the fact that there is a genetic difference between that fetus and another fetus changes little except for a hypothetical future. Some religious views hold that potential human life is on par with human life and others don't. If your basis for morality is the golden rule, then abortion is immoral only if you accept that the fetus is an independent sentient being with more cognition than any animal that is killed for a beneficial purpose (assuming you accept that as moral), or is aware of the very concept of a lifespan, or that others would be harmed by its death. That's why many who support abortion rights would consider it highly immoral to kill the fetus of a woman against her will, but not feel that abortion is immoral. At a minimum, you would have to consider why any death is immoral before you try to generalize the concept. Nobody accepts that all killing is wrong. The most extreme case would be those who accept killing based on the arbitrary distinction of how firm cell walls are. posted by: WinstonSmith (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (3:02 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 I agree with you both, 007 & DragonBait... Excellent post, DragonBait... and I go a step further if you will: Those who claim to "love life" should be anti-war (unless one fights to defend one's homeland, which is not the case with Iraq...)-- also one should be "pro" helping out unwed mothers, babies and the elderly (i.e. the most vulnerable in a society) if one "loves life" by ensuring that they live in dignity with health care, education, clean environment, safe food, and the basics to be healthy... (P.S. Women's groups will fight to permit the right of a woman to choose, because there are many circumstances (rape, incest, if the life of the mother is at risk, a baby that is so damaged that he/she will be unable to live a normal life, etc.) in which a woman has to make that horrific and hard choice... If abortion was abolished, we would return to the Dark Ages which rich women would simply go to Europe and the poor women would die in bloody back-street abortion rooms with coat-hangers piercing their wombs... When the "right-wingers" who hypocritically claim to "love life" show that Life-After-Womb matters too, their tinny, empty and foolish arguments might being to be worthy of being listened to... P.S. I wonder how many of the "pro-lifers" who regurgitate their over-simplistic idiocies on Tblog (or elsewhere) have gone out and adopted children of women who could not take care of them and had to give them up for adoption??? Hmmm ... posted by: elf4ever (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (3:02 pm) i dont get it :p posted by: WinstonSmith (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (3:04 pm) Reply to: mblog There are lots of babies out there given up for adoption that no one is adopting because they are mentally retarded or severely handicapped! Are you volunteering to adopt them??? Those who claim to "love life" should be anti-war (unless one fights to defend one's homeland, which is not the case with Iraq...)-- also one should be "pro" helping out unwed mothers, babies and the elderly (i.e. the most vulnerable in a society) if one "loves life" by ensuring that they live in dignity with health care, education, clean environment, safe food, and the basics to be healthy... (P.S. Women's groups will fight to permit the right of a woman to choose, because there are many circumstances (rape, incest, if the life of the mother is at risk, a baby that is so damaged that he/she will be unable to live a normal life, etc.) in which a woman has to make that horrific and hard choice... If abortion was abolished, we would return to the Dark Ages which rich women would simply go to Europe and the poor women would die in bloody back-street abortion rooms with coat-hangers piercing their wombs... When the "right-wingers" who hypocritically claim to "love life" show that Life-After-Womb matters too, their tinny, empty and foolish arguments might being to be worthy of being listened to... P.S. I wonder how many of the "pro-lifers" who regurgitate their over-simplistic idiocies on Tblog (or elsewhere) have gone out and adopted children of women who could not take care of them and had to give them up for adoption??? Hmmm ... posted by: Shark99 (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (3:06 pm) That's a great blog, why didn't I think about this idea? posted by: SamAdams (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (3:12 pm) Of course right-wing buffoons will claim that unborn life is "innocent"... Apparently after we're out of the womb, we're no longer "innocent" and can be used as cannon-fodder by Bush jerking off, getting his kicks in warfare to enrich Halliburton-- that "life" can be blown to smitherings if Bush needs an ego-boost for his pathetic adolescent teen-age mentality... Bush would joke before signing the Death Penalty sending hundreds to die, which gave the blood-thirsty maniac a "kick"... But some love killing and treating "life after the womb" like shit, and then go on to lecture the rest of us about abortion-- these hypocrites make my stomach turn. Right-wing philosophy: Bear lots of children so we can send 'em into war to be massacred and harness 'em like slaves & donkeys so we can live like Emperor Caligulas... Anyone else catch the con-game here??? posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.23.04 (5:17 pm) abortion, death penalty, vegetarianism, veganism... they're all related. What do you consider to be alive and how much value do you place on that life. Is a fetus alive? Is the life of the fetus more valuable than the life of the mother? Is the recipient of the death penalty's life valued? Is an animal's life valued? I have a friend who thanks any plant for providing her with food/flowers/etc. whenever she takes from the plant. These questions are not always easily answered. Nor are they always cut and dry. I know many American Indians valued the lives of the animals around them, but would