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

[quote name='cindersphere']I think most people believe in Pro-choice only for the "What if......." situations. Personally I don't think there is a way to justify either except through fear.[/QUOTE]

One is justified by revenge/justice, the other justified by inconvenience.

Whether anything precious is lost in either case is what's really up for debate.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']the other justified by inconvenience. [/QUOTE]
That's an interesting approach. I thought a significant part of your philosophy rested on not making such judgments of others?
 
[quote name='speedracer']That's an interesting approach. I thought a significant part of your philosophy rested on not making such judgments of others?[/QUOTE]

I try to make it so. Although I don't know why saying that makes me judgemental, isn't that what most reasons for abortion comes down to? It is rarely, if ever, more altruistic than just being inconvenient, and a big bloody "oops", except in the case of rape.
 
[quote name='gareman']Because a fetus, in my opinion and a lot of others, is not a life. A 40 year old person is a life.[/quote]

What about a viable fetus? I only ask because my best friend's son was born a month early (which happens pretty often) and he was just fine - a few extra days in the hospital incubator for safety and then he went home. I would hate to think your definition of life is based purely on the location of the baby
 
[quote name='gareman']Because a fetus, in my opinion and a lot of others, is not a life. A 40 year old person is a life.[/quote]


Then you get into the definition of life. What makes an adult a lifeform and an embryo not a lifeform? They both are composed of living cells.
 
What makes an adult alive and worth protecting and not my pinkie? They are both comprised of living cells.

EDIT: This is not permission to do unspeakable things to my pinkie. Get the fuck away from me, Koggit, and put down that electric mixer.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Then you get into the definition of life. What makes an adult a lifeform and an embryo not a lifeform? They both are composed of living cells.[/QUOTE]

Like I said this is my opinion, there is no real evidence one way or other about when life actually begins, but to me consciousness requires experience and a fetus has little to no experience, or ability to experience before it leaves the womb. So therefore I feel that, like the crotch said, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells. The only difference is that those fetus cells have the potential to become a life. However, potentiality is a very hard thing to use as a defense.
 
Thought defines life, really. It's hard to see anything inhumane about ending a supposed existence when it's never a conscious existence. Cogito, ergo sum.
 
[quote name='gareman']Like I said this is my opinion, there is no real evidence one way or other about when life actually begins, but to me consciousness requires experience and a fetus has little to no experience, or ability to experience before it leaves the womb. So therefore I feel that, like the crotch said, a fetus is little more than a collection of cells. The only difference is that those fetus cells have the potential to become a life. However, potentiality is a very hard thing to use as a defense.[/quote]

This is totally false. A fetus can feel pain, can respond to voices, can move around, etc.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Thought defines life, really. It's hard to see anything inhumane about ending a supposed existence when it's never a conscious existence. Cogito, ergo sum.[/quote]

Please explain how you definitively know that a baby inside the womb does not think - or better yet how a 1 second old baby does.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Then you get into the definition of life. What makes an adult a lifeform and an embryo not a lifeform? They both are composed of living cells.[/QUOTE]

There any number of things made of living cells that we do not consider life.

Also for the most part this is not even a question of whether an embryo or fetus is a life but if a fertilized egg is.

Javeryh, you are talking about a fetus that is pretty far along already, which is not exactly what is being talked about here.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Please explain how you definitively know that a baby inside the womb does not think - or better yet how a 1 second old baby does.[/QUOTE]

It's magic. People are not alive, nor are they conscious, until leaving the labian gates.
 
It doesn't need to be explained definitively IMO. It's just a belief.

Anywho, I'd still be pro choice even if it could be proved that an embryo was "alive" so it's a moot point for me.

Again I support a woman's right to choose, and I'm against the death penalty for reasons other than being "anti-death"--not part of the social contract, has no deterrent impact, and too great a risk of executing innocents. So I still don't see any contradiction in my views.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Please explain how you definitively know that a baby inside the womb does not think - or better yet how a 1 second old baby does.[/quote]

I would like to hear that as well.

