youngblood wrote:Here's the thing about the death penalty: you don't have to pay for them for the rest of their lives. Example: 22 year old kills 4 people in a robbery and gets life in prison. Due to our amazing food and prison system, he lives to the ripe old age of 55 while never paying taxes or anything, Americans pay for him to be alive. This could cost millions of dollars. I believe the cost of the death penalty is several hundred thousand dollars. It's a wee cheaper. In the end, though I don't actually think we have the authority to outright kill someone.

Greebynog wrote:

youngblood wrote:Here's the thing about the death penalty: you don't have to pay for them for the rest of their lives. Example: 22 year old kills 4 people in a robbery and gets life in prison. Due to our amazing food and prison system, he lives to the ripe old age of 55 while never paying taxes or anything, Americans pay for him to be alive. This could cost millions of dollars. I believe the cost of the death penalty is several hundred thousand dollars. It's a wee cheaper. In the end, though I don't actually think we have the authority to outright kill someone.

Go back and read this thread. Executing someone costs more than life in prison.

youngblood wrote:

Greebynog wrote:

youngblood wrote:Here's the thing about the death penalty: you don't have to pay for them for the rest of their lives. Example: 22 year old kills 4 people in a robbery and gets life in prison. Due to our amazing food and prison system, he lives to the ripe old age of 55 while never paying taxes or anything, Americans pay for him to be alive. This could cost millions of dollars. I believe the cost of the death penalty is several hundred thousand dollars. It's a wee cheaper. In the end, though I don't actually think we have the authority to outright kill someone.

Go back and read this thread. Executing someone costs more than life in prison.

Read that. If you look at where the extra cost comes from, it stems from the proceedings and all of the extra legislation. If the death penalty were reworked and stream lined, it could be quite cost effective. Look at the studies that say it's more expensive and the actual procedures are quite cost effective. With that said, I still am not for it. I'd RATHER have someone in prison for life than kill them. I'm just saying that you gotta look at the details of why the death penalty is more expensive.

Kilkrazy wrote:

youngblood wrote:

Greebynog wrote:

youngblood wrote:Here's the thing about the death penalty: you don't have to pay for them for the rest of their lives. Example: 22 year old kills 4 people in a robbery and gets life in prison. Due to our amazing food and prison system, he lives to the ripe old age of 55 while never paying taxes or anything, Americans pay for him to be alive. This could cost millions of dollars. I believe the cost of the death penalty is several hundred thousand dollars. It's a wee cheaper. In the end, though I don't actually think we have the authority to outright kill someone.

Go back and read this thread. Executing someone costs more than life in prison.

Read that. If you look at where the extra cost comes from, it stems from the proceedings and all of the extra legislation. If the death penalty were reworked and stream lined, it could be quite cost effective. Look at the studies that say it's more expensive and the actual procedures are quite cost effective. With that said, I still am not for it. I'd RATHER have someone in prison for life than kill them. I'm just saying that you gotta look at the details of why the death penalty is more expensive.

Read my post above which points out the various problems of not allowing appeals for capital crimes.

Greebynog wrote:Sorry, you must be new to the Dakka Dakka OT forum. This isn't how we operate down here. You don't just offer your opinion then if rebutted well think about your stance and readjust it, you just keep on typing ill-informed rants untill someone says something stupid and the thread gets locked. Repeat ad infinitum.

Greebynog wrote:Sorry, you must be new to the Dakka Dakka OT forum. This isn't how we operate down here. You don't just offer your opinion then if rebutted well think about your stance and readjust it, you just keep on typing ill-informed rants untill someone says something stupid and the thread gets locked. Repeat ad infinitum.

Mango wrote:Spartanghost,
1. If someone is missing a limb, they no longer have the requisite parts. Can we kill them? So number of parts does not a human make. Appearance is also a poor method. A white person looks different than a yellow looks different than a black, yet except for racial supremacists who tend to make those judgments based off of emotion rather than reason, most people would agree that all of the disparate ethnic groups are still humans. Making a judgment based off of appearance tends to lead to genocide. Location does not determine if something is human. If you use location, say inside the womb instead outside, you could easily define it as inside a prison or outside it. Dwarfs are also much smaller than normal, yet they are still human.
[\quote]

You make a good point, but this type of definition of a human being can't be boolean like that. There would of course be ranges. for instance, with this definition, the human in question would have to be above the minimum size that a fetus is at the time it is generally capable of surviving outside the womb. I agree judging on appearances is generally wrong, but only when it's a narrow range of appearances. for instance, if you have something that is shaped similarly to an adult human, but has a larger jaw, no nose, and green skin, it's not a human, it's an ork. The location argument isn't that general. I'm not saying anyone can decide any location denies humanity, but certain places can. the womb is one of them. If you create a computer program that represents itself as a hologram that looks, feels and acts exactly human (like the Doctor in star trek voyager), it fills all criteria for humanity, except that it exists primarily in a computer's cyberspace. Humans are not currently capable of existing in such a place, therefor something there is not human. Bing in a womb however, does not preclude one from becoming human.

