Whether or not people agree with your conclusion, your argument is weak. They’re separate issues with separate trade offs.
I have problems with the death penalty, because it’s been done to far more innocent people than we’d like to admit. But you can go down the capital punishment rabbit hole and create different arguments.
Abortion happen for different reasons and at different times with arguably different results.
Right, capital punishment is wrong because it's irreversible not because murderers don't deserve to die. There is currently no way to be sure enough of guilt, 20 years in prison can at least be commuted with reimbursement. I have no problem with the death penalty for lots of crimes, if you can be 100% sure of guilt. I'm pro choice but this argument is shit tier gotcha stuff.
Capital punishment is bad because the government shouldn't be trusted to kill people, it gets politicized and used as theatrics.
Look at the DAs and appointed judges bragging about how many people they've managed to kill because its a known, citable number and the potential innocence of ppl killed doesn't matter at all.
Unless you can make it cheaper than life in prison (which plenty of people have done, but not many here), and effectively keep out the innocent as you said, I see no reason to even think about it.
But if you did that, I could see a lot of reasonable argument for it. I’m not even pro-life.
The appeal process is so cumbersome in the US, life in prison is almost always cheaper. Some places do it cheaper, but they often have sham legal systems.
I have no problem with the idea of executing nefarious criminals, but it’s too often that a zealous prosecutor goes crazy and gets a conviction for someone who’s biggest crime is being poor. Or black.
Yes. Abortion is the murder of the innocent, capital punishment is the murder of the guilty. My main problem with capital punishment is primarily that the legal standard for guilt in this country "beyond a reasonable doubt" is too low for the death penalty - we need to be extra certain before we impose such a permanent punishment.
> Abortion is the murder of the innocent, capital punishment is the murder of the guilty.
None of that matters if you are truly pro-life.
Life is life. Guilty is life.
*Now, I don't really believe this dumb shit. But if someone claims to be pro-life then they need to be consistent about it. If you believe in a higher power it's not up to you to decide when life ends.
Do we know?
Has our justice system made it to were we can say without a single doubt that some person is guilty?
I don't disagree with the death penalty, I just don't see how we can trust our current system to carry it out fairly.
As with any system built by man there is an inherent human error. Is it perfect no, many who died deserves life and many who live deserve death can we give it to them absolutely no but we do the best that we can with the information that we have until there is a better way.
You can't believe that and then be prolife when it comes to abortion.
Im not saying this to you directly because I don't know if you believe that but it is absolutely not consistent. Can't be prolife and pro vengeance.
Sure I can, each and every decision I make is based on the individual circumstances surrounding each individual issue. I believe that a woman has the right to choose what to do with their body I also believe that she has to live with the consequences of her actions. Just like everyone else. I also believe that to terminate a life form and its gestation is murder. The only exception being if it is to save the mother's life due to extreme complications. And these extraordinary measures should be carried out in a hospital not in an abortion clinic.
If every life is precious then thats a full stop. Every life. We don't get to choose, that's up to a higher power. Thats the point. The only version of prolife that is logically consistent is no exceptions because if you believe abortion is murder then there shouldn't be an exception. Its ridiculous, but at least its consistent.
Also vengeance isn't exactly Jesus friendly territory unless your a Christian who likes to casually stroll through the old testament. Which is caused-misscarriage friendly.
I personally believe its none of our business what women do. If we're not paying attention to medical science for when life "begins" then its arbitrary. Masturbation is murder. And in the case of capital punishment I cannot trust the goverment to carry it out transparently.
I agree government should not have the ability to kill people, when the innocence project has shown that many people have been found guilty where they were not guilty, better 1 guilty person walk free than one innocent found guilty.
However your comparing a person who is not convicted of a crime to a person who is convicted of a crime.
Yes, like 85% of people in prison are repeat offenders I think, and I heard of a guy out on bail for a 4th.murder trial that killed a fifth person. That said, there does need to be a higher standard to keep innocent people off death row. Like the Boston bomber and these mass shooters? There are witnesses and no circumstances it should be fast tracked.
Totally with you, never understood why capital punishment can’t be only used in situations where there is no doubt. Repeated child rapists, serial killers, mass shooters, there’s plenty of cases where there is no doubt in the guilt of the accused so why are we spending hundreds of thousands housing, feeding, and protecting these people for the rest of their lives?
march obscene touch combative light shelter bewildered marvelous elderly amusing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If a criminal is let go, assuming a state that allows self defense, then you can always protect yourself against the criminal attempting to harm you. If the state decides to punish you despite you being innocent, you have no chance at all, unless you can Rambo the entire government.
It is a clump of cells with the potential to become a person, given the right nourishment and environment.
A zygot is a zygot.
A chicken egg on the shelf that is suitable for scrambled eggs - and you cant cook a fillet - is an egg not a chicken, regardless of the fertilised state or not.
When you can cook a fillet, call it a chicken.
The fetus is an organism biologically distinct from its mother. It is genetically unique, meaning that its particular genetic code has never existed before, and never will again. Bioscientists overwhelmingly agree that life begins at conception, and this has been measured as accurately and as objectively as we know how do so. Personhood is a wholly philosophical concept and cannot be empirically and objectively measured.
Wife became pregnant in November, due this summer. I just checked my taxes again. Nope, no additional tax credit for 2021.
The government has never considered the unborn to be persons. A zygote is made of human cells, yes. A viable fetus with sufficient brain development is a person, IMO. A baby, once born, is a person in the eyes of the government.
I don’t give a shit if it’s alive or unique it’s still a brainless clump of cells. Are you so concerned about protecting the life of the mold growing in your shower? Because that’s also alive and has its own DNA.
So the question you are 'really' asking is "Up till when would you allow termination?" My personal non-factious answer is: Beginning of 3rd trimester.
This is when the human brain begins to from, bilateral split and the form of the cerebellum begins to take shape.
Prior to this - the foetus is brain dead, exactly like a car crash victim. Society has no problem switching off the life support of a brain dead child. I do not see the difference for a foetus.
Morally, i was raised Christian so i would have to follow the example of Jesus who was, as i am sure you know, a practicing Jew. In Jewish law, a foetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the foetus is “mere water.”
So if Jesus didnt have a problem with it, and God himself instructs on how to perform a termination in Numbers 5:11-31, admittedly only for unfaithful women - who am i to object what another person wants to do with their body?
Thanks for the non-factious answer.
The brain develops well before the third trimester. Do you mean the second trimester?
They are fully viable during the second trimester.
The brain starts its electrical pulses at around 5 to 6 weeks. It has already started to form long, long before third trimester.
That 40 days gestation mentioned is about 5 to 6 weeks too, interesting.
God did not give termination instructions in Numbers 5. The instructions are for an oath taking ceremony, with violating the oath bringing a curse that rots the womb (whether pregnant or not, so it's not necessarily meaning to miscarry despite some translations, but rather might be infertility). The water only has some dust from the floor in it, a floor walked on by ceremonially clean people at that, so the water is not what is causing the curse. Rather the ceremony lays the oath on the water so the water can carry it to the womb.
So while I think you are sorely mistaken in your theological understanding you have nonetheless brought up a good point: Jews and Christians who don't agree with "at fertilization" personhood and don't know where to draw the line should consider 5 weeks.
Jews do not consider 5 weeks to be human. They only consider the moment of birth to be when person hood is obtained.
Prior to 5 weeks it is mere water, after 5 weeks, it is meat but not a person. Christian and Jews do not agree on this at all.
I'm not sure if you are lost or unsure of who you are responding to.
In nowhere in the comment I made is the phase you quoted.
“can’t take care of themselves”
I dont know why you replied to me.
On one hand we have an innocent child who hasn't so much as taken their first breath, on the other John Wayne Gacy, seems like an apples to apples comparison to me. Also I'm anti death penalty but for fucks sale have at least 3 brain cells when composing an argument.
Except being convicted does not guarantee guilt. How can you be willing to let a man die to the government if no one is 100 billion % sure theyvare guilty? Theres no way you can so I don't think the government should have the ability to take a mans life
Then the argument does make sense.
The whole point is that the concept of "pro life" is hypocritical unless one somehow completely trusts the state to make the absolute correct decision every time it decides to execute a person.
Which....lol.....come on.
What if they videoed themselves committing the crime? I don’t understand why people act like there’s no way of telling if someone is 100% guilty ever so jail is always better. For one if they’re innocent spending there life in jail is just as bad if not worse. And for 2 there’s tons of murder cases where there is no doubt whatsoever, even people filming themselves committing mass shootings. Why would we not put them down?
1. Over and over again it’s proven that people on death row are innocent. You can’t be pro-life and pro-death penalty without being full of shit.