[quote name='Msut77']There any number of things made of living cells that we do not consider life.[/quote]

Such as what?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It doesn't need to be explained definitively IMO. It's just a belief.

Anywho, I'd still be pro choice even if it could be proved that an embryo was "alive" so it's a moot point for me.

Again I support a woman's right to choose, and I'm against the death penalty for reasons other than being "anti-death"--not part of the social contract, has no deterrent impact, and too great a risk of executing innocents. So I still don't see any contradiction in my views.[/QUOTE]

I wish I had access to an old game concept I had, I'd love to send it to you. It had a sort of super heroine that could stretch her uterus and vagina so big it could swallow villains, she could then legally execute them because it was her body and her choice.

Anyway, I love playing with the logic that life inside of life doesn't have rights. It would be hilarious if someone found a way some day to make a loophole for more widely recognized murder, legally, with that logic.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I wish I had access to an old game concept I had, I'd love to send it to you. It had a sort of super heroine that could stretch her uterus and vagina so big it could swallow villains, she could then legally execute them because it was her body and her choice.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, if those are the kinds of ideas you had no wonder you got laid off.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Please explain how you definitively know that a baby inside the womb does not think - or better yet how a 1 second old baby does.[/QUOTE]

Bad form. Could you please explain where I made such an absurd statement?

I haven't made, nor would I, any distinction between birthed and unbirthed. It also seems you're confusing "thought" in a general sense with cognition in a Descartian sense.


Before you ask: No, I don't support infanticide (or late term abortions) despite the fact that the "life" such beings possess is no different than the life of the commonly slaughtered chicken, because I feel there's doubt involved and if there's any doubt then it simply isn't worth it. For early term abortions, though, there's really no doubt.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I try to make it so. Although I don't know why saying that makes me judgemental, isn't that what most reasons for abortion comes down to? It is rarely, if ever, more altruistic than just being inconvenient, and a big bloody "oops", except in the case of rape.[/QUOTE]
Well, we are talking about the reasons for making what is probably the most controversial individual decision one can make. Maybe you're right, but is it relevant?

I'm just sayin is all.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Wow, if those are the kinds of ideas you had no wonder you got laid off.[/QUOTE]
It was a joke idea, everyone came up with them. But isn't that you're main vein of logic? That life inside life shouldn't have rights? Only the host should?

[quote name='The Crotch']...

Activision, right?

...

Yeah...[/QUOTE]

I was only at Activision in 2003 for about 4 months. Then went to MGS.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I wish I had access to an old game concept I had, I'd love to send it to you. It had a sort of super heroine that could stretch her uterus and vagina so big it could swallow villains, she could then legally execute them because it was her body and her choice.

Anyway, I love playing with the logic that life inside of life doesn't have rights. It would be hilarious if someone found a way some day to make a loophole for more widely recognized murder, legally, with that logic.[/quote]

I think there were killer titties in stretch panic, which IMO is a much more marketable idea.

Anyway - unless the things you were swallowing were a clump of cells with less intelligence then a tadpole and no ability to survive on their own then the example isn't really comparable.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Bad form. Could you please explain where I made such an absurd statement?

I haven't made, nor would I, any distinction between birthed and unbirthed. It also seems you're confusing "thought" in a general sense with cognition in a Descartian sense.[/quote]

Fair enough. I was equating consciousness with thought and not in the sense of being aware.

However, making "thought define life" or having a "conscious existence" is an even worse definition of life than just "outside the womb". I mean if that's the case we should allow abortions as late as one or two years old. Maybe make the baby pass some sort of test to prove he/she is alive? Oral or written wouldn't be fair.... hmmm... maybe a "point to the right answer" type of test would do the trick? ;) OK, I'm being an ass... and I'm also trying to argue with someone without knowing what "Descartian" means.

For the record - I'm pro-choice except in the case of "viable" fetuses (whatever that means - I mean I bet we can grow a baby in a petri dish if we wanted to). Maybe I mean third trimester? It's all a gray area. Anyway, I personally don't agree with abortion (except in the case of rape or harm to the mother) but I'm in no position to force those beliefs on anyone else so I guess I'm pro-choice.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It doesn't need to be explained definitively IMO. It's just a belief.

