Jotari Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said: This question leads to debaters talking in circles. The ethics of capital punishment are as old as the wheel, if not older. If it's survived since then, it isn't going anywhere. This question isn't as simple as you would like it to be, and the answer is almost impossible to come to. If humanity could overcome its pettiness (which it can't), then I would agree with you, but as long as people try to excuse evil, it will need to be met with harsh, even fatal, reproach. Given the fact that the Death Penalty has been abolished in practise for well over half the nations in the world during the past half century, I think it's a reasonably good indicator that we can and are getting over our pettiness in that regard. Or, perhaps, it was never even pettiness to begin with but more of a logistical necessity due to how difficult it was to actually keep a large number of people imprisoned for long periods of time before the industrial revolution. Edited February 21, 2017 by Jotari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'm pro abortion until such a time as free birth control is made available. If/when literally any birth control that isn't abortion is made widely available for free, abortion should be heavily restricted, however until then abortion being legal is neccesarily. Against the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatNothing Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 I am pro death penalty but I dislike abortions unless it harms the mother to give birth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 can you not delete votes here, because i fucked up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Polls are wonky ATM. Sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SullyMcGully Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 I'm similar to what you would call "socially conservative". Pro-death penalty, anti-abortion. Here are my reasons. I don't think that killing criminals can make up for the pain caused to their victims. However, it can serve as a warning to others who may consider committing the same crimes. For this reason, I think capital punishment is pretty much useless unless it is publicized in some form or fashion. Probably not visually, because of the danger to children/sensitive folks, but maybe an audio recording of a criminal's final moments. If you aren't going to include that, then the entire purpose of the death penalty is made null and you might as well just let them live. Then again, that's coming from someone who thinks we should bring back the public whipping post for petty theft. Don't take it too seriously. Abortion, however, is something I'm quite empathetic about. Part of that is my upbringing. You see, I grew up on a dairy farm, where we have a practice of "arming" cows for veterinary purposes. "Arming" is just a nice way of describing the process of sticking your arm in a cow's rear and making sure all their organs have proper placement, etc. Well, one moment when we arm a cow is when they are having trouble calving. I've had to do this before, and it really is an amazing experience to feel something living before it is even born. Now, at this point in their development, the calves already have personalities. Seriously. Some will be meek and gentle, some will wildly struggle about in the womb. Some of them are already rather playful at this time. I've even had one bite me before. Saying that these animals are somehow "less alive" at this point seems very unscientific. And I think this applies even more so to humans. Saying that an unborn baby is "less alive", and by extension, that it is less of a crime to kill them, is like saying that I am less alive than my older brothers. Put it this way. Who inspires the most revulsion? A man who murders a dozen grown men, or a man who murders a dozen 6-year-old girls? With human life being as important as it is, this isn't a moment where we can have a double standard. Whew, got that out of me. I wrote this hastily, so hopefully I didn't say something I'll regret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 99% of abortions occur before 20 weeks, before the age of viability. And 88% are performed before 12 weeks (especially if there aren't state obstructions to obtaining abortion - all that forcing people to travel hundreds of miles or to get multiple ultrasounds does is push out the date) when brain electrical signals have first been measured in human fetuses. It's a false equivalency to compare it in any way to a calf during calving. The 1% being performed after 20 weeks are when either the baby is incompatible with life or the mom's life is in danger. They are extremely expensive and difficult to obtain and as a result they're not performed without a lot of very deep thought and heartbreak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Glacies Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Res said: 99% of abortions occur before 20 weeks, before the age of viability. And 88% are performed before 12 weeks (especially if there aren't state obstructions to obtaining abortion - all that forcing people to travel hundreds of miles or to get multiple ultrasounds does is push out the date) when brain electrical signals have first been measured in human fetuses. It's a false equivalency to compare it in any way to a calf during calving. I do acknowledge that a cow about to give birth is much different than a mother who is beginning/halfway through pregnancy, but it doesn't change the fact that whether the baby was conceived yesterday or 20 weeks ago, they are very much alive. Prior to even 12 weeks, the baby has a beating heart, taste buds, the ability sense touch, and the ability to move. They can also have hiccups and smile if they want. He/she may not be born yet, but they are certainly more developed than many other