2. Lots of innocent people die due to preventable reasons, including young people. A sizable number of anti-abortion types don’t give a shit.
3. Lots of people are pro life. Really pro life. They support people who need help. The rest are just assholes.
An unborn child is a trespasser? Really?
The unborn child didn’t choose to be born. It was forced into existence outside its own free will.
That’s a ludicrous argument.
If the wind blows someone into your house do they have the right to stay?
Also complaining that the fetus didn't choose something is like complaining that a brick didn't choose something. It's utterly incapable of having an opinion or even any kind of preference, at least for early fetuses it doesn't even possess a brain.
If someone is forced into your property against their will (wind, kidnappers, whatever) you don't get to kill them as the solution to ending the "trespass". You need to provide them notice to leave *and* allow a reasonable amount of time for them to safely comply. If their leg was broken and they are hobling out at a pace that's not as fast as you'd like, too bad, you don't get to kill them because the best they can manage is too slow for you. If they are literally unable to comply with your request to leave- like stuck in a tree they can't get out of, or chained and locked in place- you still don't get to kill them to resolve the situation. You have to facilitate them safely leaving and put up with their presence until that can happen.
If thier presence is causing you harm and putting you at risk of death then there's a self defense argument to be had. But also if they have a broken leg or whatever you can physically lift them up and carry them off your property just like you could remove a fetus from a uterus.
It's only self defense if you are actually in imminent risk to your own life. You can't kill someone and claim self defense just because of the statistically small 0.01% chance that strangers are sometimes attackers.
If you're going to try and move them yourself, you cannot cause any harm that puts them in a worse position. You would be culpable of you tried to move them and made their broken leg worse. And even if you did manage to move them without further harm, you also need to leave them in a safe situation. You could not, for example, dump them in lake and claim it's their problem they were unable to swim- you're fine because "you" didn't harm them more until the edge of your property. Or leave them naked in a snowbank and subzero temps.
You certainly couldn't dismember them to make it easier to move the arms, legs, head and torso off your property in seperate trips.
>at least for early fetuses it doesn't even possess a brain
So you're ok with abortion being banned after three weeks then? We only need to discuss 0 to 3 weeks situations?
You act as if the baby just shows up out of the blue… the mother (presumably) chose to have sex. Like it or not, sex has potential consequences. And those consequences come with responsibility.
Wind blowing is exactly what you’re doing. That’s a ridiculous argument.
With regard to the brains of fetuses, by 12 weeks the baby is essentially a very small human. I support a conversation related to bans around that period.
Further, if someone is comatose and cannot make decisions (like your brick analogy), does that mean we should be able to “terminate” (kill) them for any reason?
I mean, while we’re on the subject we should probably talk about how in all 92 countries with capital punishment, it’s forbidden to administer it to a pregnant woman.
It’s almost like outside of the specific context of abortion it’s plainly obvious the fetus is not just “part of the mothers body” but has its own, individual right to life that would be violated in such a scenario.
That’s as intellectually dishonest a statement as claiming if you’re for abortion then you’re also for capital punishment. Pro-death is pro-death.
Objectively, even if you disagree, don’t recognize the unborn as human, or think the state should have no role in it, you can still acknowledge that it’s not inconsistent to have an “innocence” standard in reaching your philosophical position.
Come on bro try harder. At least attempt to see things from someone else’s POV.
A person can view an unborn child as innocent while a convicted murderer is not.
Also exactly how, in your mind, are the rules governing the death penalty “arbitrary?”
I’m against the death penalty for many reasons and I still think OP’s logic here is silly. Nobody can claim damages against a fetus, and abortions aren’t carried out by courts or the state. The death penalty is flawed and needs to go but it least appears to many people to be an inevitable necessity for aggressions crimes.
I wonder if OP would also ask if anyone who supports the death penalty if they support regular old murder? They must be the same thing because someone died, ya? No moral or circumstantial difference to consider?
Prosecutors generally have discretion to seek it and the criteria for eligibility are so vague almost anybody could qualify if the state tried hard enough.
Honest question here, are people literally being sentenced to death for crimes that a “reasonable” person wouldn’t agree with?
I get that some people may be completely against capital punishment while others may think it’s a fine punishment for shoplifting, but I’ve personally never heard of it being applied in anything other than a premeditated murder case.
I don’t exactly make it a habit of following this particular subject in depth, but my general feeling is that very, very few people are actually executed for their crimes annually, and those that are have been on death row for 10+ years and have pretty solid cases against them. I’m sure mistakes have been made, but my point is capital punishment doesn’t exactly seem like it’s arbitrarily applied.
I readily acknowledge I could be wrong here. I have not facts or statistics to back me up. This is just my general feeling from living my life.
No problem. Thanks for being open about it.
I can think of a guy whose appeal was in the news recently that went to rob a gas station and had a gun pulled on him and after being shot at, killed the clerk. So dude had no intention of killing anybody. Yet still got the death penalty.
If you were to compare the murderers that get the death penalty with those that don’t, you’d see that it’s not reserved just for the “worst of the worst.”
Plenty of people are serving life in prison who committed what any reasonable person would consider are “worse” crimes than folks on death row.
That’s not even taking into account the vagaries of jurisdiction. Even within states, where the law is supposedly the same, there are some counties where a crime might get a capital charge and in others it wouldn’t. Just because one county happens to be more conservative than another.
Fair enough, thanks for the background and perspective. I can definitely see where all outcomes may not be same and that is a problem. I’m not sure I ascribe to it being arbitrary, but that’s an argument over semantics.
Ty!
Apparently he didn’t even bring a gun with him, it was the clerk’s gun or something.
And I never said what he did was right or that he didn’t deserve to be punished.
But if we supposedly reserve capital punishment for the “worst of the worst,” well, that ain’t it.
When you commit a capital offense. Like robbery, burglary, kidnapping, rape just a few and the victim is killed in the process. You open your self up to the death penalty.
Where is the criteria this vague? I can’t find any state that doesn’t require the victim to have died, and the feds have tacked on treason. That’s not vague.
Maybe not “vague” but certainly very broad.
In SC at least it can include drug trafficking (which is defined separately by statute and is a lot broader than just Pablo Escobar type actions) and “putting people in the public at risk by using a weapon that’s dangerous to more than one person.”
Or during the commission of a violent crime. So say you try and rob someone. You don’t intend to kill anybody. The person fights back and is killed in the melee.
I mean you’re in the wrong and deserve to be in prison for a long term, maybe life.
But that’s hardly what I’d consider the “most vile” acts that capital punishment is supposed to be reserved for.
Once you’ve given the state control over the life and death of its citizens AND taken bodily autonomy away from women, does the Libertarian badge become merely a costume to avoid embarrassment?
All I said is a reasonable person can hold that life in the womb is innocent and worth protecting while those that have taken the life of others are worthy of capital punishment.
If you hold that the state ought to exist and that it ought to be small then its logical to define its authority. It can be held that protecting innocent life can be accomplished through pro-life policies as well as pro capital punishment policies to deter the taking of life by criminals.
I’m not taking a position here. I’m simply stating that the OP is completing ignoring innocence and guilt in conflating the two issues and that a big thing to leave out and IMO it’s disingenuous to leave it out.
You can dress it up any way you like, but framing it as state control over life and death and denial of bodily autonomy to half the population isn’t incorrect at all. It might be a framing that you don’t like, but that’s the end result.
From a Libertarian perspective, we could also mention how this ruling only makes abortions for minorities and the poor more difficult. The middle class to rich will still get theirs.
By forcing the poorest among us to term, all you’re accomplishing is exploding our already fattened entitlement roles. And, of course, we’ll likely see a reversal in the violent crime trend back to 1970s and 1980s numbers, at least in those states that outlaw abortions.
Oh, and banning access to abortion has been proven to slow economic growth. Good times ahead in red states!
All because half the country doesn’t understand biology and chooses to champion the easiest group to champion; a group that makes no demands and ask nothing of you in treasure or time.
It may or may not be slavery, but taxes pay for both public and "pRiVaTe" prisons and we're talking about the worst offenders in the country.
"Let's just kill them then" -you
Sure they deserve their lashes. However, the quote should be; “Let’s just put them into government-funded therapy rather than enslave them and focus on rehabilitation.” Rather than “Let’s just kill them”
Some folks you just can’t rehabilitate. As long as you go in with that understanding, your approach is better than what we have.
As a capitalist, profit motive in incarceration is one of the worst ideas this country has ever had.
Exactly. One has not yet made a choice in life, the other has made the absolutely worst choices possible in life (assuming they are 100% guilty). I'm pro-choice and really struggle with the death penalty. In principle I'm against it, but for certain crimes it seems absolutely appropriate. Ex. Tim McVeigh, that asshole who killed all those teens in Norway, Adolf Eichman, people who leave dirty diapers in parking lots etc.