Anywho, I'd still be pro choice even if it could be proved that an embryo was "alive" so it's a moot point for me.

Again I support a woman's right to choose, and I'm against the death penalty for reasons other than being "anti-death"--not part of the social contract, has no deterrent impact, and too great a risk of executing innocents. So I still don't see any contradiction in my views.[/quote]

Could you please explain what you mean when you say "alive"?

Are you saying that even if it was proven that this living being was alive and could feel pain, you would still be pro-choice?

Does that mean a mother could abort her toddler because he or she became an inconvienence for them?
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Could you please explain what you mean when you say "alive"?

Are you saying that even if it was proven that this living being was alive and could feel pain, you would still be pro-choice?

Does that mean a mother could abort her toddler because he or she became an inconvienence for them?[/quote]

I wonder if safe haven was an option instead of abortion why wouldn't more women take that route? I know, "state care isn't good" is the response, but at least there is a chance to do something in life. Can't same the same if you aren't alive. Then you'd probably get some who would be incovenienced by carrying the baby to 9 months. IMO that is just as irresponsible as a deadbeat dad.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I wonder if safe haven was an option instead of abortion why wouldn't more women take that route? I know, "state care isn't good" is the response, but at least there is a chance to do something in life. Can't same the same if you aren't alive. Then you'd probably get some who would be incovenienced by carrying the baby to 9 months. IMO that is just as irresponsible as a deadbeat dad.[/quote]


first off, that shit is killing nebraska right now, everyone is just dropping off kids. Secondly some people, myself included don't consider a baby a separate being. I consider it part of the mother, up until the end.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']first off, that shit is killing nebraska right now, everyone is just dropping off kids. Secondly some people, myself included don't consider a baby a separate being. I consider it part of the mother, up until the end.[/quote]

Isn't that because Nebraska's law doesn't have a 30-day age limit like every other state in the country? Parents are dropping off their teenagers which really runs contrary to the spirit of the law. A safe-haven law is good for newborns, I think. This could deter kids from putting the baby in a dumpster or something worse.
 
They just changed the law today in Nebraska - 30-day age limit. I still don't get the whole point of abandoning children, especially an infant. If we allow infants to be dropped of, we should allow anyone up to 17 years old. An infant is innocent and hasn't done anything. At least 15 year olds who are asses to their parents have provided a reason to drop these shits off. I'm just saying that if we are gonna be stupid, let's be stupid all the way.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']first off, that shit is killing nebraska right now, everyone is just dropping off kids. Secondly some people, myself included don't consider a baby a separate being. I consider it part of the mother, up until the end.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't that bad. It was 35 kids dropped off so far. The problem was that there wasn't an age limit on the law, so all but 6 of the kids were older than 10. They just changed the law to make it only for infants under 30 days old.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/21/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Could you please explain what you mean when you say "alive"?

Are you saying that even if it was proven that this living being was alive and could feel pain, you would still be pro-choice?

Does that mean a mother could abort her toddler because he or she became an inconvienence for them?[/QUOTE]

I don't support late term/partial birth abortions, and of course not killing toddlers. :roll:

But yes, early term abortions I'd support regardless of the status of the fetus in terms of being alive or not. The less little brats, especially unwanted little brats, running around the better.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I wonder if safe haven was an option instead of abortion why wouldn't more women take that route? I know, "state care isn't good" is the response, but at least there is a chance to do something in life. Can't same the same if you aren't alive. Then you'd probably get some who would be incovenienced by carrying the baby to 9 months. IMO that is just as irresponsible as a deadbeat dad.[/QUOTE]
Because like I said before, it all boils down to inconvenience. Having a baby will be so hard to recover from and deform their pretty little bodies for a spell, and be so much stress to try and do the adoption thing, and they'll have a harder time finding male attention and repeating the process again.