single/multi celled organisms on this planet. And few can argue that bacteria are not alive. The difference between abortion and the death penalty is that people can choose not to commit a heinous crime that would result in a deadly punishment, while the fetus cannot chose whether he/she wants to die or not. Likewise, a man and a woman can decide not to do actions that would result in pregnancy in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, Rex Glacies said: I do acknowledge that a cow about to give birth is much different than a mother who is beginning/halfway through pregnancy, but it doesn't change the fact that whether the baby was conceived yesterday or 20 weeks ago, they are very much alive. Prior to even 12 weeks, the baby has a beating heart, taste buds, the ability sense touch, and the ability to move. They can also have hiccups and smile if they want. He/she may not be born yet, but they are certainly more developed than many other single/multi celled organisms on this planet. And few can argue that bacteria are not alive. The difference between abortion and the death penalty is that people can choose not to commit a heinous crime that would result in a deadly punishment, while the fetus cannot chose whether he/she wants to die or not. Likewise, a man and a woman can decide not to do actions that would result in pregnancy in the first place. That's why I talked about viability and brain function, since people's definition of life differs. A person who is declared brain-dead can still have a beating heart. Perhaps in the future science will have found a way to sustain life outside the womb prior to 20 weeks; at that time, we can revisit abortion laws. People are raped. Birth control fails. Even vasectomies and tubal ligations can fail. People can be under the influence. It's also natural for the majority of people to want to engage in sex. And in the U.S. we have a society that cares extremely little for babies already born, children and mothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Holy Elf Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Against the death penalty, but not strongly. I don't consider the arguments against the death penalty to be super-compelling in a vacuum, it's just that the arguments for the death penalty are either non-existent or false. It does not discourage crime compared to life imprisonment. Pro-abortion because I'm very socially libertarian. Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. I would only be against abortion if it were to kill a fetus which could be viable, but this basically never happens since the very rare time an abortion is performed on a viable fetus it is done for the safety of the mother. (Also, as has already been brought up, most abortions are done much earlier when the fetus has significantly less brain function than the calf already mentioned. If you have less brain function than a calf, I'm not gonna feel worse about killing you than killing a cow, and I do eat beef.) On 2017-02-23 at 10:10 AM, Rex Glacies said: the baby was conceived yesterday If the baby was conceived yesterday it is about as "alive" as one of bacteria currently living in your gut. It's common, incidentally, for a baby (though I'd prefer the term zygote at this stage) to be conceived, then fail to implant in the uterus, and thus die. We don't hold funerals for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Pro death penalty. Because: On 2/23/2017 at 7:39 PM, SullyMcGully said: I don't think that killing criminals can make up for the pain caused to their victims. However, it can serve as a warning to others who may consider committing the same crimes. For this reason, I think capital punishment is pretty much useless unless it is publicized in some form or fashion. Probably not visually, because of the danger to children/sensitive folks, but maybe an audio recording of a criminal's final moments. If you aren't going to include that, then the entire purpose of the death penalty is made null and you might as well just let them live. Although only for "extreme" crimes and unless the criminal can pay blood money, they get the noose. As for abortion, eh, I dunno. I sort of support it, especially if the child came to be due to being raped, or the child was....accidental. But I don't really like the idea of preventing new life to be born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I put pro-DP and anti-abortion but it's not that simple. People here probably know my opinions (as in I'm an evil right-winger who is no better than a Nazi) but it comes down to this. Pro-DP. There are problems with expediency but I view it as a necessary evil (similar to abortion). I know that I've put down my position on how to fix the DP somewhere here. I've had the abortion discussion here and it's not a fun one. But I view abortion as medicine of convenience rather than medicine of necessity. It doesn't mean do away with it but I would be extremely happy if there were a total of 0 abortions in the world per year. My issue with it is that it is morally wrong but also a necessary evil at this point. So I'm anti-abortion in the concept but will not ban it. And I'm not a social Conservative (I'm in the libertarian camp). