Death or life?

[IrishEyes]

This question has been rolling around in my head for ages. I'm sure some of you have thought of it as well. I want to make clear that I am part of this situation, and I'm not sure I really understand it. I am hoping for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas, without any malice or innuendos.

 

In the US, and in other countries, there seems to be two 'camps of thought', if you will, regarding the death penalty and abortion. In talking to people, you can usually figure out where they stand on one issue by where they stand on the other. I've found that if someone is for the death penalty, they are usually against abortion. If they are for abortion, they are usually against the death penalty. While one has very little to do with the other, people seem to be predictable in their responses. The two issues don't seem linked at all, but yet their supporters are very often the same people in both groups. I don't understand it.

 

I do not personally believe in abortion, yet I am for the death penalty. I have reasons for both. I think that it's wrong to kill an unborn child. I know that is nto a very popular statement, and there may be disagreements on when a group of cells becomes a 'child', leading to the whole "when does life begin?" question. That's not my point here though.

 

On the death penalty issue, I think that the laws in our country are very well defined. I think that if someone violates those laws, knowing that the consequence is possible death, they should be prepared to abide by the consequences of their actions. I think there should be due process, but if the law states that the daeth penalty is applicable, then it should happen. If the laws are changed, that's another story. Really, as I'm writing this, I guess it's more about personal responsibility for this specific issue. Well, truth be told, I think it's also about personal responsibility for abortion as well. Horrible things happen to women, and that's a tragedy. However, abortions are used for birth control more often than not, and I have a big problem with that.

 

Anyhow, can you guys tell me why the two seem to be connected? Or if they aren't? Or why one group that is for abortion is against the death penalty, and the people against abortion are for the death penalty? Is it all according to 'party lines', or is there something else? I'm sure at least one of you will say it has something to do wtih religion. And you know what...that's ok. Just please explain how religion plays into it without being disparaging to any of our members or their religions, ok?

[Stargazer]

I am against death penalty for a few reasons, one being the uncertainty. Lately, many people sentenced to death have been proven to be innocent. Also, I'm not sure that the best way to teach the public that killing is wrong is to do exactly what they are trying to tell us is wrong. I'm also unsure how the effect of the death penalty is on crime rates. Do they go down? What kind of a society kills its own citizens in order to make them stop killing each other, even when some of them could be innocent?

[Freethinker]

Boy am I in trouble. I don't how to respond without violating the restrictions to free speech impossed in the set up here! :-)

 

I agree that with few exceptions, the two are locked together for ideological reasons, er... purposes. because it is "reason" or the ability to apply it, that is at issue.

 

Reason, the ability to achieve a logical conclussion from facts and valid evidence?

 

FACT - Capital Punishment does not serve in any way as a deterent to crime. So there is no REASON for Governments to use it if the intent is to prevent/ reduce crime.

 

FACT- there is nothing in medical knowledge to establish fertilization as the point of personhood. Thus claims of early term abortion being murder is UNreasonable. So there is no REASON for Governments to use it to control a woman's personal decisions.

 

FACT - monotheistic religions (Christian, Islamic, Jewish) have punishment/ retribution as core tenets. Their self proclaimed jealous vengeful god basis it's entire agenda on final and extreme reward or punishment. It promotes active and agressive punishment against violators of it's written tenets. Slaughter of the opposition is part and parcel of it's core tenets. Their written source of "revelation" is filled with passages supporting these FACTS.

 

and since these same philosphies promote lemming style sheep following their leaders commands, when one major Christian hierarchal group decided to make abortion an issue, the masses of sheep bleeted their acceptance.

 

The correlation is very easy to establish and understand. Just as the reverse is easy to see. You will find very few attempts to justify, much less agreement with, support for Capital Punishment or against a woman's ability to make their own decisions in Secular Humanist groups.

 

Those that use religious authoritarian personal philosophies reject REASON to instead embrace antiquated superstitions and allow that intentional lack of fact based reasoning to embrace the ultimate punishment and extend their control to other's bodies and minds. While those that hold REASON as primary and FACTS as the basis for personal decisions don't.

[sanctus]

I start with a short story:

In Italy there used to be a lawyer who had written in big capital letters on wall behind his desk (so that it was the first thing every client saw coming into his office): "IT'S NOT". When he was asked why or what it meant, he said: "you know in the italian high court there is written in big capital letters JUSTICE IS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE, well....... IT'S NOT!".

 

That is the first reason I'm against death penalty, because I do not believe in the objectivity of the judgement (i.e.: I defy you to find a rich american who got death penalty).