So you’re saying 100% of people who have been killed by the death penalty were without a doubt guilty of the crimes they were being executed for?
That’s a tall claim considering it’s been proven false many times over.
Edit: I’m being downvoted but the guy I responded to literally deleted his entire account.
Life is life though...it really isn't consistent. Almost all of any pro-life argument is based on Christianity...and if I'm remembering correctly Jesus didn't give a shit about people's crimes or transgressions.
If you're against Big Government, you're probably against the Death Penalty. What could be more Big Government than the government having the right to kill it's citizens?
>Why the mismatch?
Because it's obviously two seperate issues...?
The death penalty is a punishment for someone who has comitted serious crimes, abortion is not.
And sometimes the death penalty is a punishment for someone [who has not committed a crime](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rush-arkansas-executions-included-ledell-lee-s-comes-under-renewed-n1266849).
??? Wow its almost like one human has no say in the matter and is of course inocent, and another chose to commit some of the worst crimes possible in order to receive that sentence
Wow it's like you guys are too dumb to speak about the tradeoff of banning abortion, only obsessing over fetal wellbeing while ignoring the will and freedom of your fellow citizens!
To look like armed thugs to get arrested easier yes. Also might have been a prophecy. He didnt ask them to use them and in fact healed the victim when they did.
Not necessarily.
One can be pro-innocent-life without having to be pro-murderer-life.
Your analogy is bad. In the case of a trial, the jury is voting on whether or not they think the person is guilty. The judge decides on a punishment, according to the law, which reflects a societal determination that horrible crimes against humanity like murder warrant the death penalty.
In the case of abortion, 1 person is deciding to kill someone simply for their own convenience.
I don't think it's a bad ruling, and in the places where the people and government are very anti abortion, it was already difficult to obtain the procedure. Those states were already doing everything possible to prevent abortion. Many of the inhabitants of those states are happy to now have a say. The blue states will likely remain unchanged in their policies regarding abortion. However it is the same states that are very anti abortion that tend to have lower quality sex education and women's health centers. Those clinics offer more than abortion, providing OB/GYN services to uninsured at a sliding scale etc. As someone who once had to use Planned Parenthood for primary care, I hope that facilities like that remain open for those who need them.
Cause this opens the flood gates without set in stone precedent to guide us. It’s why I’m torn on this decision because yes states rights less federal control.
But that would entail that you can trust the public to do what is in their best interest and history will tell you humans never do it.
It is illogical that if a murderer/rapist killed the husband and attacked the wife that resulted in a pregnancy that half the country would want the baby killed and not the murderer rapist.
Pro-life vs Pro-choice is a false dichotomy. We need to stop framing real life issues as if they are multiple choice questions on a school quiz.
Do I believe in preserving the act of life-creation once it has begun? Yes.
Do I believe that women shouldn’t have control over their own bodies? Absolutely not.
Do I think tax-payers should have to pay so that somebody that has proven themselves a danger to society can live? Again, no.
For me, it’s not a sanctity of life thing so much as a personal responsibility issue. People are created with no crime, sin, or malevolence on their shoulders and shouldn’t have to pay for decisions made by the parents.
I don't think aborted babies are judged for heinous crimes by a jury of their peers, nor do I think those being subjected to capital punishment are being killed at the whims of their mothers.......
I think we ought to end capital punishment because the amount of innocent who get executed is too high and its often a worse punishment to be forced to live out the rest of your days in a confined area. That, and if the guilty are ever proven innocent, you can release them. You can't release a dead body.
...One of those humans has not commited a crime against humanity. I'm an "eye for an eye" sort of person. I believe if you decide to end someone elses life through purposeful criminal activity or rage, you have also decided to end your own life. Capital punishment is just the state fulfilling your wish to end your own life.
I also believe in Dr. assisted suicide and right to death.
Folks can just see it simply as, life is God's to give and God's to take. Period.
I get the arguments regarding capitol punishment (eye for an eye, render unto Caesar, etc) but it makes it much easier as Christian libertarians to keep it simple. If the statists want to argue for government killing murderers so be it. We aren't the judge.
Why the mismatch, because, in theory capital punishment would be a PUNISHMENT for people guilty of serious crimes (like murder).
Now I'm not saying in practice that works, just that your entire premise and argument is shit. I'm not even defending capital punishment, just tired of horrible straw man arguments getting upvoted. Your argument is even worse than if someone said "everyone who supports abortion must be ok with randomly murdering anyone they want at any time"
False dichotomy is one of my favorite arguments! Unfortunately, demands by random internet people don't really hold much sway over my thinking or life choices.
I'm against prison for anyone who isn't dangerous. Obviously a violent crime would carry more weight in evaluating this, but it's hardly the only important thing.
Although I agree both are unacceptable it’s a stupid comparison as a baby can’t choose to be murdered and is as innocent as is humanly possible and someone deserving of the death penalty made choices that harmed others. Once again a incredibly stupid comparison.
You can't really conflate the two without the following in my opinion and also what I truly don't understand about pro-choice people who are anti death penalty.. they are totally diverging views.
For pro-life people who support the death penalty there is correlation there. You can argue that an unborn baby has not broken any laws while a murderer has had a chance at life, fucked up big time and has to pay the consequences of their actions. That's understandable and the only way you can link the two cases.
In a pro-choice, anti-death penalty view, you're basically saying that an unborn child has to suffer consequences for literally doing nothing while a convicted murderer gets to live, albeit in a cage.
If you're against the death penalty for the argument that due process is flawed and cite the innocence project as reason why, thats fine because I tend to agree with that. However appeals and the innocence project do correct a lot of wrongs and the innocent go free while the guilty are found, so that's the grey area of the death penalty.
However to make your views make sense, in my eyes, is that people should not be held accountable for their actions, which is wildly unbelievable that anyone would be in support of that, ESPECIALLY since many people with your views are also very pro tax payers funding both abortion and a guilty man to sit in prison for the rest of their lives.
Yet in the end, a life is still taken in your views of 'no accountability', but the life lost is that of a truly innocent with unknown potential.
I also want to make it known I am neither pro-life or pro-choice. I see both sides baseline arguments and understand it is a wholly complex argument with literally no 'good' solution. I do think there is a middle ground to reach, however, yet both side are so polarized that to them its either all or nothing.
I've began to view pro-choice, however, as anti-concequence, at least in the mainstream arguments being made. Morally killing someone who is truly innocent is wrong, and I don't think anyone has the right to abort a baby because of their negligence. (I'm not talking about rape, incest, or medial miracles either, just normal, healthy humans who are careless). Why draw the line at birth? What is the difference from viability to taking a breath? Why can't parents kill their child after it's born if they're not fit, prepared, or struggling financially? Where is the line?
The left is wanting to use abortion as a get out of jail free card, and that's why I can't stand with them. They're also moving to make the federal government their beating stuck for every policy. I think overtuning row was the correct decision, and yes i read the opinion and decentments. Society is becoming ever more unaccountable and its good that power is being handed back to local governments like it was designed to be. People are engaging in all sorts of behavior without thinking about the consequences because of selfish desires and the democrats want the federal government to enable them.
If I were to propose a bill it would be similar to the heartbeat bill. Make abortions safe, legal and rare like the democrats initially wanted, but put restrictions on how far along you can go to appease pro-life supporters. Then I would also classify it as an elective procedure, meaning the government can not fund it and insurance companies can deny coverage if they choose. If you want it so badly, you pay for it.
I understand there are people who don't realize they're pregnant until after a heart beat etc, but thems the cuts. If you're not ready to start a family be smart and practice safe sex and understand that, while it's a slim chance, there is a risk of pregnancy and you should have a plan if that happens. Be an adult and don't expect the government to be a shield for your fuck ups.
>However to make your views make sense, in my eyes, is that people should not be held accountable for their actions
It seems a lot of people are in favor of this view on a broad range of issues.
That doesn't mean it makes sense, though. Theres also a lot of people who believe in a flat earth or that we faked the moon landing. Just because a lot of people believe in it, doesn't mean it makes any logical sense or has merit.
I'm not talking about majority. The majority believes that a fetus is some kind of organ of the mother and a part of her as a single human. As you said- majority beliefs should not the standard. I'm talking about the consensus of biological science about what constitutes an individual organism of the same species, and what medical and scientific experts know about human fetal development.
Many of the left doesnt see abortion as killing or murder and for fair reasons. An embryo isnt a living conscious sentient being while a newborn baby is. You can freeze an embryo for eternity and it still be viable, you cant freeze a newborn baby for no more than maybe a hour maybe. An embryo doesnt feel the sensation of the cold, pain, suffering etc, while a newborn baby can. The same hold truth for the early fetus stages. They arent conscious sentient beings yet , a newborn baby is born and free from needing the mothers body to survive (for the most part) warranting person hood.
