Death Penalty and Abortion, the overlap (or lack thereof) of opinions

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Yea, this seems to be the main argument - how exactly do you draw a line and say "that's when it became human".  Pro-choice advocates tend to say that a baby becomes human when it is sentient.  A counter to this would be, what if I go into a medically induced coma?  I am not sentient during the coma, but I have the potential to become sentient again so murdering me is not moral.  Likewise, babies can become sentient even if they are not currently - so the murder could be seen the same as killing someone in a coma. 

 

Also, related to my comments about abortion after 12 weeks, it seems the house has voted on an after 20 week ban.  I believe if it is deemed harmful to the mother after 20 weeks, a baby can still be aborted but otherwise it will be illegal on a federal level.  Personally I don't see any reason pro-life and pro-choice advocates can't get behind this legislature.

Define "harmful to the mother".

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Define "harmful to the mother".

I haven't read too much into it but I would assume if medically speaking the baby can be expected to seriously injure or kill the mother from the birth of the baby then Abortion will be an option as it has always been.   I would assume the personal aspect of whether the mother can afford to have the baby do not protect babies at least 20mo in to pregnancy with this new legislature.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I haven't read too much into it but I would assume if medically speaking the baby can be expected to seriously injure or kill the mother from the birth of the baby then Abortion will be an option as it has always been.   I would assume the personal aspect of whether the mother can afford to have the baby do not protect babies at least 20mo in to pregnancy with this new legislature.

If I was pregnant for 20 months, and abortion wasn't an option, I'm taking both of us out. ;/

What I don't want is some idiot doctor to play Russian Roulette with my life, should it come down to it.  Aborting that late is gonna suck, but me dying will suck a whole lot more.

[Res]

And what of harm to the baby? The majority of babies aborted after 20 weeks are aborted because they have issues incompatible with life. A lot of issues aren't picked up until the crucial 20 week ultrasound (or are detected at the first ultrasound, typically held around 12 weeks, but are often 'wait and see' cases since sometimes issues either resolve, or the fetus was simply too small/underdeveloped to detect anomalies with a high degree of accuracy). 

Tim Murphy is an excellent example of why it's hard to take the pro-life stance seriously; it's actually not uncommon for people with a pro-life stance to change their mind when they find themselves (or their partners) in a precarious position. As I said earlier, some of the women I've known who swore they would never have an abortion ended up having one - usually for medical reasons, but even people who have abortions for the most tragic medical reasons still require there to be safe, legal abortion providers available to them. 

 

[Lushen]

9 minutes ago, eclipse said:

If I was pregnant for 20 months, and abortion wasn't an option, I'm taking both of us out. ;/

What I don't want is some idiot doctor to play Russian Roulette with my life, should it come down to it.  Aborting that late is gonna suck, but me dying will suck a whole lot more.

Lol, 20 weeks*

I think the idea is that you could have chosen to abort the baby when it was not more fully developed and this kind of legislature forces people to abort early rather than abort whenever they want.  As a man, I can't comment on how difficult it is to get an abortion, but I don't think it taking that long can be attributed to anyone other than the mother.  Republicans cite that fetus can feel pain at this point during the pregnancy.  Democrats seem to be skeptic, but as I'm not well versed on this, I am not going to say which party is correct.   It's also important to note this does not apply to rape victims so if someone is raped and struggling mentally with the decision to abort for 20 weeks they are still allowed to consider abortion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/3/abortion-after-20-weeks-banned-by-house-bill-but-f/

[Dark Holy Elf]

12 hours ago, Lushen said:

Also, related to my comments about abortion after 12 weeks, it seems the house has voted on an after 20 week ban.  I believe if it is deemed harmful to the mother after 20 weeks, a baby can still be aborted but otherwise it will be illegal on a federal level.  Personally I don't see any reason pro-life and pro-choice advocates can't get behind this legislature.

I already posted the precise reason why I can not get behind this legislation, and you apparently read it and found it "interesting", so I'm not sure why you would make a comment like that except to bait people (which, well, mission accomplished, I guess?). These are decisions best made by individuals, not ideologues sitting in Congress. Should it pass, this law is going to hurt some good people who are trying to make the best decision given a tough situation, without question.

