How can someone be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty?

[quote name='jaykrue']To answer OP's question seriously instead of my earlier glib response, being pro-choice doesn't automaticly mean pro-abortion. Being pro-choice means that a woman is given the ability to choose whether or not to abort. It just means a choice. A person can be pro-choice but still be anti-abortion. He/she respects a woman's right to choose abortion but he/she doesn't have to agree w/ it.



W/o going too far off-topic, can someone explain to me the economics of how it costs more to kill a person instead of housing them for life? I'm not trying to troll, I would genuinely like to know. Because, it seems to me that the opposite makes more sense.

If you house someone for life, you're subsidizing that person's needs until he dies. This includes food, housing, utilities, etc. This means that you're paying (through your taxes) for a long time for another person to live. Now, to kill a person (injection, gas, or whatever is fashionable in death-row states), it's a one-time cost (unless you've got a long line of d-rowers that make up more than 10% of the state population). The person won't require any maintenance (except maybe burial costs and that can be mitigated by handing it over to family or other post-death alternatives such as cremation) so the only other cost I can see is through lawyers, bureaucratic paperwork & possibly the equipment involved in the execution. But that can be mitigated by streamlining the process. And state-appointed lawyers & judges would be paid regardless if the death-row occupant is there or not. I just don't see where the money is going.[/QUOTE]

Several big reasons. First off someone that is given the death penalty has multiple appeals and the process we go through to actually put them to death is amazingly expensive. Then there is the fact that it costs a lot of money to keep them in a separate wing of the prison. There are numerous reasons but most of it has to do with the judicial processe. This site suggest it cost $250 mill.....seems insanly high but I have read many articles in many news papers on this where it goes over the cost and how it is indeed much higher then the cost of just housing/feeding and caring for a criminal.

edit - And it would be hard to stream line this process. Think of all the innocent people that have already been accidentally killed. Now imagine that we make it so there are less loop holes to jump through to kill a person. Hell just freaking look at Texas.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Because they can. The end.

More in-depth: People are hypocrites. The end.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing hypocritical about my believes. To me a fetus is not a life and a criminal is, therefore there is no cognitive dissonance going on. The end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gareman']There is nothing hypocritical about my believes. To me a fetus is not a life and a criminal is, therefore there is no cognitive dissonance going on. The end.[/QUOTE]

That's a really big leap leap of faith to be able to firmly say you believe that, when there is little scientific proof. I think what you mean is you need to believe that so as not to feel hypocritical. It's very much a religious-like faith-based belief, that's very hard to prove, since we all were fetuses once, that if killed, we wouldn't be here.

Most people can admit they are agnostic about whether a fetus is a life, and can also admit their stance on abortion could change given more scientific evidence.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Most people can admit they are agnostic about whether a fetus is a life[/quote]

Yup. It's not about whether it's living or not, it's about being forced to give birth to it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's a really big leap leap of faith to be able to firmly say you believe that, when there is little scientific proof. I think what you mean is you need to believe that so as not to feel hypocritical. It's very much a religious-like faith-based belief, that's very hard to prove, since we all were fetuses once, that if killed, we wouldn't be here.

Most people can admit they are agnostic about whether a fetus is a life, and can also admit their stance on abortion could change given more scientific evidence.[/QUOTE]

Gotta love the way you always call other hypocrites while being a hypocrite yourself in the exact same post.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's a really big leap leap of faith to be able to firmly say you believe that, when there is little scientific proof. I think what you mean is you need to believe that so as not to feel hypocritical. It's very much a religious-like faith-based belief, that's very hard to prove, since we all were fetuses once, that if killed, we wouldn't be here.

Most people can admit they are agnostic about whether a fetus is a life, and can also admit their stance on abortion could change given more scientific evidence.[/QUOTE]

Well the same can be said about animals and even plants. There is much scientific evidence that supports that many animals have personalities, mourn the lose of other animals, get depression, feel pain (maybe at higher levels than we do). While none of this can be completely supported until we as humans find the link between brain activity and the experience of those chemicals as a 1:1 correspondence.

There is no faith involved, nor do I "feel" or "believe" that a fetus is a life. I think (not know) that a fetus is not a life. To me a life requires at least one of two things. consciousness or the ability to survive without having a direct "host".

As a materialist I think that consciousness "rising" from differing and direct experiences, a fetus has little to no experience, and maybe not even the tools to experience, nor does it have any sort of varying experience. I think that a varying experience is crucial to the creation of Consciousness. If all I know is black then I have no other points of reference therefore all there is black, and if all there is black therefore there is no I because how can one become an I without others to define itself. I am nothing because I have experienced nothing for which to base who/what I am.