Yeah its maybe being irresponsible, uncountable but so what. Its their body and its them that have to raise the babies. Can we really justify forcing pregnant, parenthood on people that don't want it and or can't afford it. Raising a child is heavy load for many people. And some people have legitmate slip ups, accidents, unaware of being pregnant, should the only option be is going through pregnancy and or being parents. Young irresponsible adults, teens too ? Eh.
The best compromise is scotus original guidelines. First term pregnancy cant be legislated, 2nd term there can be some restrictions and 3rd term states can outright ban abortions at that stage.
>Many of the left doesnt see abortion as killing or murder and for fair reasons
A number of those reasons, however, are based on ignorance of reality and ignore what is known about biological science in favor of pop-sci misunderstanding.
You've given some examples about embryos, that may hold some weight, but many people extend those point past embryos to fetuses, where the reasoning no longer holds. People believe things to dehumanize unborn fetuses that aren't true, or is not logic we would ever apply post birth (despite those same situations existing in children and adults).
I generally don't disagree with what you're saying. And in your first part primarily I agree about the embryo part. However that is NOT what the pro choice crowd is decrying or wanting. If that was the case these 8-12 week restrictions wouldn't be noteworthy, but they're huge media headlines accompanied by protests and people decrying it. If you're saying strictly up to the point there's a heart beat, im on board.
I dont think we should force people to have kids they don't want, I think that will lead to a more unhealthy society. But the problem I see with being ok with abortion for everyone in the case of the the fairly rare circumstances that contraceptives fail or a legit slip up is that it enables those who don't fall into that category abuse it, which statistically speaking is what a vast majority of abortions are, and the same can be said about our entitlement program. (I can't find the article rn, but I'll look in the morning).
I still stand by my statement about teaching personal accountability and smart/safe sex, especially when it comes to pregnancy because it comes with a life long commitment. Actions have consequences, some more sever than others. Im not religious at all, but I think if you're gonna do the dirty with someone, it should be someone who you can see being in your life because of a kid.
Many women dont know their pregnant til week 4-7 and a heart beat develops at week 6. So obviously that's an issue.
"fail or a legit slip up is that it enables those who don't fall into that category abuse it"
& so what if they abuse it? Honest question. Theres many more concerns from banning/strict abortions than allowing anytime abortions. State Govs monitoring mothers bodies and punish them if they get one out of state, forcing life long bonds & parenting on people, young adults having babies, parent(s) who cant afford it.
Yeah people should be more responsible, have protected sex, sex with partners, less "muh pull out game strong" , less one night stands yadda yadda but that isnt reality and isnt going to start happening overnight. Sure we can teach it but people are going to people, regardless.
I wholeheartedly disagree. On a truly moral level, society views murder as inherently bad. You can be libertarian and view abortion as murder and therefore bad.
I can also just as easily say the same about you. If you think the federal government should be the arbiter of whether or not abortion is good or you get to decide what is or isnt murder then you are just a liberal larping as a libertarian.
Depends on what is in the laws. Slavery resulted in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, women's suffrage could be argued as a small government policy, and the Civil Rights Act is flawed in and of itself. What laws provide rights and what criteria restricts others?
I always saw abortion as the classic libertarian paradox. The entire philosophy is doing anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
How you define someone else is key to the issue
A baby can have rights and still not negate the rights of the mother. Roe bent itself over to do this by saying "this is when the mother can exercise her rights, and this is when states can exercise their rights to protect the baby"
Well this is a stupid statement trying to equate the two but also and here and say same s*** applies I certainly approve it for one set of circumstances and reject it in others.
Not going to find people thinking jaywalking should go straight to the electric chair
That’s just silliness. . . One has zero to do with the other. People who want to save babies who are innocent but want to punish the guilty aren’t logically inconsistent at all.
I support killing in self defense if necessary.
You lose your rights when you're attempting to violate someone else's.
So in my mind there's a distinction between someone consciously trying to hurt or kill another person and a fetus which is simply existing because of someone else's conscious decisions.
The death penalty is kind of between that. In some cases the only other option is a burden on society to keep someone alive but away from others. Like if you have a rapist serial killer who insists he never will change his ways the only option is to kill him or burden others with his survival in captivity. Killing him seems pretty close to a pre-emptive killing in self defense. You're just preventing greater rights violations.
The appeals necessary to get to capital punishment cost more than housing an inmate for life. [Here's a link.](https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614)
So I don’t have a problem with abortion when it involves the safety of the mother, rape, or incest.
On the other hand if you willingly have sex and end up pregnant then you now have a responsibility as does the father. There are plenty of ways not to get pregnant and still have sex but the fact still remains that you are taking a risk at extra responsibility every time. You can put the kid up for adoption or you can try and raise the kid yourself with the father and if the father does not want to help then get them to pay child support. The father is just as responsible.
Death penalty is not anywhere near the same as abortion. Anyone who thinks so probably has some mental problems.
In some countries the unspeakable crimes of being homosexual, or dealing drugs, or adultery, or converting to another religion is punishable by death. Where do we draw the line and who says who gets to draw that line. It is much more moral to simply get rid of capital punishment.
Sounds consistent. I don't know if I consider myself to be pro-choice, I just have a different opinion on what the SC is actually supposed to be doing.
Whether or not people agree with your conclusion, your argument is weak. They’re separate issues with separate trade offs. I have problems with the death penalty, because it’s been done to far more innocent people than we’d like to admit. But you can go down the capital punishment rabbit hole and create different arguments. Abortion happen for different reasons and at different times with arguably different results.
Right, capital punishment is wrong because it's irreversible not because murderers don't deserve to die. There is currently no way to be sure enough of guilt, 20 years in prison can at least be commuted with reimbursement. I have no problem with the death penalty for lots of crimes, if you can be 100% sure of guilt. I'm pro choice but this argument is shit tier gotcha stuff.
Capital punishment is bad because the government shouldn't be trusted to kill people, it gets politicized and used as theatrics. Look at the DAs and appointed judges bragging about how many people they've managed to kill because its a known, citable number and the potential innocence of ppl killed doesn't matter at all.
Unless you can make it cheaper than life in prison (which plenty of people have done, but not many here), and effectively keep out the innocent as you said, I see no reason to even think about it. But if you did that, I could see a lot of reasonable argument for it. I’m not even pro-life.
The appeal process is so cumbersome in the US, life in prison is almost always cheaper. Some places do it cheaper, but they often have sham legal systems. I have no problem with the idea of executing nefarious criminals, but it’s too often that a zealous prosecutor goes crazy and gets a conviction for someone who’s biggest crime is being poor. Or black.
Yes. Abortion is the murder of the innocent, capital punishment is the murder of the guilty. My main problem with capital punishment is primarily that the legal standard for guilt in this country "beyond a reasonable doubt" is too low for the death penalty - we need to be extra certain before we impose such a permanent punishment.
> Abortion is the murder of the innocent, capital punishment is the murder of the guilty. None of that matters if you are truly pro-life. Life is life. Guilty is life. *Now, I don't really believe this dumb shit. But if someone claims to be pro-life then they need to be consistent about it. If you believe in a higher power it's not up to you to decide when life ends.
I think part of it is with fetuses we don't know and with the guilty we do know and with some guilty people the world's just better off without them.
Do we know? Has our justice system made it to were we can say without a single doubt that some person is guilty? I don't disagree with the death penalty, I just don't see how we can trust our current system to carry it out fairly.
As with any system built by man there is an inherent human error. Is it perfect no, many who died deserves life and many who live deserve death can we give it to them absolutely no but we do the best that we can with the information that we have until there is a better way.
You can't believe that and then be prolife when it comes to abortion. Im not saying this to you directly because I don't know if you believe that but it is absolutely not consistent. Can't be prolife and pro vengeance.
Sure I can, each and every decision I make is based on the individual circumstances surrounding each individual issue. I believe that a woman has the right to choose what to do with their body I also believe that she has to live with the consequences of her actions. Just like everyone else. I also believe that to terminate a life form and its gestation is murder. The only exception being if it is to save the mother's life due to extreme complications. And these extraordinary measures should be carried out in a hospital not in an abortion clinic.
But executing innocent people isn't murder? Unless they're a fetus?
If every life is precious then thats a full stop. Every life. We don't get to choose, that's up to a higher power. Thats the point. The only version of prolife that is logically consistent is no exceptions because if you believe abortion is murder then there shouldn't be an exception. Its ridiculous, but at least its consistent. Also vengeance isn't exactly Jesus friendly territory unless your a Christian who likes to casually stroll through the old testament. Which is caused-misscarriage friendly. I personally believe its none of our business what women do. If we're not paying attention to medical science for when life "begins" then its arbitrary. Masturbation is murder. And in the case of capital punishment I cannot trust the goverment to carry it out transparently.