That and many women know deep down inside they don't have the fortitude to follow through with their "giving it up" plans once they actually see and hear that "bundle of inconvenient cells" when it is born. It's much easier to push a button and make it all go away months in advance.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
But yes, early term abortions I'd support regardless of the status of the fetus in terms of being alive or not. The less little brats, especially unwanted little brats, running around the better.[/QUOTE]

This reminded me of the biggest pro life activist I know. She grew up with her mother always talking about how she got knocked up and everyone advised her to get an abortion, and her mother also told her repeatedly growing up that she wishes she HAD gotten the abortion.

It's rather jarring to realize that you are alive BECAUSE of "mistakes", and like most people, she likes being alive. It was a huge wake up call to her that her own mother was so vocal about how she wish she had an abortion. I think most people that are "mistakes" feel similar; that there is no better mistake in the universe than the one that brought them into existence.
 
starving_children_1.jpg

They look thrilled their mom didn't have an abortion!

It doesn't boil down to convenience. I'm sure there are some pigsluts out there that get abortions for convenience but Safe haven is just as bad as abortion in terms of giving up. You give the kid a chance to live, but what kind of life? No one in America ever seems to adopt kids from America.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Fair enough. I was equating consciousness with thought and not in the sense of being aware.

However, making "thought define life" or having a "conscious existence" is an even worse definition of life than just "outside the womb". I mean if that's the case we should allow abortions as late as one or two years old. Maybe make the baby pass some sort of test to prove he/she is alive? Oral or written wouldn't be fair.... hmmm... maybe a "point to the right answer" type of test would do the trick? ;) OK, I'm being an ass... and I'm also trying to argue with someone without knowing what "Descartian" means.[/QUOTE]

Descartian is pretty much a bullshit word, you don't need to know what it means really. It's just Descartes-like. Cognition as Descartes intended with "cogito, ergo sum" -- "I think, therefore I am". Life without thought, conscious thought, not truly existing. Descartes' philosophical opinion, and one I share, is that our existence is unique in that we are aware of our existence, and it is with that justification that killing a conscious person is less moral than killing a chicken. To me, a embryo/fetus/infant incapable of realizing its alive is not truly alive in the sense that it is capable of being murdered as a human.

It's all up for debate, surely -- but I hope you're able to put semantics aside. All of these words are not well defined. "Life", "existence", "conscious" -- our vocabulary isn't fit to make the distinctions we intend, but I'm sure you get the point. "Life" is especially ill defined. When discussing the right to take a human life, I distinguish between cognitive existence and biological existence, as Descartes did. Both are blurry, blurry lines. Developmental psychology suggests cognitive existence begins between 6 months and 9 months after birth.

This is why I preemptively said I do not support infanticide -- it would be consistent my statement that it's okay to end life without conscious thought. The reason I draw the line after the first trimester is because, though I find it improbable that later terms are capable of conscious thought, we can't really be certain. Personally, I am only willing to say that I'm certain a newly fertilized egg is not conscious. It's probably okay to kill anything up to a 6 month old... but the closer to that age you get, the more likely it is of becoming murder of a human -- with stakes so high, "probable" isn't good enough.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Because like I said before, it all boils down to inconvenience. Having a baby will be so hard to recover from and deform their pretty little bodies for a spell, and be so much stress to try and do the adoption thing, and they'll have a harder time finding male attention and repeating the process again.

That and many women know deep down inside they don't have the fortitude to follow through with their "giving it up" plans once they actually see and hear that "bundle of inconvenient cells" when it is born. It's much easier to push a button and make it all go away months in advance.



This reminded me of the biggest pro life activist I know. She grew up with her mother always talking about how she got knocked up and everyone advised her to get an abortion, and her mother also told her repeatedly growing up that she wishes she HAD gotten the abortion.

It's rather jarring to realize that you are alive BECAUSE of "mistakes", and like most people, she likes being alive. It was a huge wake up call to her that her own mother was so vocal about how she wish she had an abortion. I think most people that are "mistakes" feel similar; that there is no better mistake in the universe than the one that brought them into existence.[/quote]


A lot of people blame their lack of ambition on the fact that they had a child at a young age.
 
