I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]
This is what I don’t get. Our justice system considers it a life, unless the mother decides she wants to let a doctor kill it. Then it isn’t. How does that make any sense to anyone?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
There is an inconsistency in being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.[/quote]
How so? If you get the death penalty, did you not knowingly and willfully take a life? Did that unborn child do that?[/quote]
Killing another is only justifiable in self-defense. Nobody is defending himself when the death penalty is administered-it is murder.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]
This is what I don’t get. Our justice system considers it a life, unless the mother decides she wants to let a doctor kill it. Then it isn’t. How does that make any sense to anyone?[/quote]
It doesn’t at all. It’s ridiculous and is a symptom of the rule of law having been done away with.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]
This is what I don’t get. Our justice system considers it a life, unless the mother decides she wants to let a doctor kill it. Then it isn’t. How does that make any sense to anyone?[/quote]
Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
There is an inconsistency in being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.[/quote]
How so? If you get the death penalty, did you not knowingly and willfully take a life? Did that unborn child do that?[/quote]
Killing another is only justifiable in self-defense. Nobody is defending himself when the death penalty is administered-it is murder.[/quote]
Disagree there. If you kill someone out of malice, you should be killed. Not murder, retribution.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
There is an inconsistency in being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.[/quote]
This I don’t agree with.
The difference between the two is one is an innocet party and the other is guilty of robbing someone else of life and liberty. As a society we should protect the innocent and punish the guilty accordingly.
[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong-I 110% support the right of the victim to defend himself by any means necessary. Killing someone when they no longer are an imminent threat, though, is murder.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
There is an inconsistency in being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.[/quote]
This I don’t agree with.
The difference between the two is one is an innocet party and the other is guilty of robbing someone else of life and liberty. As a society we should protect the innocent and punish the guilty accordingly.
[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong-I 110% support the right of the victim to defend himself by any means necessary. Killing someone when they no longer are an imminent threat, though, is murder. [/quote]
I mean, I don’t really care what you call it. Call it murder. I’m 100% in favor of the death penalty. Rabid dogs should be put down imo.
What if person A kills person B and survives. He’s incarcerated, released after 20 years, and then kills person C. What then?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.[/quote]
Salvage=adoption. Abortion=murder.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]
This is what I don’t get. Our justice system considers it a life, unless the mother decides she wants to let a doctor kill it. Then it isn’t. How does that make any sense to anyone?[/quote]
Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.[/quote]
But you can only murder something that is alive. Therefore, if our justice system considers the baby alive in the womb, then ending its life, regardless of whether or not the mother wants it, would be murder would it not? Or do mothers get to decide whether or not their babies can live? If that’s the case then why cant a teen chunk her baby in the trash and let it die? She didn’t want it, and it was dependent on her to live, what’s the difference?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
IF something is living parasitically off you, then you really do have a right to kill it.[/quote]
Are we willing to take this argument to its logical conclusion?[/quote]
Oh please do… 'cause that was the biggest logic fail I have seen in a long time. So I want to see how one can defend that with logic.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Here is a question for the anti-abortion crowd that they never seem to have an answer for. Who are going to take all these kids if abortion is done away with??[/quote]
So, by the very fact that a kid is unwanted, they should be killed? There’s some logic for you…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, I don’t really care what you call it. Call it murder. I’m 100% in favor of the death penalty. Rabid dogs should be put down imo.
What if person A kills person B and survives. He’s incarcerated, released after 20 years, and then kills person C. What then? [/quote]
Sounds like the state made a poor decision in releasing him. I would prefer to not give the entity that made that poor decision the power to decide life and death. Also, there’s no way to guarantee safety. I would prefer to not allow murder under any circumstance.
What if person A kills person B and survives. Big Daddy Gov arrests person C for that murder. Person C is convicted of murdering person B and put to death. Person A then murders person D. What then?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
IF something is living parasitically off you, then you really do have a right to kill it.[/quote]
Are we willing to take this argument to its logical conclusion?[/quote]
Oh please do… 'cause that was the biggest logic fail I have seen in a long time. So I want to see how one can defend that with logic.[/quote]
Sits back and starts to eat some popcorn.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, I don’t really care what you call it. Call it murder. I’m 100% in favor of the death penalty. Rabid dogs should be put down imo.
What if person A kills person B and survives. He’s incarcerated, released after 20 years, and then kills person C. What then? [/quote]
Sounds like the state made a poor decision in releasing him. I would prefer not give the entity that made that poor decision the power to decide life and death.
What if person A kills person B and survives. Big Daddy Gov arrests person C for that murder. Person C is convicted of murdering person B and put to death. Person A then murders person D. What then? [/quote]
First off a jury of his peers convicts person A. It isn’t until then that the state comes up with the penalty. His peers (us) found him guilty not the state.
We’ve had this talk before, you and I, so I don’t think we really need to go dowm this rabbit hole again. We just disagree here.