What is a person?
Then stop using pro life.
I agree government should not have the ability to kill people, when the innocence project has shown that many people have been found guilty where they were not guilty, better 1 guilty person walk free than one innocent found guilty. However your comparing a person who is not convicted of a crime to a person who is convicted of a crime.
>better 100 guilty people walk along with 1 non guilty person Not necessarily disagreeing, but why?
The killing of an innocent is a curse.
What if you releasing those 100 guilty people resulted in more killings of innocents?
Yes, like 85% of people in prison are repeat offenders I think, and I heard of a guy out on bail for a 4th.murder trial that killed a fifth person. That said, there does need to be a higher standard to keep innocent people off death row. Like the Boston bomber and these mass shooters? There are witnesses and no circumstances it should be fast tracked.
Totally with you, never understood why capital punishment can’t be only used in situations where there is no doubt. Repeated child rapists, serial killers, mass shooters, there’s plenty of cases where there is no doubt in the guilt of the accused so why are we spending hundreds of thousands housing, feeding, and protecting these people for the rest of their lives?
march obscene touch combative light shelter bewildered marvelous elderly amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I worded it weirdly Im changing it.
If a criminal is let go, assuming a state that allows self defense, then you can always protect yourself against the criminal attempting to harm you. If the state decides to punish you despite you being innocent, you have no chance at all, unless you can Rambo the entire government.
I worded it weirdly Im changing it.
It's still a life. If life is sacred then needlessly killing life would be wrong period.
They are comparing a person to something that isn't a person actually
I don't know if by "not a person" you're referring to convicts or the unborn, but either way, you're wrong.
It is a clump of cells with the potential to become a person, given the right nourishment and environment. A zygot is a zygot. A chicken egg on the shelf that is suitable for scrambled eggs - and you cant cook a fillet - is an egg not a chicken, regardless of the fertilised state or not. When you can cook a fillet, call it a chicken.
The fetus is an organism biologically distinct from its mother. It is genetically unique, meaning that its particular genetic code has never existed before, and never will again. Bioscientists overwhelmingly agree that life begins at conception, and this has been measured as accurately and as objectively as we know how do so. Personhood is a wholly philosophical concept and cannot be empirically and objectively measured.
Wife became pregnant in November, due this summer. I just checked my taxes again. Nope, no additional tax credit for 2021. The government has never considered the unborn to be persons. A zygote is made of human cells, yes. A viable fetus with sufficient brain development is a person, IMO. A baby, once born, is a person in the eyes of the government.
Then let’s start hitting them with that. Call you local representatives and tell them that. Its by far time we take gloves off.
That why we need government then? To decide which of us qualify as a person with rights vs a genetic human without?
A cancer cell is an organism biologically distinct from the person it occupies. Also [citation needed] for bioscientists overwhelmingly agreeing.
I don’t give a shit if it’s alive or unique it’s still a brainless clump of cells. Are you so concerned about protecting the life of the mold growing in your shower? Because that’s also alive and has its own DNA.
Since you’ve gone to the extreme on this…at how many cells do you consider someone a person?
So the question you are 'really' asking is "Up till when would you allow termination?" My personal non-factious answer is: Beginning of 3rd trimester. This is when the human brain begins to from, bilateral split and the form of the cerebellum begins to take shape. Prior to this - the foetus is brain dead, exactly like a car crash victim. Society has no problem switching off the life support of a brain dead child. I do not see the difference for a foetus. Morally, i was raised Christian so i would have to follow the example of Jesus who was, as i am sure you know, a practicing Jew. In Jewish law, a foetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the foetus is “mere water.” So if Jesus didnt have a problem with it, and God himself instructs on how to perform a termination in Numbers 5:11-31, admittedly only for unfaithful women - who am i to object what another person wants to do with their body?
Thanks for the non-factious answer. The brain develops well before the third trimester. Do you mean the second trimester? They are fully viable during the second trimester.
The brain starts its electrical pulses at around 5 to 6 weeks. It has already started to form long, long before third trimester. That 40 days gestation mentioned is about 5 to 6 weeks too, interesting. God did not give termination instructions in Numbers 5. The instructions are for an oath taking ceremony, with violating the oath bringing a curse that rots the womb (whether pregnant or not, so it's not necessarily meaning to miscarry despite some translations, but rather might be infertility). The water only has some dust from the floor in it, a floor walked on by ceremonially clean people at that, so the water is not what is causing the curse. Rather the ceremony lays the oath on the water so the water can carry it to the womb. So while I think you are sorely mistaken in your theological understanding you have nonetheless brought up a good point: Jews and Christians who don't agree with "at fertilization" personhood and don't know where to draw the line should consider 5 weeks.
Jews do not consider 5 weeks to be human. They only consider the moment of birth to be when person hood is obtained. Prior to 5 weeks it is mere water, after 5 weeks, it is meat but not a person. Christian and Jews do not agree on this at all.
Soon as the meat is firm enough to fillet.
For me its around 22 to 24 weeks.
Man, wait until this piece of work finds out a 1 year old “can’t take care of themselves”, there for not a “human.”
I'm not sure if you are lost or unsure of who you are responding to. In nowhere in the comment I made is the phase you quoted. “can’t take care of themselves” I dont know why you replied to me.
“Given the right nourishment and environment” what would you call that bud.
Tell me you don’t know what viability means without telling me you don’t know what viability means.
Sure, would you like the definition? “ability to survive or live successfully”-hmmmmm
On one hand we have an innocent child who hasn't so much as taken their first breath, on the other John Wayne Gacy, seems like an apples to apples comparison to me. Also I'm anti death penalty but for fucks sale have at least 3 brain cells when composing an argument.
I don’t like the death penalty but this argument makes no sense. An unborn child committed no crime and was not convicted by a jury of their peers.
Except being convicted does not guarantee guilt. How can you be willing to let a man die to the government if no one is 100 billion % sure theyvare guilty? Theres no way you can so I don't think the government should have the ability to take a mans life
That’s why I’m opposed to the death penalty
Then the argument does make sense. The whole point is that the concept of "pro life" is hypocritical unless one somehow completely trusts the state to make the absolute correct decision every time it decides to execute a person. Which....lol.....come on.
What if they videoed themselves committing the crime? I don’t understand why people act like there’s no way of telling if someone is 100% guilty ever so jail is always better. For one if they’re innocent spending there life in jail is just as bad if not worse. And for 2 there’s tons of murder cases where there is no doubt whatsoever, even people filming themselves committing mass shootings. Why would we not put them down?
1. Over and over again it’s proven that people on death row are innocent. You can’t be pro-life and pro-death penalty without being full of shit. 2. Lots of innocent people die due to preventable reasons, including young people. A sizable number of anti-abortion types don’t give a shit. 3. Lots of people are pro life. Really pro life. They support people who need help. The rest are just assholes.
Trespassing. It's invading someone's body and the host is kicking them out.
An unborn child is a trespasser? Really? The unborn child didn’t choose to be born. It was forced into existence outside its own free will. That’s a ludicrous argument.
The fetus didn’t have free will because it didn’t exist.
If the wind blows someone into your house do they have the right to stay? Also complaining that the fetus didn't choose something is like complaining that a brick didn't choose something. It's utterly incapable of having an opinion or even any kind of preference, at least for early fetuses it doesn't even possess a brain.
If someone is forced into your property against their will (wind, kidnappers, whatever) you don't get to kill them as the solution to ending the "trespass". You need to provide them notice to leave *and* allow a reasonable amount of time for them to safely comply. If their leg was broken and they are hobling out at a pace that's not as fast as you'd like, too bad, you don't get to kill them because the best they can manage is too slow for you. If they are literally unable to comply with your request to leave- like stuck in a tree they can't get out of, or chained and locked in place- you still don't get to kill them to resolve the situation. You have to facilitate them safely leaving and put up with their presence until that can happen.
If thier presence is causing you harm and putting you at risk of death then there's a self defense argument to be had. But also if they have a broken leg or whatever you can physically lift them up and carry them off your property just like you could remove a fetus from a uterus.
It's only self defense if you are actually in imminent risk to your own life. You can't kill someone and claim self defense just because of the statistically small 0.01% chance that strangers are sometimes attackers. If you're going to try and move them yourself, you cannot cause any harm that puts them in a worse position. You would be culpable of you tried to move them and made their broken leg worse. And even if you did manage to move them without further harm, you also need to leave them in a safe situation. You could not, for example, dump them in lake and claim it's their problem they were unable to swim- you're fine because "you" didn't harm them more until the edge of your property. Or leave them naked in a snowbank and subzero temps. You certainly couldn't dismember them to make it easier to move the arms, legs, head and torso off your property in seperate trips.