Also amazing to see the Republican party of "we should let the states decide about abortion" now trying to pass legislation at a federal level on it, but hypocrisy is nothing new out of them at this point I suppose.

Fortunately, it looks like this bill won't pass the senate as apparently it would need 60 votes (I'm not well-versed enough in the American system to understand when things need 51 and when things need 60, can someone explain this?), so this is really just political grandstanding, but still frustrating to watch.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Freedom for me but not for thee.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Mackc2]

 I am pro death penalty I would say those who are prepared to willingly kill another should be prepared to pay with their own life, the only thing that complicates such matters for me is the chance of false convictions.

I view abortions more as a necessary evil, if a parent is unwilling to have a child but are forced to because abortion is not allowed then it would be more likely for them to be neglected or not raised properly. 

[SullyMcGully]

16 hours ago, Res said:

And what of harm to the baby? The majority of babies aborted after 20 weeks are aborted because they have issues incompatible with life. A lot of issues aren't picked up until the crucial 20 week ultrasound (or are detected at the first ultrasound, typically held around 12 weeks, but are often 'wait and see' cases since sometimes issues either resolve, or the fetus was simply too small/underdeveloped to detect anomalies with a high degree of accuracy). 

Tim Murphy is an excellent example of why it's hard to take the pro-life stance seriously; it's actually not uncommon for people with a pro-life stance to change their mind when they find themselves (or their partners) in a precarious position. As I said earlier, some of the women I've known who swore they would never have an abortion ended up having one - usually for medical reasons, but even people who have abortions for the most tragic medical reasons still require there to be safe, legal abortion providers available to them. 

 

I think the reason people want to draw the line at 20 weeks is because "it's practically a real baby by then", or something like that. I mean, would you support killing a 1-year-old child because they were "incompatible with life"? There are probably some people who would, but if a nation were to make one illegal, it wouldn't be unreasonable to make the other illegal as well.

[Res]

2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

I think the reason people want to draw the line at 20 weeks is because "it's practically a real baby by then", or something like that. I mean, would you support killing a 1-year-old child because they were "incompatible with life"? There are probably some people who would, but if a nation were to make one illegal, it wouldn't be unreasonable to make the other illegal as well.

Well, first you're also assuming the baby survives to a year old. And how does one define killing? Parents do (perfectly legally) withdraw care/assisted feeding and allow their child to die naturally, even when they're over a year old (I know of a child who survived to 4 years old; his quality of life was declining, so his parents withdrew assisted feeding and he died a few days later). It's obviously a complicated subject, and not really one with a right or wrong answer; there have been many lawsuits in cases where medical staff and the parents have been at odds over the decision. 

There was a law proposed in Ireland recently (to allow abortion in the case of fetal incompatibility with life; it was struck down) and there were parents - all with experience - on both sides of the fence. Some had children originally diagnosed incompatible with life who'd beaten all the odds to survive, whereas others had felt the trauma of watching their infants die a slow death was inhumane. 

Quote

Numerous examples of lethal fetal anomalies detected after 20 weeks include, but are not limited to:

• anencephaly, which is a lethal fetal anomaly characterized by the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, leading to death before or shortly after birth
• renal agenesis, where the kidneys fail to materialize, leading to death before or shortly after birth
• limb-body wall complex, where the organs develop outside of the body cavity
• neural tube defects such as encephalocele (the protrusion of brain tissue through an opening in the skull), and severe hydrocephaly (severe accumulation of excessive fluid within the brain)
• meningomyelocele, which is an opening in the vertebrae through which the meningeal sac may protrude
• caudal regression syndrome, a structural defect of the lower spine leading to neurological impairment and incontinence
• lethal skeletal dysplasias, where spinal and limb growth are grossly impaired leading to stillbirths, premature birth, and often death shortly after birth, often from respiratory failure

For many families who have never dealt with the trauma of fetal anomalies, it may seem difficult to understand why third term abortions are necessary. But when abortion care is restricted at 20 weeks, women are often forced to carry nonviable fetuses, often to term. In the case of lethal fetal anomalies, this requirement means countless appointments, treatments, tests, and conversations about the imminent death of their fetus, inflicting preventable trauma on families who want to carry a healthy fetus to term.