I’d say person C got screwed and person A should be put to death. With thousands of murders a year I bet this scenario doesn’t happen that often especially since most state are much more likely to give life in prison over the death penalty and jury’s think CSI is the real deal. I don’t know the numbers, but I’m sure only a few inmates are put to death each year even though thousands are murdered.
It’s all a mute point, at least here in MD. A person could kill 50 people and get no more than life in prison.
Question, isn’t life in prison a death sentence by the state? Do you support that?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Babie’s life vs. Mother’s freedom. When you boil it down that’s really the isse. All BS aside, I’m siding with the baby every single time. [/quote]
It is two lives. That is the issue…not just the kid’s life or the mom’s life…and I would personally say the one with a conscious mind has the responsibility to look out for herself first.[/quote]
It is not 2 lives. It is 1 life and 1’s freedom. Unless I’ve missed that woman are dying in child birth by the thousands.
Don’t agree. 9 months is nothing compared to an average life span of what 70 years. [/quote]
No, it is TWO LIVES. One who is conscious and one who is not and isn’t a fully developed human being yet.
That fully developed human should have the right to protect their own body if the means are available. You are talking about the entire course of someone’s life.
maybe that abortion means that mother with no education can now become a doctor and support all of her kids later.
Maybe having that kid would have resulted in two people on welfare instead of later on one in med school.[/quote]
A baby born is far from a fully developed human being. Humans only quit developing when they start decaying.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
License plate making can support a woman and her 5 children? I need to reconsider my career path I didn’t realize there were so many opportunities, must be a shortage of prisoners or something.[/quote]
Shouldn’t have 5 kids if all you can do is make license plates. [/quote]
I doubt anyone would disagree. The problem is letting a child suffer for something it has no control over. [/quote]
Like I said, make the parents pay for them even if it means they are indentured servants for the rest of their lives. [/quote]
Faced with that do you think abortions will really stop or just go underground again.
[/quote]
Or mothers will just abandon their babies. [/quote]
Do you think death for a baby is better than abondonment? Assuming the child is found of course. [/quote]
For a baby? No. But we are talking about a fetus.
Personally, I don’t like abortion. There is something revolting about it however, I am pro-choice because I don’t believe my personal feelings should trump someone else’s rights, especially when I am a man (who obviously can’t get pregnant) and the people I would be oppressing, for lack of a better word, are the ones who have to deal with this issue directly. [/quote]
That’s a cop out stance. This is human life we are talking about, not bubble-up vs trickle down economics.
Further, you just imposed your personal feelings on others by participating in this thread and sharing them, and defending them as the ‘right stance’. So clearly, you don’t mind imposing your personal feelings on others.
I don’t give a shit if people like it or not, abortion is murder and human life should be defended.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]
If you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with double murder.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First off a jury of his peers convicts person A. It isn’t until then that the state comes up with the penalty. His peers (us) found him guilty not the state.
We’ve had this talk before, you and I, so I don’t think we really need to go dowm this rabbit hole again. We just disagree here.
I’d say person C got screwed and person A should be put to death. With thousands of murders a year I bet this scenario doesn’t happen that often especially since most state are much more likely to give life in prison over the death penalty and jury’s think CSI is the real deal. I don’t know the numbers, but I’m sure only a few inmates are put to death each year even though thousands are murdered.
It’s all a mute point, at least here in MD. A person could kill 50 people and get no more than life in prison.
Question, isn’t life in prison a death sentence by the state? Do you support that? [/quote]
Exactly. A jury convicts, but the state decides the punishment. I believe that’s exactly what I said…
Person C definitely got screwed. I, for one, am not willing to accept the legalized murder of even one innocent person.
A life sentence provides the rest of the convicted person’s life to uncover evidence showing that he’s not guilty. I’m not the biggest fan of the state handing out a punishment, period.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First off a jury of his peers convicts person A. It isn’t until then that the state comes up with the penalty. His peers (us) found him guilty not the state.
We’ve had this talk before, you and I, so I don’t think we really need to go dowm this rabbit hole again. We just disagree here.
I’d say person C got screwed and person A should be put to death. With thousands of murders a year I bet this scenario doesn’t happen that often especially since most state are much more likely to give life in prison over the death penalty and jury’s think CSI is the real deal. I don’t know the numbers, but I’m sure only a few inmates are put to death each year even though thousands are murdered.
It’s all a mute point, at least here in MD. A person could kill 50 people and get no more than life in prison.
Question, isn’t life in prison a death sentence by the state? Do you support that? [/quote]
Exactly. A jury convicts, but the state decides the punishment. I believe that’s exactly what I said…
Person C definitely got screwed. I, for one, am not willing to accept the legalized murder of even one innocent person.
A life sentence provides the rest of the convicted person’s life to uncover evidence showing that he’s not guilty. I’m not the biggest fan of the state handing out a punishment, period. [/quote]
Yup, like I said, we just don’t agree and it’s largely irrelevant as the death penalty is quickly going away.