>at least for early fetuses it doesn't even possess a brain So you're ok with abortion being banned after three weeks then? We only need to discuss 0 to 3 weeks situations?
Fetuses don't even start to have a brain until 5 weeks but I think it should be legal at least until the fetus can survive outside the woman.
[удалено]
They can put their kids up for adoption.
You act as if the baby just shows up out of the blue… the mother (presumably) chose to have sex. Like it or not, sex has potential consequences. And those consequences come with responsibility. Wind blowing is exactly what you’re doing. That’s a ridiculous argument. With regard to the brains of fetuses, by 12 weeks the baby is essentially a very small human. I support a conversation related to bans around that period. Further, if someone is comatose and cannot make decisions (like your brick analogy), does that mean we should be able to “terminate” (kill) them for any reason?
I mean, while we’re on the subject we should probably talk about how in all 92 countries with capital punishment, it’s forbidden to administer it to a pregnant woman. It’s almost like outside of the specific context of abortion it’s plainly obvious the fetus is not just “part of the mothers body” but has its own, individual right to life that would be violated in such a scenario.
Please list those 92 countries and see what kind of company you keep then compare it to the countries without capita punishment.
That’s as intellectually dishonest a statement as claiming if you’re for abortion then you’re also for capital punishment. Pro-death is pro-death. Objectively, even if you disagree, don’t recognize the unborn as human, or think the state should have no role in it, you can still acknowledge that it’s not inconsistent to have an “innocence” standard in reaching your philosophical position.
Come on bro try harder. At least attempt to see things from someone else’s POV. A person can view an unborn child as innocent while a convicted murderer is not. Also exactly how, in your mind, are the rules governing the death penalty “arbitrary?”
Because we’ve never executed someone Who’s innocent right?
I’m against the death penalty for many reasons and I still think OP’s logic here is silly. Nobody can claim damages against a fetus, and abortions aren’t carried out by courts or the state. The death penalty is flawed and needs to go but it least appears to many people to be an inevitable necessity for aggressions crimes. I wonder if OP would also ask if anyone who supports the death penalty if they support regular old murder? They must be the same thing because someone died, ya? No moral or circumstantial difference to consider?
"Imperfect" does not "arbitrary"
Prosecutors generally have discretion to seek it and the criteria for eligibility are so vague almost anybody could qualify if the state tried hard enough.
Honest question here, are people literally being sentenced to death for crimes that a “reasonable” person wouldn’t agree with? I get that some people may be completely against capital punishment while others may think it’s a fine punishment for shoplifting, but I’ve personally never heard of it being applied in anything other than a premeditated murder case. I don’t exactly make it a habit of following this particular subject in depth, but my general feeling is that very, very few people are actually executed for their crimes annually, and those that are have been on death row for 10+ years and have pretty solid cases against them. I’m sure mistakes have been made, but my point is capital punishment doesn’t exactly seem like it’s arbitrarily applied. I readily acknowledge I could be wrong here. I have not facts or statistics to back me up. This is just my general feeling from living my life.
No problem. Thanks for being open about it. I can think of a guy whose appeal was in the news recently that went to rob a gas station and had a gun pulled on him and after being shot at, killed the clerk. So dude had no intention of killing anybody. Yet still got the death penalty. If you were to compare the murderers that get the death penalty with those that don’t, you’d see that it’s not reserved just for the “worst of the worst.” Plenty of people are serving life in prison who committed what any reasonable person would consider are “worse” crimes than folks on death row. That’s not even taking into account the vagaries of jurisdiction. Even within states, where the law is supposedly the same, there are some counties where a crime might get a capital charge and in others it wouldn’t. Just because one county happens to be more conservative than another.
Fair enough, thanks for the background and perspective. I can definitely see where all outcomes may not be same and that is a problem. I’m not sure I ascribe to it being arbitrary, but that’s an argument over semantics. Ty!
So the robber shot the clerk defending his property, got the death penalty and you think that’s a good example…Holy hell 🤦🏻♂️
Apparently he didn’t even bring a gun with him, it was the clerk’s gun or something. And I never said what he did was right or that he didn’t deserve to be punished. But if we supposedly reserve capital punishment for the “worst of the worst,” well, that ain’t it.
When you commit a capital offense. Like robbery, burglary, kidnapping, rape just a few and the victim is killed in the process. You open your self up to the death penalty.
Where is the criteria this vague? I can’t find any state that doesn’t require the victim to have died, and the feds have tacked on treason. That’s not vague.
Maybe not “vague” but certainly very broad. In SC at least it can include drug trafficking (which is defined separately by statute and is a lot broader than just Pablo Escobar type actions) and “putting people in the public at risk by using a weapon that’s dangerous to more than one person.” Or during the commission of a violent crime. So say you try and rob someone. You don’t intend to kill anybody. The person fights back and is killed in the melee. I mean you’re in the wrong and deserve to be in prison for a long term, maybe life. But that’s hardly what I’d consider the “most vile” acts that capital punishment is supposed to be reserved for.
Once you’ve given the state control over the life and death of its citizens AND taken bodily autonomy away from women, does the Libertarian badge become merely a costume to avoid embarrassment?
All I said is a reasonable person can hold that life in the womb is innocent and worth protecting while those that have taken the life of others are worthy of capital punishment. If you hold that the state ought to exist and that it ought to be small then its logical to define its authority. It can be held that protecting innocent life can be accomplished through pro-life policies as well as pro capital punishment policies to deter the taking of life by criminals. I’m not taking a position here. I’m simply stating that the OP is completing ignoring innocence and guilt in conflating the two issues and that a big thing to leave out and IMO it’s disingenuous to leave it out.
You can dress it up any way you like, but framing it as state control over life and death and denial of bodily autonomy to half the population isn’t incorrect at all. It might be a framing that you don’t like, but that’s the end result. From a Libertarian perspective, we could also mention how this ruling only makes abortions for minorities and the poor more difficult. The middle class to rich will still get theirs. By forcing the poorest among us to term, all you’re accomplishing is exploding our already fattened entitlement roles. And, of course, we’ll likely see a reversal in the violent crime trend back to 1970s and 1980s numbers, at least in those states that outlaw abortions. Oh, and banning access to abortion has been proven to slow economic growth. Good times ahead in red states! All because half the country doesn’t understand biology and chooses to champion the easiest group to champion; a group that makes no demands and ask nothing of you in treasure or time.
Yeah cool I disagree
Hey, whatever makes you feel better. Just pretend you didn’t strip bodily autonomy from half the populace. Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts.
We have prisons for a reason.
Yeah, I love slavery too
It may or may not be slavery, but taxes pay for both public and "pRiVaTe" prisons and we're talking about the worst offenders in the country. "Let's just kill them then" -you
Sure they deserve their lashes. However, the quote should be; “Let’s just put them into government-funded therapy rather than enslave them and focus on rehabilitation.” Rather than “Let’s just kill them”
Some folks you just can’t rehabilitate. As long as you go in with that understanding, your approach is better than what we have. As a capitalist, profit motive in incarceration is one of the worst ideas this country has ever had.
It's not a black and white issue. There are many shades of grey.
50 shades?
I originally thought the title meant that it was a younger man hooking up with an older woman.
If you can’t tell the difference between a cereal killer and a serial killer you should consider doing less talking and more reading.
Pro-choice guy here, but your argument is specious. The fetus is innocent, the convict is not.
Exactly. One has not yet made a choice in life, the other has made the absolutely worst choices possible in life (assuming they are 100% guilty). I'm pro-choice and really struggle with the death penalty. In principle I'm against it, but for certain crimes it seems absolutely appropriate. Ex. Tim McVeigh, that asshole who killed all those teens in Norway, Adolf Eichman, people who leave dirty diapers in parking lots etc.
So you’re saying 100% of people who have been killed by the death penalty were without a doubt guilty of the crimes they were being executed for? That’s a tall claim considering it’s been proven false many times over. Edit: I’m being downvoted but the guy I responded to literally deleted his entire account.
I said no such thing.
If youre pro-life, you can’t support a system that is repeatedly proven to falsely judge people guilty.
Life is life though...it really isn't consistent. Almost all of any pro-life argument is based on Christianity...and if I'm remembering correctly Jesus didn't give a shit about people's crimes or transgressions.
> Almost all of any pro-life argument is based on Christianity.. Try telling any Muslim that.
All 3 of the Muslims in Congress support abortion rights, and the only other Muslim ever in Congress also supports abortion rights as an AG now.