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) About the only people I believe to actually be pro-life are people who've had kids and children are actively working to improve kids' lives (anything from working within education to providing free childcare for their single neighbor). Especially in the U.S. it feels as if people detest kids. Family members can typically get a pass but otherwise it seems as if most people would rather other people didn't breed. Even if you're in an ideal situation (that typically means married, with one income coming from the non-pregnant spouse - because the paltry 6 weeks of unpaid maternity leave is already too much - and rich enough to afford the hospital bills, and to pay for private education), you'll find plenty of people bemoaning the presence of kids which is fine - there's overpopulation, etc. - except for when they're pro-life. We already have millions of unwanted kids and a public that doesn't provide for them as it is. Short of sterilizing everyone, there are always going to be unintended pregnancies (also, even if 100% of pregnancies were intended and wanted, you'd still have abortions for medical reasons). People hate the idea of killing a fetus but no one actually says 'I love kids and babies are great and the U.S. needs more of them!' (Well, a few people do - the people in my first paragraph - but they're few and far between). Living in the U.S. it's definitely hard to believe that abortion issues are actually about the babies and not just punishing pregnant people. And that's why I don't find it surprising that anti-abortion opinions tend to go hand-in-hand with pro-death penalty opinions. Edited February 27, 2017 by Res Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SullyMcGully Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Res said: About the only people I believe to actually be pro-life are people who've had kids and children are actively working to improve kids' lives (anything from working within education to providing free childcare for their single neighbor). Especially in the U.S. it feels as if people detest kids. Family members can typically get a pass but otherwise it seems as if most people would rather other people didn't breed. Even if you're in an ideal situation (that typically means married, with one income coming from the non-pregnant spouse - because the paltry 6 weeks of unpaid maternity leave is already too much - and rich enough to afford the hospital bills, and to pay for private education), you'll find plenty of people bemoaning the presence of kids which is fine - there's overpopulation, etc. - except for when they're pro-life. We already have millions of unwanted kids and a public that doesn't provide for them as it is. Short of sterilizing everyone, there are always going to be unintended pregnancies (also, even if 100% of pregnancies were intended and wanted, you'd still have abortions for medical reasons). People hate the idea of killing a fetus but no one actually says 'I love kids and babies are great and the U.S. needs more of them!' (Well, a few people do - the people in my first paragraph - but they're few and far between). Living in the U.S. it's definitely hard to believe that abortion issues are actually about the babies and not just punishing pregnant people. And that's why I don't find it surprising that anti-abortion opinions tend to go hand-in-hand with pro-death penalty opinions. If this is true, then the pro-life/pro-choice conflict won't matter in a few generations. The pro-lifers will be fruitful and multiply while the pro-choice will birth control/abort their offspring into oblivion. We can already see the scale tipping, since the majority of immigrants we let in from Mexico and the Middle East are religious pro-lifers who want large families. Eventually, there will be a pro-life majority, which would go hand-in-hand with a rise in the popularity of evangelical Christianity, various other religious groups, and the Republican party. While I am a Christian and a Republican, an uber-right-wing world frankly scares me. So please, have babies. If only to maintain societal balance, have babies. Don't take this too seriously, folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Well no, even if you're being facetious, that's not true. For a start, that presumes pro-choice people don't wish for large families, and it presumes that they have abortions. It also presumes that pro-life people don't have abortions; sometimes pro-life people have had abortions in their past (so they're part of the statistics), and there are also people who remain pro-life while having an abortion (often these are abortions performed for medical reasons, though a few manage to justify having an abortion for other reasons.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 On 2/26/2017 at 9:32 PM, Comrade said: I've had the abortion discussion here and it's not a fun one. But I view abortion as medicine of convenience rather than medicine of necessity. It doesn't mean do away with it but I would be extremely happy if there were a total of 0 abortions in the world per year. My issue with it is that it is morally wrong but also a necessary evil at this point. So I'm anti-abortion in the concept but will not ban it. The reason why I want abortion legal is because I may very well need those services later in my life. The last thing I want is to endanger myself/my child, and not be able to do anything about it due to some idiotic technicality or other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Pro-Death Penalty, Anti-Abortion. (Unless giving birth to the child would endanger the mother in any way, if that is the case, by all means, get rid of it.) The Reason I am Pro-Death Penalty is mostly because of what people have to suffer. Let's think of it This way: A Very dangerous Criminal turned serial Killer. You arrested him, and he's going to jail. When he goes to jail, he's having his 3 meals a day courtesy of those who live their lives in an honest fashion. Do you think it's fair for citizens who have done no wrong, to pay for the criminal's mistakes? Especially Murder? He's taken someone's life, and so, revoked the right to his. But if he keeps his life and goes to jail, and meets for example, a young man who is just there for theft, or even worse, Tax Evasion. Now, The murderer is going to either endager the lives of these convicts, who understand they've done wrong, and want to become better, or he's going to influence them to learn from his example. You arrest someone because