Mango wrote:
2. My point was not that if it is not natural therefore it is bad. My point was that Society does not assign blame to individuals for results outside of their control, for example dyeing from a heart attack, versus being murdered. One is a “natural cause” meaning no person is to blame. In murder, one person took a deliberate action that a reasonable person would know would result in the death of another person.

Alright. Just a misunderstanding then.

Mango wrote:
3. Hence why I said immature human. Maturity (and here I am using the term as it relates to physical maturity rather than emotional maturity). Is also a poor measure on deciding what is human. A human typically does not reach full maturity until 25 or so. Would it be permissible to kill anyone under 25 without penalty?

This is a good point. I could say that there's different levels of physical maturity, and a potential/immature human would have to reach a certain level of physical maturity to be an actual human. Children have to reach certain levels of physical maturity before they are considered full members of society (voting, driving, drinking etc.). This is not necessarily because they magically become qualified at exactly that age, it';s just an arbitrary number chosen as a cut off to make sure people have a certain level of maturity. It's not 100% effective, some people are mature enough to vote years before they're allowed to, and some people die of old age, still not mature enough for that power. It is however, effective enough to keep the system working within acceptable parameters. but I digress. To address your point directly, no it would not be permissible to kill anyone under 25, but thats because they have a level of maturity that a very immature fetus doesn't have, and that's the point i'm trying to make.

Mango wrote:
4 and 5. This is incorrect. You are changing the fetus’ environment artificially, and then saying it was not viable because it did not survive. If I took you and place you naked on the moon, you would die. Does that mean you are not a viable organism?

This is a bit of a silly analogy. Humans are not supposed to be able to survive naked on the moon. they ARE supposed to be able to survive naked on planet earth. if something does not function in it's intended main environment then it is not viable. You may say "well a fetus isn't supposed to survive naked on planet earth!", well no. but that's because it's a fetus, not a human(yet).

mango wrote:
“Quality of life” is a very relative term. Would the fetus rather live a mediocre life or not live at all. No one asked the fetus. The decision was made for it. People talk about choice in this matter. Bt they rarely mention the fact they are taking the choice from another. Did the embryo “choose” to be conceived? No. Does the embryo get to “choose” to live or die? No. That choice is taken from it. In cases of rape, (I am talking in cases where the rape could potentially result in a pregnancy, so am excluding male on male rape) you have a wrong committed. A man forces himself on a woman. He takes away from her her choice. Then later the woman finds out that the rape resulted in a pregnancy. Is the resulting embryo guilty of the crime committed by the rapist? Or is the embryo blameless? Yet for no actions of its own, the embryo is aborted by the mother, who does not want to carry the child to term, and be reminded every day for nine months of the original crime. Is that not another wrong? Killing something that is blameless, does not correct the original crime. Should instead the woman be forced again to carry the child to term, even if she gives it up for adoption at birth? That is a much tougher question to answer than whether or not the embryo should be killed so that the parents can go off to college, party until 3:00 in the morning, and live a life unencumbered by a child, until they are “ready” to settle down and have a child. Even if by “ready’ you define it as emotionally or financially able to better care for the child.

Yes this choice is taken away from the fetus, but it isn;t in any way shape or form capeable of making that choice. therefor the choice must be made for it. We can't go to the future and be like "hey kid, we're from the past. should we abort you?" firstly they'd definitely say no, and the damage has already been done to the mother. Because the fetus is not a human being yet, the quality of life for the mother is more important. Now by quality of life i don't mean she can't watch TV quite as much, or has a bit more responsibility in her life, but she will probably have to quit any school she is taking, won't be able to get a decent job for a long time, and therefor have a very difficult time caring for the child as well as she might like to.

For the last bit about the rape victim, Thats an easy situation to address. I for one wholehartedly believe she should ahve the choice to abort it, even if abortion is otherwise illegal. there is no way she should ahve to suffer so much more because someone committed such an atrocity against her. Yes from your point of view you are killing something blameless to alleviate the suffering of another blameless person, but again to my prevailing concept that a fetus is not a human, the rape victim outranks the fetus by leagues. As i;ve stated before abortion for the purposes of the mother continuing to lead an irresponsible lifestyle isn't a good idea, but is most cases that's not the primary reason. it probably factors, but it's usually a pretty small factor.

Mango wrote:
Yes my opinion is that the human life does indeed begin at conception. Scientifically, that is the most valid view point. Other definitions would exclude too many segments of the population to be valid.