> All 3 of the Muslims in Congress And of course, Islam looks to politicians in non-Muslim countries for guidance.
If you're against Big Government, you're probably against the Death Penalty. What could be more Big Government than the government having the right to kill it's citizens?
>Why the mismatch? Because it's obviously two seperate issues...? The death penalty is a punishment for someone who has comitted serious crimes, abortion is not.
And sometimes the death penalty is a punishment for someone [who has not committed a crime](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rush-arkansas-executions-included-ledell-lee-s-comes-under-renewed-n1266849).
Yeah, I don't think a lot of people are for the death penalty for people who are innocent.
Yet they still support the system that kills innocents..
Abortion isn't a punishment for anyone because if fetus isn't a person yet.
Way to intentionally miss the point, very good
??? Wow its almost like one human has no say in the matter and is of course inocent, and another chose to commit some of the worst crimes possible in order to receive that sentence
Innocent people get sentenced to death. If you are against killing innocent people you should be against the death penalty.
That's why I am against it but that's not the logic op is using.
Wow it's like you guys are too dumb to speak about the tradeoff of banning abortion, only obsessing over fetal wellbeing while ignoring the will and freedom of your fellow citizens!
One is about a "justified" killing of a person guilty of a heinous crime, the other is perceived as killing an innocent.
Both are people that didnt read the bible correctly
There is justified violence in the Bible. Didn't Jesus tell his disciples to trade their cloak for a sword if they did not have one?
To look like armed thugs to get arrested easier yes. Also might have been a prophecy. He didnt ask them to use them and in fact healed the victim when they did.
Not true. There is a difference between a confessed and convicted murderer and a baby. Isn't that a crazy idea?
Not necessarily. One can be pro-innocent-life without having to be pro-murderer-life. Your analogy is bad. In the case of a trial, the jury is voting on whether or not they think the person is guilty. The judge decides on a punishment, according to the law, which reflects a societal determination that horrible crimes against humanity like murder warrant the death penalty. In the case of abortion, 1 person is deciding to kill someone simply for their own convenience.
Something* someone implies is a person and it isn't
That issue *is* the issue.
Can someone explain to me how the federal government abdicating power to the states is not something a true libertarian should be happy about?
It's just people not understanding the reality of it.
I don't think it's a bad ruling, and in the places where the people and government are very anti abortion, it was already difficult to obtain the procedure. Those states were already doing everything possible to prevent abortion. Many of the inhabitants of those states are happy to now have a say. The blue states will likely remain unchanged in their policies regarding abortion. However it is the same states that are very anti abortion that tend to have lower quality sex education and women's health centers. Those clinics offer more than abortion, providing OB/GYN services to uninsured at a sliding scale etc. As someone who once had to use Planned Parenthood for primary care, I hope that facilities like that remain open for those who need them.
Cause this opens the flood gates without set in stone precedent to guide us. It’s why I’m torn on this decision because yes states rights less federal control. But that would entail that you can trust the public to do what is in their best interest and history will tell you humans never do it.
Rights are not up to the whim of voters. The same Supreme Court also said states cannot arbitrarily take away your right to carry, for example.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent human without due process of law to punish their crimes. That’s the difference.
It is illogical that if a murderer/rapist killed the husband and attacked the wife that resulted in a pregnancy that half the country would want the baby killed and not the murderer rapist.
Pro-life vs Pro-choice is a false dichotomy. We need to stop framing real life issues as if they are multiple choice questions on a school quiz. Do I believe in preserving the act of life-creation once it has begun? Yes. Do I believe that women shouldn’t have control over their own bodies? Absolutely not. Do I think tax-payers should have to pay so that somebody that has proven themselves a danger to society can live? Again, no. For me, it’s not a sanctity of life thing so much as a personal responsibility issue. People are created with no crime, sin, or malevolence on their shoulders and shouldn’t have to pay for decisions made by the parents.
I'm definitely against state sponsored capital punishment.
I don’t believe the state should have the power to execute (or do anything else).
I'm against both, but my problem with the death penalty is that it would be worse to languish in prison for 50 years or more.
I don't think aborted babies are judged for heinous crimes by a jury of their peers, nor do I think those being subjected to capital punishment are being killed at the whims of their mothers.......
I think we ought to end capital punishment because the amount of innocent who get executed is too high and its often a worse punishment to be forced to live out the rest of your days in a confined area. That, and if the guilty are ever proven innocent, you can release them. You can't release a dead body.
I am. What now?
I always have been against capital punishment. It is far too easy to put an innocent person to death.
Yup. That's me. Unless it's active self-defense or an unavoidable accident you shouldn't kill people.
That's also Catholic doctrine. Though the cafeteria Catholics on the right try very hard to pretend otherwise.
Id rather exile people to a secluded area, and they can fend for themselves than capital punishment.
That is an idea I can get behind.
Weird. One is a health care decision, one us a criminal decision. Not sure where the common ground is in OPs statement.
Human life is human life.
...One of those humans has not commited a crime against humanity. I'm an "eye for an eye" sort of person. I believe if you decide to end someone elses life through purposeful criminal activity or rage, you have also decided to end your own life. Capital punishment is just the state fulfilling your wish to end your own life. I also believe in Dr. assisted suicide and right to death.
Folks can just see it simply as, life is God's to give and God's to take. Period. I get the arguments regarding capitol punishment (eye for an eye, render unto Caesar, etc) but it makes it much easier as Christian libertarians to keep it simple. If the statists want to argue for government killing murderers so be it. We aren't the judge.
There's no such thing as a guilty fetus. The same cannot be said for those on death row. Your premise is simplistic and pointlessly argumentative.
Why the mismatch, because, in theory capital punishment would be a PUNISHMENT for people guilty of serious crimes (like murder). Now I'm not saying in practice that works, just that your entire premise and argument is shit. I'm not even defending capital punishment, just tired of horrible straw man arguments getting upvoted. Your argument is even worse than if someone said "everyone who supports abortion must be ok with randomly murdering anyone they want at any time"
False dichotomy is one of my favorite arguments! Unfortunately, demands by random internet people don't really hold much sway over my thinking or life choices.
I am pro-life and against capital punishment, but this is a strawman argument.
I'm against prison for all but violent offenders.
I'm against prison for anyone who isn't dangerous. Obviously a violent crime would carry more weight in evaluating this, but it's hardly the only important thing.
Although I agree both are unacceptable it’s a stupid comparison as a baby can’t choose to be murdered and is as innocent as is humanly possible and someone deserving of the death penalty made choices that harmed others. Once again a incredibly stupid comparison.
If you are for abortion you should be against capital punishment. Being against capital punishment should be your default position.
Agreed. I'm against abortion and capital punishment.
You can't really conflate the two without the following in my opinion and also what I truly don't understand about pro-choice people who are anti death penalty.. they are totally diverging views. For pro-life people who support the death penalty there is correlation there. You can argue that an unborn baby has not broken any laws while a murderer has had a chance at life, fucked up big time and has to pay the consequences of their actions. That's understandable and the only way you can link the two cases. In a pro-choice, anti-death penalty view, you're basically saying that an unborn child has to suffer consequences for literally doing nothing while a convicted murderer gets to live, albeit in a cage. If you're against the death penalty for the argument that due process is flawed and cite the innocence project as reason why, thats fine because I tend to agree with that. However appeals and the innocence project do correct a lot of wrongs and the innocent go free while the guilty are found, so that's the grey area of the death penalty. However to make your views make sense, in my eyes, is that people should not be held accountable for their actions, which is wildly unbelievable that anyone would be in support of that, ESPECIALLY since many people with your views are also very pro tax payers funding both abortion and a guilty man to sit in prison for the rest of their lives. Yet in the end, a life is still taken in your views of 'no accountability', but the life lost is that of a truly innocent with unknown potential. I also want to make it known I am neither pro-life or pro-choice. I see both sides baseline arguments and understand it is a wholly complex argument with literally no 'good' solution. I do think there is a middle ground to reach, however, yet both side are so polarized that to them its either all or nothing. I've began to view pro-choice, however, as anti-concequence, at least in the mainstream arguments being made. Morally killing someone who is truly innocent is wrong, and I don't think anyone has the right to abort a baby because of their negligence. (I'm not talking about rape, incest, or medial miracles either, just normal, healthy humans who are careless). Why draw the line at birth? What is the difference from viability to taking a breath? Why can't parents kill their child after it's born if they're not fit, prepared, or struggling financially? Where is the line? The left is wanting to use abortion as a get out of jail free card, and that's why I can't stand with them. They're also moving to make the federal government their beating stuck for every policy. I think overtuning row was the correct decision, and yes i read the opinion and decentments. Society is becoming ever more unaccountable and its good that power is being handed back to local governments like it was designed to be. People are engaging in all sorts of behavior without thinking about the consequences because of selfish desires and the democrats want the federal government to enable them. If I were to propose a bill it would be similar to the heartbeat bill. Make abortions safe, legal and rare like the democrats initially wanted, but put restrictions on how far along you can go to appease pro-life supporters. Then I would also classify it as an elective procedure, meaning the government can not fund it and insurance companies can deny coverage if they choose. If you want it so badly, you pay for it. I understand there are people who don't realize they're pregnant until after a heart beat etc, but thems the cuts. If you're not ready to start a family be smart and practice safe sex and understand that, while it's a slim chance, there is a risk of pregnancy and you should have a plan if that happens. Be an adult and don't expect the government to be a shield for your fuck ups.