they did a crime due to bad companies, then you send them to jail, to be closer to an even worse company. Seems weird. Another fact you can and should take in consideration, were the societies of old. No society of old allowed prisons. Someone went to trial, and if guilty, they'd be punished (Killed if charged with murder, hand cut if charged with theft). Because it made no sense to allow dangerous criminals to roam free. At least, The death penalty gives the families of the ones that got murdered some closure, if nothing else. I know this seems like an obtuse argument, and it kind of is. But let's face it, if people can't abide by society's rules, they have to be punished, and the worst crime that can be comitted (Murder, depending on if it's 1st, 2nd degree or manslaughter), should be handled with capital punishment. About abortion, I'm usually against it, since the child has done no wrong, but is still denied their right to life. It's Fine if giving birth to the child would endanger the mother, or if said pregancy was brought due to a Terrible Crime (Such as Rape). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Societies of old generally didn't have prisons because the feasibility in building and maintaining prisons were much more difficult. They've still been around for hundreds of years. It also ignores the myriad complex reasons people commit crimes. Sure, cut off the hand of someone who stole to keep their family from starving. Now their family will starve and they can no longer perform many types of jobs. Why is a baby conceived through rape less innocent than a baby not conceived through rape? I'm not anti-abortion but the logic of being against abortion except in cases of rape doesn't really hold up (and again, doesn't even begin to touch on the logistical difficulties in determining whether or not a baby was conceived through rape). Anyway, here's a look at the kind of thing that happens in a society where abortion is banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Res said: Societies of old generally didn't have prisons because the feasibility in building and maintaining prisons were much more difficult. They've still been around for hundreds of years. It also ignores the myriad complex reasons people commit crimes. Sure, cut off the hand of someone who stole to keep their family from starving. Now their family will starve and they can no longer perform many types of jobs. Why is a baby conceived through rape less innocent than a baby not conceived through rape? I'm not anti-abortion but the logic of being against abortion except in cases of rape doesn't really hold up (and again, doesn't even begin to touch on the logistical difficulties in determining whether or not a baby was conceived through rape). Anyway, here's a look at the kind of thing that happens in a society where abortion is banned. Ok, i wasn't really trying to touch on the complex reasons people commit crimes. If someone has to rob to keep their family from starving, it's because there are no jobs and it's an economical recession, for example, i don't criticise those crimes, in fact, i'd help someone steal were that the motive. I was merely talking about Murder, or at least trying to. And only 1st and Possibly some 2nd Degree murder cases. Manslaughter is a completely different topic. About abortion, Although i've always thought that all children are innocent, there are mental problems that a mother can have by giving birth to a child that was concieved through rape. Although yes, your reasoning is solid, and i can understand that my argument wasn't very fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Res said: Anyway, here's a look at the kind of thing that happens in a society where abortion is banned. That's a massive blanket statement. A lot of really awful shit happened in Ireland back when we had only just gained our independence and the Catholic church was essentially ruling us. But today it's still a country where abortion is illegal and stuff like that simply doesn't happen, at least no more so than any other country. During that time Ireland was legitimately one of the poorest countries in the world and rife with all sorts of issues but today it's considered one of the most prosperous and tolerant nations in the world. I don't want to imply anything about the magdalene laundries is defensible or excusable but I do believe the reason they came to be is much more complex than one social issue, especially when the country still supports the same standpoint and is a massively different place. It's the equivalent of pointing to Honduras and saying "this is what happens when you abolish the death penalty." (Honduras was one of the first countries to abolish the death penalty and consistently has some of the highest crime rates in the world. Two facts which are almost definitely not linked given the other case studies) Edited March 8, 2017 by Jotari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 You're right, I did choose a bad example, and I certainly don't think it'd necessarily be repeated if abortion were banned elsewhere. However, I also don't think there's any country where abortion is banned that doesn't have issues of some kind that would be eliminated by making abortion legal. There's always going to be abortions being performed, regardless of legality. What we have seen in recent decades is a) abortion numbers falling due to better sex education and contraception and b) abortion 'tourism' being easier and more accessible to obtain. For example, an estimated 7,000 Irish people receive abortions in the U.K. every year. That's about 0.0016% of the Irish population. The number of abortions (legal abortions as reported to the CDC) performed in the U.S. is about 0.002% of the population - in other words, a similar percentage of the Irish population is obtaining abortions on an annual basis as in a country