[quote name='javeryh']This is totally false. A fetus can feel pain, can respond to voices, can move around, etc.[/quote]
Well be careful with the word "feel" there. The articles I have read say late in the pregnancy a fetus reactions as if it feels pain, but one is to not conclude that it is feeling pain.

So can my cat, but it doesn't it mean that it has a consciousness. And don't get into the whole "well so kill your cat"....I want my cat, its not living inside of me, and if I just decided to throw it outside tomorrow it would more than likely survive . My point is that people have argued for thousands of years about what it means to be conscious, and those three things (reaction to pain, responding to voices, and moving) are not concrete evidence. Coincidentally the same can be said about RoboSapiens.
 
[quote name='HowStern']
It doesn't boil down to convenience. I'm sure there are some pigsluts out there that get abortions for convenience but Safe haven is just as bad as abortion in terms of giving up. You give the kid a chance to live, but what kind of life? [/quote]


That's an impossible question to answer.

There are people who are affluent, and had loving parents that turn into drug addicts and lead horrible lives and there are people that start with next to nothing, no parents, and become doctors. No one can predict what a person will be be, but I assure you with 100% accuracy that you can't be anything if you aren't alive to try.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Because like I said before, it all boils down to inconvenience. Having a baby will be so hard to recover from and deform their pretty little bodies for a spell, and be so much stress to try and do the adoption thing, and they'll have a harder time finding male attention and repeating the process again.

That and many women know deep down inside they don't have the fortitude to follow through with their "giving it up" plans once they actually see and hear that "bundle of inconvenient cells" when it is born. It's much easier to push a button and make it all go away months in advance.[/quote]

Women who get abortions are irresponsible whores who think only of themselves and don't want to go through childbirth and mess up their bodies so that they can't fuck around with as many guys as possible.

There, I said it so you don't have to thrust, you can continue to try to say that in the nicest way possible.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']That's an impossible question to answer.

There are people who are affluent, and had loving parents that turn into drug addicts and lead horrible lives and there are people that start with next to nothing, no parents, and become doctors. No one can predict what a person will be be, but I assure you with 100% accuracy that you can't be anything if you aren't alive to try.[/quote]


Sometimes. Not always. how about this:
"I haven't had a job for a while, I am hooked on coke, I have terrible credit, no health insurance, i don't like kids, and I don't know who the dad is/ don't want to know."

Now say what you want about the women's situation but the potential child's life. If only you could talk to the fetus. "I know your going to have little to no health care a single parent who resents you, come into this world addicted to crack, have little food/clothing but at least your going to be alive, and this world loves you because all life is precious and our society cares enough to force her to bring you into this wonderful world and give you a chance. Isn't that sooo wonderful..... ...oh and when you get to be about 18 everyone is going to blame you for being uneducated, having social and behavior problems,having a predisposition to self-destruction and drug use, and having trouble making money, and about that...your on your own, but just remember we as a country care"
 
[quote name='HowStern']
starving_children_1.jpg

They look thrilled their mom didn't have an abortion! [/quote]
Are you implying he wishes he were dead?
No matter how bad the circumstance, almost nobody wishes they weren't born. And if they do, suicide is always an option, isn't it? What's wrong with giving the choice of being alive up to individuals? He's far more likely to wish he were dead had he lived in your shoes first, but that's all he knows. And his life isn't any worse than most humans were for most of human history.

That picture may be of the guy who, given the right opportunity, cures cancer, ends up leading his people to a better life. Who knows. But why don't you fly over there and ask him if he'd like to be put out of his misery, before you make this argument. I think what you are getting at is his life bothers you more than it bothers him.

It doesn't boil down to convenience. I'm sure there are some pigsluts out there that get abortions for convenience but Safe haven is just as bad as abortion in terms of giving up. You give the kid a chance to live, but what kind of life?
Click to expand...
So you are really going to argue that people/women should consider the quality of life a child will have, and if it's worth having, before allowing it to have the choice on its own? That logic is full of absurdity and veiled selfishness and I'll never understand it.