Hope that makes sense
 
[quote name='gareman']Well the same can be said about animals and even plants. There is much scientific evidence that supports that many animals have personalities, mourn the lose of other animals, get depression, feel pain (maybe at higher levels than we do). While none of this can be completely supported until we as humans find the link between brain activity and the experience of those chemicals as a 1:1 correspondence. [/quote]
I agree the same can be said about animals. Killing an animal can very easily be argued, is, destroying life/consciousness. I personally believe it is, but I'm ok with it, much of the time, because I believe life feeds on life to survive. Anyone not ok with that, shouldn't be alive.

There are even very good arguments for the consciousness of plants, which I won't go into, but same discussion really.

There is no faith involved, nor do I "feel" or "believe" that a fetus is a life. I think (not know) that a fetus is not a life. To me a life requires at least one of two things. consciousness or the ability to survive without having a direct "host".
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Although science is constantly muddying the waters of that criteria by being able to save unborn babies at earlier and earlier stages. It won't be long before a baby can literally be grown in a bottle - then the "host" argument will lose water (no pun intended).

Also, we all have "hosts" for the first several years of life. We can't survive after birth alone. So why does that not make it ok for those we depend on to decide to kill us?

Let's say scientists announce tomorrow that they have grown a baby from embryo to toddler, in a tube of water. At what point would it be murder to kill it? Or is it never murder, as long as it's dependent on others to survive?

As a materialist I think that consciousness "rising" from differing and direct experiences, a fetus has little to no experience, and maybe not even the tools to experience, nor does it have any sort of varying experience. I think that a varying experience is crucial to the creation of Consciousness. If all I know is black then I have no other points of reference therefore all there is black, and if all there is black therefore there is no I because how can one become an I without others to define itself. I am nothing because I have experienced nothing for which to base who/what I am.

Hope that makes sense
Click to expand...

It makes sense. And I appreciate you putting the time into writing how you feel on this matter without getting combative like so many can.

I find the above paragraph very fascinating. It sounds like you are essentially placing value on human life using the criteria of when a human learns to value it's own life? Given my hypothetical above, about embryo to toddler in a tube, if the child is never allowed to look outside of it's "tube", then it's not really alive, thus it would be ok to kill it? Even if it's a couple years old?

Pretty wild. I can't say I can come close to agreeing, but it gives me something new to think about....
 
The tube of water loses credibility because there isn't a reason to abort it.

The zygote is deliberately implanted in this water, with the intent to grow a baby. You can't rape the bottle of water or accidentally impregnate it.

Oops, I just spooged in this test tube! Aw damn, I just stuck in it my hoochie and squirted an egg into it. Quick, PlanB!

Additionally, if it's grown into a child in this test tube, there's not much choice. Nobody is being forced to give birth. I guess if you had dumbass parents who started out wanting a kid, then go through this artificial process that doesn't require any effort on mom's part and finally decide they don't want the kid.. then you have an issue. Then it's murder if they kill the kid.

But now you're talking about artificial birth, which doesn't have to do with abortion. It's a whole 'nother matter.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I agree the same can be said about animals. Killing an animal can very easily be argued, is, destroying life/consciousness. I personally believe it is, but I'm ok with it, much of the time, because I believe life feeds on life to survive. Anyone not ok with that, shouldn't be alive.

There are even very good arguments for the consciousness of plants, which I won't go into, but same discussion really.


Fair enough. Although science is constantly muddying the waters of that criteria by being able to save unborn babies at earlier and earlier stages. It won't be long before a baby can literally be grown in a bottle - then the "host" argument will lose water (no pun intended).

Also, we all have "hosts" for the first several years of life. We can't survive after birth alone. So why does that not make it ok for those we depend on to decide to kill us?

Let's say scientists announce tomorrow that they have grown a baby from embryo to toddler, in a tube of water. At what point would it be murder to kill it? Or is it never murder, as long as it's dependent on others to survive?



It makes sense. And I appreciate you putting the time into writing how you feel on this matter without getting combative like so many can.

I find the above paragraph very fascinating. It sounds like you are essentially placing value on human life using the criteria of when a human learns to value it's own life? Given my hypothetical above, about embryo to toddler in a tube, if the child is never allowed to look outside of it's "tube", then it's not really alive, thus it would be ok to kill it? Even if it's a couple years old?