where abortion is legal into the second trimester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperIb Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I accidentally voted for pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, though I meant to vote for anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. My b. My stance on abortion is very undecided. While I heavily value the freedom of choice and understand why people would consider abortion, no matter how *I* look at it, abortion is still killing a potential person. So I avoid making a stance on this subject whenever possible. (Though if the life of the mother was at risk, no matter what I'd definitely give her the choice) As for the death penalty, I abhor it. I hate the very idea of somebody or some group of people being able to decide whether or not another human gets to live or die. That very idea just disgusts me. Not only that, but I hate how people seem to care more about whether or not it's more cost effective and how nonchalantly people act towards it. Valuing money over a person, regardless of who they are is a big no-no to me. I'd say if the person actually wants the death penalty for whatever reason, then sure because it's their choice. I really don't think "Killing somebody to show that killing somebody is wrong" is the best way to go about dealing with punishment. Besides, I'm pretty sure life in prison is much much more of a punishment anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 5 hours ago, SuperIb said: I accidentally voted for pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, though I meant to vote for anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. My b. My stance on abortion is very undecided. While I heavily value the freedom of choice and understand why people would consider abortion, no matter how *I* look at it, abortion is still killing a potential person. So I avoid making a stance on this subject whenever possible. (Though if the life of the mother was at risk, no matter what I'd definitely give her the choice) As for the death penalty, I abhor it. I hate the very idea of somebody or some group of people being able to decide whether or not another human gets to live or die. That very idea just disgusts me. Not only that, but I hate how people seem to care more about whether or not it's more cost effective and how nonchalantly people act towards it. Valuing money over a person, regardless of who they are is a big no-no to me. I'd say if the person actually wants the death penalty for whatever reason, then sure because it's their choice. I really don't think "Killing somebody to show that killing somebody is wrong" is the best way to go about dealing with punishment. Besides, I'm pretty sure life in prison is much much more of a punishment anyways. Generally the people who talk about cost effectiveness when it comes to the Death Penalty are the people who are against it. Since in countries with the proper due process and available statistics it's almost always more expensive to kill someone rather than keep them alive. It's meant to be a point that even looking at things from an amoral, comepletely pragmatic viewpoint, it's still illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. The death penalty should be about justice and protecting society; not vengeance. This is why it is to be delivered and carried out through people representing society rather than through individual, vigilante justice (note that Jack Ruby received a death sentence for taking Lee Harvey Oswald's punishment into his own hands). Yes, executions can lead to an expensive appeals process and, sadly, has resulted in the executions of some innocent people. However, I feel that these are failures of the system which need to be addressed, not arguments against capital punishment as a concept. The abortion issue, as I see it, really comes down to a single question: is the child a person or merely a potential person? I believe that it is a person from the time of conception and as such, I cannot agree with abortion. As far as I'm concerned, arguments to the effect of, "If you don't like abortions, just don't get involved, but don't force your beliefs on others!" is just as convincing as someone replacing the word "abortions" with "murders" (i.e. not at all). I understand that abortion advocates don't view it as murder because they believe the fetus isn't yet a person, but I hope they can also understand that the pro-life belief in its personhood is why there really can't be any compromise on the subject. As for viability, I find it to be a very unsatisfying definition of personhood. Suppose that today a fetus is viable at 20 weeks. Suppose also that in 2027, medical advances make a fetus viable at 18 weeks. That means if we examine two fetuses at exactly the same point in development at 19 weeks, the one in 2027 will be a person, while the one in 2017 will not be a person. This sort of arbitrary definition is thoroughly unconvincing to me, and rather troubling as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JJ48 said: As far as I'm concerned, arguments to the effect of, "If you don't like abortions, just don't get involved, but don't force your beliefs on others!" is just as convincing as someone replacing the word "abortions" with "murders" (i.e. not at all). I understand that abortion advocates don't view it as murder because they believe the fetus isn't yet a person, but I hope they can also understand that the pro-life belief in its personhood is why there really can't be any compromise on the subject. Do you believe that women who get abortions (as well as the doctor who facilitates the abortion procedure) are murderers? Like, you say that's about as nonconvicing as that argument but that's the point you are still arguing in principle. Edited March 10, 2017 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.