The second reason is, that I do not believe that the society has the right to decide about death or live.

 

Now, I'm very in favour of abortion and it's not in contradiction with reason two, because at that stage it's the joice of the mother to abort or not, as she is carrying the baby she has the right to decide if giving life or not to a child, society has nothing to say there (at least in the first three months).

 

When you write how you accept death penalty only because the laws allow it, I find it very sad, it gives me the impression that you just accept the government without any critical point of view. If you've got your idea, you can try to change any law and if you're not the only one criticizing it, eventually it will change.

 

I don't think that abortion is used as birth control, tell my only one woman who hasn't got psycological problems afterwards? This is the reason I'm for abortion, because if a woman decides to do it, she is aware of what it means you won't find any who just does it like it would be nothing.

 

Between this paragraph and the last one there was an hour of interruption discussing with my girlfriend (she lives in another city), I told her about this discussion and she resumed very well my point of view (which is also hers): people are in favor of abortion because they believe in the freedom of every individual, but they are against death penalty because they believe that the freedom of one individual stops where the freedom of the others starts.

[Tormod]

I am not only opposed to death penalty but also life sentences (because I am strongly opposed to the ancient "eye for an eye" philosophy). Like Sanctus says, supporting death penalty because it is the law gives you a problem, Irish. Because then you also need to support abortion (since it is currently legal in the US).

 

Laws are not a matter of public opinion, they are made by the politicians. So if you are for the death penalty, fine, you are in good company in the US. In Europe, I don't know of any countries which currently perform executions although I believe some countries still have a law where it is allowed. It would be a massively non-politically-correct action to perform a public execution in Europe, though.

 

The number 1 reason I am opposed to the death penalty is that it is a state sanctioned murder. I do not care how clinical, humane, politically correct or whatever - it is murder. Someone willingly takes part in the act of taking someone's life. In my eyes, every single person involved in a death penalty - from the judge and jury who hand down the sentence, to the prison staff, to the politicians who sanction an execution, are responsible for the death of a human being and as such they are accomplices to a murder.

 

That may sound harsh. Sometimes I face the "What about the victim" question. Well, it's back to the "eye for an eye", or revenge, problem. In some countries in this world, murder is allowed if it is commited to save the family's face (they call it "honor"...). I don't see where the US is any different. I hear a lot of pro-DP folks say that it is necessary as a deterrent. And it is necessary to give the victim's family "peace".

 

Yet AFAIK the statistics show that the deterrent effect does not work. There are more people on death row than ever. Also, I wonder how relieved the victim's family really feel. To know that another person is publicly killed in cold blood because their own kin was murdered? That is nothing but revenge. I pity the kind of people who need to see someone die for their actions.

 

Just to give some perspective - in Norway, the hardest possible penalty is 21 years in prison plus I believe up to ten years of some sort of "freedom under supervision". In practice, nobody serves more than 12-13 years.

 

The abortion bit. I see this as two different things. I am personally very uneasy about abortion but I agree with sanctus in his pro-choice stance. I may feel uneasy but I am not the one who will have to take the choice. If my daughters go and get pregnant when they are 15, then I agree there is a real problem. The only way I can help in any way to solve it (apart from being a good father!) is to make sure they know what the options are, and stand by them if they have to make a choice. They are individuals. If I am not told, then so be it. (This is of course easier to say for me than someone with older kids...we're not 'there' yet).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

I don't think that abortion is used as birth control,

Actually it is. Abortion is definately used as a form of birth control. In fact my ex (and I?) did so. And if used in a literal manner, it is used quite a bit. The "Pill" for instance works on two levels. Yes it helps stop fertilization, but on a secondary level it is also an abortifacient. It sets up conditions that stop the fertilized egg from implanting. Which is exactly what an IUD does.

tell my only one woman who hasn't got psycological problems afterwards?

Postpartum Depression is more of a problem than the psychological complications of early termination. But Anti-choicers have effectively framed the issue so people tend to think as you do. That somehow there are worse psychological reactions to abortion than to actually carrying to term. Just more intentional lies promoted by those that wish to ignore science and reality.

This is the reason I'm for abortion, because if a woman decides to do it, she is aware of what it means you won't find any who just does it like it would be nothing.

Statistically there will be some percentage that would even consider abortion as a primary contraceptive.

[sanctus]

Are you sure about your last statement? Or bette what do you exactly mean by statistically? That there will always be one (what would be negligible) or that there would be enough that it wouldn't be negligible any more? And how can you make such statistics?