Pretty wild. I can't say I can come close to agreeing, but it gives me something new to think about....[/QUOTE]


I knew I should've defined "direct host" as soon as I typed it. By Direct host I mean another living thing that has any level of burden to its health and the thing utilizing the host could not survive more than a small amount of time, and certainly not thrive.

Yes a baby two years or younger could not survive on its own, but it does not need a singular DIRECT host. Other people and even animals in a few cases can not only help the baby survive but thrive.

So my point is to me the fetus is not only not a live, but since it needs this specific direct host to live at all times, I guess I view it as more a part of the mother than a separate living being. I sympathize with those who are anti-abortion, but we and especially at state or federal government would be overstepping our boundaries to force someone to carry a mental and physical burden on a person whom does not even want it to begin and may or may not even consider a life.
 
I just want to say I really appreciate the contributions everyone has made to this thread. It's good to get opinions from many different people. Sometimes I think about a varriety of subjects and I can only have so many discussions with people in real life. This has helped open my eyes to how different people can feel about both subjects.
 
I believe that anyone who is sentenced to life in prison they should be killed. It'll save me some tax dollars, help us get of the recession.
 
[quote name='el bobo']I believe that anyone who is sentenced to life in prison they should be killed. It'll save me some tax dollars, help us get of the recession.[/quote]


Read Magus' posts...
 
All this talk makes me want to start handing out free condoms. :)

Yes, I'm being a little goofy but how about contraceptives people? lol. I know it's not in the main line of the conversation, but just a thought. Especially since I say screw the economy, the rate at which the populace of the world is growing and consuming resources beyond the rate of replenishment we are on the fast track to fucked. Education and contraceptives are being introduced into developing countries to try and level off the birth rate. Once the environment is stable enough to reduce their death rate, many developing countries still continue at a high birth rate for awhile.

What does this have to do with conversation at hand? I'm for both. Of course, I'd rather prevent either and not see any loss of life but life's not always fair.
 
[quote name='Lord_Kefka']All this talk makes me want to start handing out free condoms. :)[/quote]

How come no one ever says "This makes me want to advocate personal responsibility" or "This is the time to promote traditional morals"? :cry:
 
[quote name='nintendokid']How come no one ever says "This makes me want to advocate personal responsibility" or "This is the time to promote traditional morals"? :cry:[/quote]

Where the hell have you been?

I hope you're being sarcastic.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']How come no one ever says "This makes me want to advocate personal responsibility" or "This is the time to promote traditional morals"? :cry:[/quote]

Condoms = personal responsibility

"Traditional morals" = :rofl:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah because the concept of controlling impulses is insanity.[/QUOTE]

What's the big deal if your careful and use condoms and take all precautionary actions? Wanting to fuck is human, as long as you take full responsibility for your actions.. who cares?

If your not spreading around disease and babies..what's the problem?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah because the concept of controlling impulses is insanity.[/quote]

Anyone can see by traditional morals he means abstinence. Abstinence-only education is horseshit and any rational person knows that. I'm not against educating people on the consequences of unprotected sex, but to only say don't have sex or the devil's gonna gitcha is moronic. People are gonna fuck- give them the means to at least control the spread of disease and pregnancy above all else.

The people against safe-sex are the people not having sex at all. ;)
 
Hey, if Nintendokid is promoting abstinence until marriage -- more power to him. Some more of the far right would be all in arms about safe sex. I won't take this thread that far off course by mentioning some of the scandals that follow. But people have their beliefs and mine are actually slightly more conservative in my choices in sex.

But the point is education. I think safe sex education stays on topic. Less abortions if you just cover your winkie. Saves a lot of emotional trauma. It's not an excuse to go crazy and screw everything on two or four legs but I do believe in educating the idea of "hey, if you're going to do it....protect yourself." Saves people who aren't ready for kids yet from the hard choices and path in life.
 
[quote name='Lord_Kefka']Hey, if Nintendokid is promoting abstinence until marriage -- more power to him. Some more of the far right would be all in arms about safe sex. I won't take this thread that far off course by mentioning some of the scandals that follow. But people have their beliefs and mine are actually slightly more conservative in my choices in sex.

But the point is education. I think safe sex education stays on topic. Less abortions if you just cover your winkie. Saves a lot of emotional trauma. It's not an excuse to go crazy and screw everything on two or four legs but I do believe in educating the idea of "hey, if you're going to do it....protect yourself." Saves people who aren't ready for kids yet from the hard choices and path in life.[/quote]

This. If you want to reduce pregnancies- and the rates of abortion- stop trying to take away the means to control it. :roll:
 
[quote name='Hex']Anyone can see by traditional morals he means abstinence. Abstinence-only education is horseshit and any rational person knows that. I'm not against educating people on the consequences of unprotected sex, but to only say don't have sex or the devil's gonna gitcha is moronic. People are gonna fuck- give them the means to at least control the spread of disease and pregnancy above all else.