Are there instances where is justified to take a life? Yes. Is to preserve the life of another one? Yes. Is to protect others? Yes. Is to prevent another from harming people in the future, one? (That goes back to the original topic of this post.) Yes. Is doing it for convenience? No. Is it justified for “quality of life” of another? No. That way of thinking leads to eugenics and euthanasia.

This is not just an American topic by the way. This is a topic at least as old as the ancient Greeks. The original Hippocratic Oath included verbiage about not performing abortions.

I can't argue your opinion, I can only argue my own. So we're probably going to disagree on that point forever. Yes at conception it is a human life, but it's not a VIABLE human life. The point is that Inviable human life is impairing an viable human life. I don't know what eugenics are but I'm also in favour of euthanasia in certain circumstances. If someone has 2 weeks to live and every second of it is going to be excruciating pain accomplanied by the most horriffic hallucinations ever seen by humankind, you damn well better believe I would grant that person's wish to die, were I in such a position. To force them to live through that is in my opinion the worst atrocity possible. Again, convenience is not justification for killing, but to defend ones own life (not survival i mean having a full life) by killing something that I don't personally believe to to worth as much as that original life, Thats Ok in my opinion. I'm not saying a fetus is worthless, i'm just saying that the future of a young girl who was raped, or had a condom break on her is worth more than a microscopic pile of cells that *may* become a human being some day.

smiling Assassin wrote:

spartanghost wrote:Yes, it is different, but this isn't black an white here. It's closer to being human yes, but it's still not all the way there. Agreed probability of survival a human does not make, but that's not really what i was trying to say. The cake analogy is a good one. But my conclusion of it is different. If someone asks me what i'm doing i'll say "I'm baking a cake". If they ask me if it is a cake, i'll say "No, it's batter right now, but it will probably be a cake in a few minutes. would you like a piece?" similar situation as far as I see it.

Not particularly. So, you're saying that when the Child-Cake comes out of the toasty Womb-Oven, then it's alive? That moment? A cake is a very poor example to use. How about 10 minutes earlier? The cake won't be good to eat, but the child will survive with proper care.

smiling Assassin wrote:

spartanghost wrote:Respectfully, no. It's not viable. Viable means it can survive for a short period on it's own. for the most part a fetus can't. If you remove a fetus at say, 3 weeks and plop it on the table, it's probably dead by the time it hits the table. therefor it;s not viable. I can see why you might call that selfish, but I believe it's justified. Think of it this way: A girl wants to have a baby, but soemtime in the future, when she's ready so she can provide for it well. But she gets pregnant because the condom broke! she's not ready at all. if she keeps it, she'll have the baby, and probably love it just the same, but it's life won't be quite as full as if she had waited.. but if she aborts it, and has another one a few years down the road when she's ready, this baby has a much fuller, well provided for life. I really think that that's worth it. I really do think it's a shame that a potential human is lost, but i feel it's a necessary evil to do well by our children. I've said it before and i'll say it again. If theres ever a way that fetus can be saved without the woman having to go through with the pregnancy, it's awesome and i support it 500%. but we just can't do that now, so we have to settle for the next best thing.

Where do you draw the line, sir? And anyway, that's not a foetus, that's called an embryo. Actually, it's not even a fully developed embryo. That's like saying, "Oh yeah, let's rip out these 100 cells." I might be exagerating somewhat, but that's all that is there at the "3 week" stage of pregnancy. And why do you discount the Adoption stage in all these affairs, how about giving the child away to a foster carer?

smiling Assassin wrote:

spartanghost wrote:Theres one more point i'd like to add. Laws about abortion aren't necessarily about right and wrong, they're about choice. Some people believe as I do, that it's a viable and often good option, and others believe it's wrong. The laws would never under any circumstances FORCE anyone to have an abortion. It would always be that person's choice. It feels kind of oppressive(sorry for the harsh word, i don't have a better one) that people would seek to take away that choice; that freedom. It just doesn't seem fair that a complete accident could result in someones life being messed up so badly. Even if there was some kind of control on it like you're only allowed to get 1 or 2 (that weren't beyond your control) before they cut you off. I believe that anyone who keeps getting pregnant like that simply isn't taking the necessary precautions to prevent it, and in that case they're just being stupid (although one could argue that these are the last people who should be having children). If it was controlled like that, I believe it would relax some of the controversy about it, but since we're talking about a human life (or potential human life, depending on what you believe), i don't think the controversy will ever end completely.

This is all very true, you make a good argument.

For the books, I'm erring on the side of Anti-Abortion, but you make a very good case.

sA

Kilkrazy wrote:The appeals process is necessary because of the number of wrongful convictions.

If there was no appeal and a death penalty, it would be harder to get juries to convict on capital crimes.

For every wrongful conviction, an innocent person is in jail or dead, AND a murderer goes free to kill and kill again.

youngblood wrote:I say the death penalty for those attempting suicide.