[Tormod]

What about the "day after pill"? Don't know what you call that in the US. Over here we call it the "regret pill" and it needs to be taken within 72 hours or so, and whoops, no baby.

 

Would that be considered an abortion?

[Tormod]

Are we really discussing Irish' original question here? Ie, "why is abortion and death penalty connected"? Just wondering. If not, no sweat. For me they are not related so I guess I am answering that just by saying so.

[lindagarrette]

Many people see them as related since they both are means of terminating some form of life. So is euthanasia which I also put in this category. I oppose the death penalty because its only purpose is vindictive but it doesn't really harm the victim. Everyone dies and these days executions are relatively painless They are all controversial for religious reasons. If death were a punishment, then everyone would be penalized.

 

With the promise of heaven at the other end, I wonder why most Christians aren't eager to die.

[Aki]

I oppose the death penalty because its only purpose is vindictive but it doesn't really harm the victim.

The thing is, if we don't access death penalties, then we have to keep them in prison for their lifetime. So basically we have to feed them, and that's how our tax money gets used?! Just walking down the street in downtown, you see so many homeless people. Wouldn't it make more sense to use that money to help them? Or even the people in Africa and third world countries?

[lindagarrette]

The connection is primarily religious. What people believe defines their values. You can usually find out if they are pro or con something related to terminating life (or potential life) by asking what christian doctrine they adhere to. Without religious influence (and in reality), there is no right or wrong in this matter (or any other), just personal feeling based on experience within a given culture..

[Dimsie]

The only worry I have about the death penalty is that it might make it harder to get a convicition. Of course the death penalty is about retribution - a life for a life - I see that as perfectly fair. In the absence of the death penalty I believe a life sentence should mean just that - life. If someone murdered my child I would not want them ever to walk the streets again as a free man or woman, I would not want them ever to sit happily beside their child while I sat beside an empty seat, I would not want them to kiss their child goodnight while I looked into an empty bedroom - you get the picture? I would WANT retribution, I would want them to suffer for the rest of their life because not only would they have taken the life away from an innocent person, they would also have ruined my life and possibly several other people's.

 

PS I know too many people who have lost loved ones due to the violence of others. Don't condemn people for wanting retribution until you too have walked in their shoes.

[InfiniteNow]

PS I know too many people who have lost loved ones due to the violence of others. Don't condemn people for wanting retribution until you too have walked in their shoes.

 

Welcome to Hypography, Dimsie. I look forward to interacting with you more on the various topics here. :hyper:

 

 

As for your statement above, retribution has never brought back the missed loved one. Revenge doesn't make the emptiness nor hurt go away. To act on such emotion makes you no better than the individual who caused you the pain originally by their violent act, and does nothing to bring the loved one back nor help you let go of that pain. The only way to stop the cycle of pain, anguish, and hatred is to do so within yourself. Revenge nor retribution just won't do it.

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

[TheBigDog]

Welcome to Hypography, Dimsie. I look forward to interacting with you more on the various topics here. :hyper:

 

 

As for your statement above, retribution has never brought back the missed loved one. Revenge doesn't make the emptiness nor hurt go away. To act on such emotion makes you no better than the individual who caused you the pain originally by their violent act, and does nothing to bring the loved one back nor help you let go of that pain. The only way to stop the cycle of pain, anguish, and hatred is to do so within yourself. Revenge nor retribution just won't do it.

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

InfiniteNow, I know that you and I are probably not going to sway one another on this matter, and I fully respect that. So i ask these questions in the spirit of having the discussion...

 

There is deterence and justice. What is the form of justice if the death penalty is removed? Who should determine what the balance of justice is for an act? And even if the victim is forgiving, and society is forgiving, what are the standards of justice that you must enforce to act as adeterence against further crimes? Have lives been saved by executing criminals? have people turned toward less violent acitons instead of risk their own death? If that is the case does that benefit merit the death penalty?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Once the individual is executed, any lessons are lost. One cannot be taught that killing is wrong by killing them. The death penalty does not serve as a detracter to a violent act, which itself is most often engaged in during a highly emotional and spontaneous moment.

 

Punishment just teaches people how to get away with things. I think you and I discussed this some in the "War. Is it ever justified?" thread.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/1507-war-ever-justified-6.html?#post81972

 

 

My (attempted and idealized) stance is more buddhist in nature. We should thank the individual who committed the violent act for reminding us how (and for giving us the opportunity) to forgive...