The people against safe-sex are the people not having sex at all. ;)[/QUOTE]

I don't advocate that type of "sin" doctrine. But I am a big believer in the dangers of sexual addiction, and I would not be bothered at all if we had a little more education on sex, and it's lack of importance to survival.

Like most things, sex is great and good for you, in moderation. Not only that, but you get the most out of it when you are extremely careful and discerning about how it's applied.

I just shake my head at the sex crazed media programming sex crazed kids to become sex crazed adults. It's sad to me. I don't like it. So I advocate more education about all aspects of it. And I tend to prefer a society that looks down on the "I gotta have sex with everything I can" attitude that is not only prevalent, but popular, today.
 
I'll never understand why people get so uptight about sex?
It's 2 (sometimes 3 or more if you're lucky, :lol:) coming together to make each other feel good (physically).

Again, if your not spreading around disease and makin babies left and right.. it's really no big deal. I dunno, I guess I was born with my own free will and not a stick up my ass (Because however would I be able to get a dick up in there?!) :cool:
 
[quote name='lilboo']I'll never understand why people get so uptight about sex?
It's 2 (sometimes 3 or more if you're lucky, :lol:) coming together to make each other feel good (physically).

Again, if your not spreading around disease and makin babies left and right.. it's really no big deal. I dunno, I guess I was born with my own free will and not a stick up my ass (Because however would I be able to get a dick up in there?!) :cool:[/QUOTE]

Well, you can call me old school or too traditional, but I think sex is, and should be, something special. For several reasons. That's really about the extent of it. So I will advocate and endorse anything that promotes that type of social thinking.

However, you should know me well enough by now, that I don't want laws passed telling people how to live their lives. That's not what I advocate. I am strictly talking about culture, and advertising and marketing that creates this culture of sex being nothing more than a glorified hug.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well, you can call me old school or too traditional, but I think sex is, and should be, something special. For several reasons. That's really about the extent of it. So I will advocate and endorse anything that promotes that type of social thinking.

However, you should know me well enough by now, that I don't want laws passed telling people how to live their lives. That's not what I advocate. I am strictly talking about culture, and advertising and marketing that creates this culture of sex being nothing more than a glorified hug.[/quote]

I'm not a very sexual person in reality (surprisingly enough?), and I agree with it being something special- but I don't think it's cheapened if it happens all the time. It's up to the individual to treat sex how they will, and through that means, pragmatic methods like birth control/infection control are the best method, rather than using a book to admonish people. Because by the same token, I don't think sex should be something people are afraid of.

This isn't taking into account asexuality (no, not the method of cellular reproduction); if that's how a person feels, I'm fine with that too. :)
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm not a very sexual person in reality (surprisingly enough?), and I agree with it being something special- but I don't think it's cheapened if it happens all the time. It's up to the individual to treat sex how they will, and through that means, pragmatic methods like birth control/infection control are the best method, rather than using a book to admonish people. Because by the same token, I don't think sex should be something people are afraid of.

This isn't taking into account asexuality (no, not the method of cellular reproduction); if that's how a person feels, I'm fine with that too. :)[/QUOTE]

I seriously wonder how sex drive impacts the feelings of how sex should be treated. It does seem the people I know that have looser moral issues when it comes to sex are people that have extremely high sex drives(myself included).
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I seriously wonder how sex drive impacts the feelings of how sex should be treated. It does seem the people I know that have looser moral issues when it comes to sex are people that have extremely high sex drives(myself included).[/quote]

I'm incredibly open and loose (lolz) when it comes to sex- but personally, I'm not someone who wants to do it all the time. I'm hardly a virgin, but I'm not interested in friends with benefits- however with a relationship.. well let's just say there isn't much distance between the bases. ;)

The difference is, while I personally have a deeper connection to it, I don't really care how other people feel about it (outside of poking fun at people like nintendoughkid) until they try to take it away.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well, you can call me old school or too traditional, but I think sex is, and should be, something special. For several reasons. That's really about the extent of it. So I will advocate and endorse anything that promotes that type of social thinking.

However, you should know me well enough by now, that I don't want laws passed telling people how to live their lives. That's not what I advocate. I am strictly talking about culture, and advertising and marketing that creates this culture of sex being nothing more than a glorified hug.[/QUOTE]

This. Well said.