still eat the animals. They valued the lives of the plants and would eat them too. What is alive? What does it mean to be alive? Does a living object ipso facto have value? Is it okay to take the life of a living object? At what point is it okay to do so? posted by: WhyNot (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (12:47 am) "you will forever have my admiration" Mmmm.... I'm in favor of abortion and against death penalty. Do I get any of your admiration, LOL? posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (4:30 am) While I am pro-choice, my issue with the death penalty is a practical one, not a moral one. I do not support the death penalty because of how poorly executed (no pun intended) in the modern world. What I mean is, while in theory I do believe that there are some crimes in which death is a just punishment, I feel as though the system itself, to use the words of former Illinois state governor George Ryan: "broken, racist and inaccurate." For example, it is common knowledge that while African Americans are only 12% of the U.S. population, they make up approx. 43% of prisoners on death row. And although African Americans constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white. But wait... there's more... Over 90% of all defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent them. And finally.. (although I could probably come up with more reasons why it doesn't work).. more and more people are being exonerated after spending upwards of half their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit. I am personally of the opinion that even one person executed in error is enough to invalidate the entire system. Anyway, in short, while in theory I really do not have a problem with the death penalty, I feel as though the way that it is implemented in the United States is so flawed that is must be abandoned. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (4:50 am) Reply to: juniperflux how would you propose to have it work correctly? Given the flaws you present (ignoring the racial flaws which I think are not exactly cut and dry--I'll expound below), how could they be remedied in our society? (racial flaws: 12% vs. 43% assumes an even distribution of murders among all people... does this take into account income levels, poverty levels, etc.? 50% vs. 83% assumes perfect arrest records... it also assumes there is no street justice... This isn't to say that I think there is no racism in the system, but it is to say that I don't think these numbers necessarily prove it to exist.) posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (5:01 am) Reply to: jbfs I doubt that the #s presented alone prove the racism that is inherent in that system, nor did I intend them to. Rather, I think they are just one symptom of the overall problem, which I do believe is very real. Having said that, I am not certain that I could propose a way to implement the death penalty that avoids all of the pitfalls I listed earlier. Clearly, the death penalty is weakened by the very diseases that weaken our society. Thus the problems that exist there are not limited to the four walls of the prison cell. If I could somehow snap my fingers and make certain that everyone, regardless of race or economic situation, received a fair trial, and only the guilty were convicted, etc... I think that I would be fine with certain crimes receiving the death penalty. However, given the impossibility of that world coming into existence in my life-time, I am forced to oppose its use. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.24.04 (7:21 am) Reply to: juniperflux I agree exactly. There are many times when only death can provide adequate punishment, but sometimes we have to sacrifice a little bit of justice in order to ensure no more innocents are punished. The death penalty violates the right of Habeus Corpus, because after that sentence is executed, no more appeals, no more evidence, nothing can reverse it. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 06.11.04 (12:52 pm) I'm sorry that I hadn't seen this post earlier, but here's my two cents anyway. I agree with your post with one fine point. When you say moral I would say religious. Different religions have different ideas of morality. Legality is the law that we all choose to live under. These are the laws we all agree with. Morality are the additional laws that each religion determines to impose on the followers of a given religion. Thanks for the great post. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.11.04 (12:54 pm) Reply to: DrForbush But morality isn't exclusive to religious beliefs. There are certainly many moral views that are based on religious views, but that isn't alwasy the case for all moral ideals. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 06.11.04 (1:02 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Wow, quick response! I suppose that depends on how you define religion. Morality is a set of rules that you impose on yourself in order to live a moral life. Many religions attempt to give their followers ways to find these rules for themselves. Other religions give them a list and tell them to follow the list. Other people without a religion find ways to find the rules on their own initiative. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.11.04 (1:08 pm) Reply to: DrForbush But it's wrong to remove morality from the discussion entirely just because it may or may not involve religious views. There are moral views on the subject that have nothing to do with religion as well as moral views based on religion. Thanks for the comments. :) posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 06.11.04 (1:19 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 You are quite correct. The difference between morality and laws is that the majority of the people agree on the morality so that they can make a law. When the minority of the people believe that something is moral, then they can bind themselves to the morality - but they can't bind the majority of the people to it. |
|