 

[Jotari]

I am now feeling like the general concept of euthanasia should be added to the poll, since that's what withdrawing medical assistance or third term abortion essentially is (and even outside those concepts it's an interesting topic in itself). But juggling three different options for the poll would like double the results :/

On 10/5/2017 at 4:49 AM, eclipse said:

If I was pregnant for 20 months, and abortion wasn't an option, I'm taking both of us out. ;/

What I don't want is some idiot doctor to play Russian Roulette with my life, should it come down to it.  Aborting that late is gonna suck, but me dying will suck a whole lot more.

Haha. I think 20 months would certainly raise a few issues. I wouldn't worry about Russian Roulette Doctors. I mean pretty much every doctor will inevitably give detail as to what exactly the results are to tests. I would certainly be considered malpractise if they did fail to report something that was obvious. I mean it could still happen but malpractise is possible for basically everything. I don't think such a law would have bearing on that.

On 10/5/2017 at 2:39 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

I already posted the precise reason why I can not get behind this legislation, and you apparently read it and found it "interesting", so I'm not sure why you would make a comment like that except to bait people (which, well, mission accomplished, I guess?). These are decisions best made by individuals, not ideologues sitting in Congress. Should it pass, this law is going to hurt some good people who are trying to make the best decision given a tough situation, without question.

Also amazing to see the Republican party of "we should let the states decide about abortion" now trying to pass legislation at a federal level on it, but hypocrisy is nothing new out of them at this point I suppose.

Fortunately, it looks like this bill won't pass the senate as apparently it would need 60 votes (I'm not well-versed enough in the American system to understand when things need 51 and when things need 60, can someone explain this?), so this is really just political grandstanding, but still frustrating to watch.

What do you mean by baiting? Bringing up a relevant new law to incite more conversation? I mean yeah you could call that baiting but I don't really see why that would be a bad thing unless you think the thread should just die.

[Res]

Here's something to mull over, prompted by a recent report of a man who raped a 12 year old now gaining custody of the child he fathered. (Wish I could say that was the first example I've heard of!)

7 states have no laws restricting a rapist's right to custody; many other states require a conviction to prevent custody (and convictions are rare); only a handful of states errs on the side of the victim and has laws restricting custody without a conviction necessary.

Granted, in that article it states the 12 year old made her own decision to keep the baby. However, if abortion is restricted/made difficult to get (which it already is in many states, and the young and poor don't necessarily have the time/money to travel to obtain an abortion), not only does the rape victim not have a choice in having the baby, but is quite likely to be forced to interact with her rapist and perhaps even be forced to share custody with him. 

[KPOP]

i think the death penalty should be given to those who deserve it (especially to serial killers, obvious reason why) and where it is ''200% certainty'' that they are indeed the one who committed the crime

would be faked up if it happens to people who are in prison for something that they did not do 

i just think serial killers , animal killers etc do not deserve to live 

[blah the Prussian]

On October 28, 2017 at 3:54 PM, KPOP said:

animal killer

HOLD ON THERE BUDDY

Define "animal killer", firstly, because a lot of people kill animals. Does it include farmers, hunters, hell, veterinarians who put down animals?

Secondly, how do you justify the death penalty for even someone who kills an animal entirely without provocation? In many cases, actually, people who do this have serious mental disorders, and need help much more than they need death. Killing animals isn't some act of ultimate evil. Animals die all the time. The main issue of significance with killing animals is that the perpetrator might be a sociopath, and obviously if they kill someone's property they should be severely punished. A wild animal, though? Hardly worthy of death.

Worth mentioning also that serial killers, too, are often mentally ill.

[John Denver Fan]

I have a support of the Death Penalty, it goes back in my family history. As for abortion, I don't support it for religious reasons.

[UNLEASH IT]

I don't support the death penalty because it costs too much money. 

I support abortion because (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe it saves money, even when subsidized by the government.

Edited December 14, 2017 by UNLEASH IT

[치퍼 존스 팬]

I support the death penalty, but it should be reserved for serial killers and people who commit major crimes like treason. As for abortion, I do not support it because it is inhumane and unethical.