And I don't think drive necessarily plays into your opinions on sex. I completely agree with the statements above, and contain sex inside of relationships only. But that only means I'm a little more pent up (and a bigger pain in the ass until I'm getting some....lol) and then I'm usually pushing for 1-2 a day if I can. An ex (who was admittedly more sexually "loose" in her past) had a much lower sex drive. Like too many girls, it was a form of validation. Which is sad.

OK, have we diverted off topic enough? Although it's still semi-related.

P.S. Please don't make of nintendokid. He's just expressing his view.

P.P.S. See my sig....I'm insatiable. ;)
 
[quote name='Lord_Kefka']This. Well said.

And I don't think drive necessarily plays into your opinions on sex. I completely agree with the statements above, and contain sex inside of relationships only. But that only means I'm a little more pent up (and a bigger pain in the ass until I'm getting some....lol) and then I'm usually pushing for 1-2 a day if I can. An ex (who was admittedly more sexually "loose" in her past) had a much lower sex drive. Like too many girls, it was a form of validation. Which is sad.

OK, have we diverted off topic enough? Although it's still semi-related.

P.S. Please don't make of nintendokid. He's just expressing his view.

P.P.S. See my sig....I'm insatiable. ;)[/QUOTE]

On Nintendoughkid - Once your views become discussion of curb bashing people you loose all rights to a respected opinion. The guy really should have been banned(and I hardly ever feel people should be).
 
[quote name='Lord_Kefka']
P.P.S. See my sig....I'm insatiable. ;)[/quote]

Pfff. Guine tells everyone that.
 
Hey, watch it! It was right after the election. Emotions were high. I was already punished. If you disagree, take your appeal to a mod and have them contact me. I don't need to answer to you.
 
[quote name='Hex']Pfff. Guine tells everyone that.[/QUOTE]

You be quiet. :whistle2:# LOL

Well, I got it twice in a week....count for anything? :whee:
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Hey, watch it! It was right after the election. Emotions were high. I was already punished. If you disagree, take your appeal to a mod and have them contact me. I don't need to answer to you.[/QUOTE]

I will say this and drop the subject. There is never an excuse to talk about violence towards a minority. You didn't see me saying I should go out killing the religious idiots that took away the rights of gays, let alone doing something as horrible as curb stomping them.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']I was already punished.[/quote]

I'm sorry, who's rights were taken away during the election?

Oh wait. Not your's. Punished my ass.
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm sorry, who's rights were taken away during the election?

Oh wait. Not your's. Punished my ass.[/quote]

Idiot! Magus and I were talking among just the two of us, you have no business jumping in. I was referring to me being banned from CAG for five days. You really have a problem with me, don't you? You owe me an apology (which I probably won't get).
 
I haven't read this thread, or even much of the first post for that matter, but I think it comes down to people supporting innocent life (ie. a baby), but don't care about the people who were given life, but ruined it (ie. a prisoner). It's kind of screwed up in my opinion, but a valid opinion none the less.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Idiot! Magus and I were talking among just the two of us, you have no business jumping in. I was referring to me being banned from CAG for five days. You really have a problem with me, don't you? You owe me an apology (which I probably won't get).[/QUOTE]

I would say its the opposite. You owe him an apology. Interjecting yourself into a conversation relating to the issue of being gay is hardly worse whenever tis with a guy that talked about curb stomping and taking away your rights.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Idiot! Magus and I were talking among just the two of us, you have no business jumping in. I was referring to me being banned from CAG for five days. You really have a problem with me, don't you? You owe me an apology (which I probably won't get).[/quote]

:rofl: Someone's new to the internet/BBS.

Young one, this is an open forum. People can get a word in on any conversation they want. Now if you were discussing this in PMs, that'd be another matter.

I have nothing to apologize for. I focus on people who think their religion trumps my rights, sure. Plus, your posts are so easily refuted. :lol:
 
To: Hex

Magus and I disagreed on my punishment handed down by CAG moderator shrike - 5-day ban from CAG for offensive content. I don't even think you know what the hell Magus was referring to in the first place. You simply thought that Magus was attacking me, which we was not, and took it as a cue to throw shit at me. Obviously, you do have a personal problem with me.
 
Shouldn't you be telling that to a mod or somethin'? This here thread's for talking about Starcraft an' Fire Emblem an' No More Heroes.
 
Austin 3:16

"Thou shalt not perma-ban nintendokid."

EDIT: It was MSI Magus' smarty pants who totally went off subject and even he has dropped the subject, though he has sicked his pitbulls on me. Now, can we just fucking drop it?!!!?!?!1!1!!!11!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top