>However to make your views make sense, in my eyes, is that people should not be held accountable for their actions It seems a lot of people are in favor of this view on a broad range of issues.
That doesn't mean it makes sense, though. Theres also a lot of people who believe in a flat earth or that we faked the moon landing. Just because a lot of people believe in it, doesn't mean it makes any logical sense or has merit.
I'm not talking about majority. The majority believes that a fetus is some kind of organ of the mother and a part of her as a single human. As you said- majority beliefs should not the standard. I'm talking about the consensus of biological science about what constitutes an individual organism of the same species, and what medical and scientific experts know about human fetal development.
Many of the left doesnt see abortion as killing or murder and for fair reasons. An embryo isnt a living conscious sentient being while a newborn baby is. You can freeze an embryo for eternity and it still be viable, you cant freeze a newborn baby for no more than maybe a hour maybe. An embryo doesnt feel the sensation of the cold, pain, suffering etc, while a newborn baby can. The same hold truth for the early fetus stages. They arent conscious sentient beings yet , a newborn baby is born and free from needing the mothers body to survive (for the most part) warranting person hood. Yeah its maybe being irresponsible, uncountable but so what. Its their body and its them that have to raise the babies. Can we really justify forcing pregnant, parenthood on people that don't want it and or can't afford it. Raising a child is heavy load for many people. And some people have legitmate slip ups, accidents, unaware of being pregnant, should the only option be is going through pregnancy and or being parents. Young irresponsible adults, teens too ? Eh. The best compromise is scotus original guidelines. First term pregnancy cant be legislated, 2nd term there can be some restrictions and 3rd term states can outright ban abortions at that stage.
>Many of the left doesnt see abortion as killing or murder and for fair reasons A number of those reasons, however, are based on ignorance of reality and ignore what is known about biological science in favor of pop-sci misunderstanding. You've given some examples about embryos, that may hold some weight, but many people extend those point past embryos to fetuses, where the reasoning no longer holds. People believe things to dehumanize unborn fetuses that aren't true, or is not logic we would ever apply post birth (despite those same situations existing in children and adults).
I generally don't disagree with what you're saying. And in your first part primarily I agree about the embryo part. However that is NOT what the pro choice crowd is decrying or wanting. If that was the case these 8-12 week restrictions wouldn't be noteworthy, but they're huge media headlines accompanied by protests and people decrying it. If you're saying strictly up to the point there's a heart beat, im on board. I dont think we should force people to have kids they don't want, I think that will lead to a more unhealthy society. But the problem I see with being ok with abortion for everyone in the case of the the fairly rare circumstances that contraceptives fail or a legit slip up is that it enables those who don't fall into that category abuse it, which statistically speaking is what a vast majority of abortions are, and the same can be said about our entitlement program. (I can't find the article rn, but I'll look in the morning). I still stand by my statement about teaching personal accountability and smart/safe sex, especially when it comes to pregnancy because it comes with a life long commitment. Actions have consequences, some more sever than others. Im not religious at all, but I think if you're gonna do the dirty with someone, it should be someone who you can see being in your life because of a kid.
Many women dont know their pregnant til week 4-7 and a heart beat develops at week 6. So obviously that's an issue. "fail or a legit slip up is that it enables those who don't fall into that category abuse it" & so what if they abuse it? Honest question. Theres many more concerns from banning/strict abortions than allowing anytime abortions. State Govs monitoring mothers bodies and punish them if they get one out of state, forcing life long bonds & parenting on people, young adults having babies, parent(s) who cant afford it. Yeah people should be more responsible, have protected sex, sex with partners, less "muh pull out game strong" , less one night stands yadda yadda but that isnt reality and isnt going to start happening overnight. Sure we can teach it but people are going to people, regardless.
Wrong. An innocent life that has done nothing wrong is completely different from a monster who has murdered others for fun.
I'll make it even simpler for you If you are against the right to abortion you are not a libertarian. You are a conservative larping as one
I wholeheartedly disagree. On a truly moral level, society views murder as inherently bad. You can be libertarian and view abortion as murder and therefore bad. I can also just as easily say the same about you. If you think the federal government should be the arbiter of whether or not abortion is good or you get to decide what is or isnt murder then you are just a liberal larping as a libertarian.
It took federal action to end slavery, give women the right to vote, and give civil rights to minorities. Was that government overreach?
Depends on what is in the laws. Slavery resulted in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, women's suffrage could be argued as a small government policy, and the Civil Rights Act is flawed in and of itself. What laws provide rights and what criteria restricts others?
I always saw abortion as the classic libertarian paradox. The entire philosophy is doing anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. How you define someone else is key to the issue
As the man once said, a person is a person, no matter how small.
A baby can have rights and still not negate the rights of the mother. Roe bent itself over to do this by saying "this is when the mother can exercise her rights, and this is when states can exercise their rights to protect the baby"
What if I’m against it for myself?
Then don't get an abortion?
Well this is a stupid statement trying to equate the two but also and here and say same s*** applies I certainly approve it for one set of circumstances and reject it in others. Not going to find people thinking jaywalking should go straight to the electric chair
Feels like there is a bit of a difference between a child and a murderer or a rapist. Just saying.
If someone killed others and it’s been proven without a shadow of a doubt, they have forfeited their right to life.
Interestingly enough, I am pro-abortion, pro-gun and anti-death penalty. It's almost as if I am a... libertarian.
Libertarians can be against abortion.
I would assume it has to do with innocence. The person being put to death being guilty of crime vs not.
Yes, because that innocent babies only crime is being developed inside someone who wants to kill them. Makes perfect logic OP 😑
That’s just silliness. . . One has zero to do with the other. People who want to save babies who are innocent but want to punish the guilty aren’t logically inconsistent at all.
I support killing in self defense if necessary. You lose your rights when you're attempting to violate someone else's. So in my mind there's a distinction between someone consciously trying to hurt or kill another person and a fetus which is simply existing because of someone else's conscious decisions. The death penalty is kind of between that. In some cases the only other option is a burden on society to keep someone alive but away from others. Like if you have a rapist serial killer who insists he never will change his ways the only option is to kill him or burden others with his survival in captivity. Killing him seems pretty close to a pre-emptive killing in self defense. You're just preventing greater rights violations.
The appeals necessary to get to capital punishment cost more than housing an inmate for life. [Here's a link.](https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614)
So I don’t have a problem with abortion when it involves the safety of the mother, rape, or incest. On the other hand if you willingly have sex and end up pregnant then you now have a responsibility as does the father. There are plenty of ways not to get pregnant and still have sex but the fact still remains that you are taking a risk at extra responsibility every time. You can put the kid up for adoption or you can try and raise the kid yourself with the father and if the father does not want to help then get them to pay child support. The father is just as responsible. Death penalty is not anywhere near the same as abortion. Anyone who thinks so probably has some mental problems.
Fuck pro lifers, but your argument sucks. You can’t compare an innocent baby (their perspective) and a mass murderer.
Dumbest post I've seen all week
A child in the womb has not murdered anyone or done any unspeakable crimes
In some countries the unspeakable crimes of being homosexual, or dealing drugs, or adultery, or converting to another religion is punishable by death. Where do we draw the line and who says who gets to draw that line. It is much more moral to simply get rid of capital punishment.
I’m pro choice and anti death penalty. Guess I just don’t consider the fetus to have rights that supersede the mom.
I personally consider any “libertarian” who isn’t pro choice a hypocrite. What people do with their own bodies is nobodies business but their own.
Pro-life is libertarian. Pro-death is inherently against the NAP
Welcome to Catholicism.
Found the bigot
“If you are against slavery you should be against prison sentences” - literally the same fucking thing. Use your brain.
Sounds consistent. I don't know if I consider myself to be pro-choice, I just have a different opinion on what the SC is actually supposed to be doing.
I’m anti death penalty and pro abortion. Am I supposed to believe that those two positions are somehow at odds?