[quote name='SpazX']Women who get abortions are irresponsible whores who think only of themselves and don't want to go through childbirth and mess up their bodies so that they can't fuck around with as many guys as possible.

There, I said it so you don't have to thrust, you can continue to try to say that in the nicest way possible.[/QUOTE]

Very eloquent, thank you.

I don't think that applies to every woman that chooses abortion, but most of them.

Rape/incest is the only possible "excuse" a woman could give that would begin the process of me even considering respect for her, if she had an abortion.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Are you implying he wishes he were dead?
No matter how bad the circumstance, almost nobody wishes they weren't born. And if they do, suicide is always an option, isn't it? What's wrong with giving the choice of being alive up to individuals? He's far more likely to wish he were dead had he lived in your shoes first, but that's all he knows. And his life isn't any worse than most humans were for most of human history.

That picture may be of the guy who, given the right opportunity, cures cancer, ends up leading his people to a better life. Who knows. But why don't you fly over there and ask him if he'd like to be put out of his misery, before you make this argument. I think what you are getting at is his life bothers you more than it bothers him.


So you are really going to argue that people/women should consider the quality of life a child will have, and if it's worth having, before allowing it to have the choice on its own? That logic is full of absurdity and veiled selfishness and I'll never understand it.
[/quote]

That's absolutely what I'm saying. And I'll explain why. A good example is the 13 year old girl who wants to die because her whole life has been hospital visits that there is a topic about on here. Now her parents may not have been able to have foreseen that. But a woman in Africa with AIDS who has 6 kids with AIDS and then is pregnant again. Why make the kid live through the pain?

FACT: Every hour 31 children die of AIDS.
And don't think for a second their lives are good until the end. Their whole lives are pain.

So, by the time I could fly over there to ask him he would probably be dead already. After a short painful life.
 
Didnt bother reading through the topic so dont know if this has been said but 1 big reason someone could be is because the death penalty is simply not cost effective. It costs us more to kill a prisoner then it does to just house them for life.

Put someone that has raped/killed/tortured children and would do it again and Id kill them myself. Give me the choice between sentancing them to prison for life or the death penalty and just for economic reasons id say prison for life.
 
This is the aspect of extreme liberalism that really frightens me. As soon as they start making justifications for implementing different degrees of infanticide or genocide for "people's own good" or "the betterment of society as a whole" the bleeding liberal heart has overstepped it's bounds.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This is the aspect of extreme liberalism that really frightens me. As soon as they start making justifications for implementing different degrees of infanticide or genocide for "people's own good" or "the betterment of society as a whole" the bleeding liberal heart has overstepped it's bounds.[/QUOTE]

No liberals are the one's that want to keep it legal, therefore; allowing people to make their own personal choice. Defining where life begins when there is no evidence one way or the other and outlawing the practice that treads on this personal belief is overstepping their bounds.
 
[quote name='gareman']No liberals are the one's that want to keep it legal, therefore; allowing people to make their own personal choice. Defining where life begins when there is no evidence one way or the other and outlawing the practice that treads on this personal belief is overstepping their bounds.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't commenting on abortion alone. I was commenting on the logic that seems to bubble underneath many liberals (look above) that pretty much outright justifies murder in the name of being humane. But it's important to note that this "logic" also helps them feel so much better about abortion being used as birth control, so in a way it's an important step to become ok with large scale easy and cheap abortion.
 
[quote name='gareman']No liberals are the one's that want to keep it legal, therefore; allowing people to make their own personal choice. Defining where life begins when there is no evidence one way or the other and outlawing the practice that treads on this personal belief is overstepping their bounds.[/QUOTE]

Gare, it is a strawman. Thrust can spend years happily fighting them himself, there is no need for you to respond.
 
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.

[quote name='MSI Magus']Didnt bother reading through the topic so dont know if this has been said but 1 big reason someone could be is because the death penalty is simply not cost effective. It costs us more to kill a prisoner then it does to just house them for life.

Put someone that has raped/killed/tortured children and would do it again and Id kill them myself. Give me the choice between sentancing them to prison for life or the death penalty and just for economic reasons id say prison for life.[/quote]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top