The difference between the death penalty and abortion

Dirtie_Frank

scb wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I meant what do you guys thinks is acceptable? Sorry for the confusion.

Acceptable for whom and under what circumstances? Regardless, I don't believe I have the right to decide for someone else.

So you think it would be fine if someone decided to have and abortion after say 7 months? Since it is their body.

_

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

scb wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I meant what do you guys thinks is acceptable? Sorry for the confusion.

Acceptable for whom and under what circumstances? Regardless, I don't believe I have the right to decide for someone else.

So you think it would be fine if someone decided to have and abortion after say 7 months? Since it is their body.

Depends on what you mean by me thinking it's fine and depends on the circumstances. (And usually there need to be some pretty bad circumstances for this to happen.)

Blockhead

scb wrote:

True - which is why they are not an independent life.

What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.

I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?

_

HeidiJam wrote:

scb wrote:

True - which is why they are not an independent life.

What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.

I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?

So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?

Blockhead

scb wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

scb wrote:

True - which is why they are not an independent life.

What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.

I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?

So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?

I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.

_

HeidiJam wrote:

scb wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?

So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?

I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.

Well that does have to do with it. But now I'm getting confused. Do you think a fetus is a person? :?

unsung

scb, I'm pretty much against abortion except for rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. But I'm not here to tell a woman what to do.

But I do have a question for you; in another thread you stated that illegal alien Harvard student should be allowed to stay because (I'm paraphrasing) he could find the cure for cancer.

I don't understand how you can defend him, as he was only going to have to move to his home country, and then not defend the life of an unborn child. Could that child not have the potential to cure some terrible affliction?

I'm not telling a woman what to do but I just can't find it acceptable.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Cincy - It just baffles me that you don't see the difference between being pro-choice about something but not necessarily pro-something. Aren't there issues where you respect the choices of others, though you might make a different choice? Isn't this one of the fundamental concepts of the founding of our nation?

For instance, I am pro-choice with regard to gun ownership, though I believe no one should own a gun. I am pro-choice with regard to circumcision, though I would not support getting my own child circumcised and I think it's torture. I am pro-choice with regard to homosexuality, though I am not gay. I am pro-choice with regard to some religions, though I believe their teachings are wrong. (Eh, "wrong" is a strong word, but you get my point.) Et cetera, et cetera.

I get it, just not in this case. Doesn't fit.

Why not?

This is a life, so it's a black and white issue for me. No gray here. Dead is dead. Or it's a simple medical procedure. It's 1 or the other.

But we've done this dance before me thinks.

Jason P

It has been interesting to read the different viewpoints on this subject so jar. Amazingly, the debate has been pretty controlled and engaging. Bravo.

Anyway, this is my thought on a life. I can't for the life of me judge when a human goes from an embryo to an actual "human". But I do think it's insane to define life as the second the baby leaves the womb. That would insinuate that 42 second before a mother gives birth that the fetus is just nothing. I would find it tough to argue that point convincingly (to myself). But I do understand that there is a transition somewhere in the 0 - 9 month period. But where does it happen? Can anyone say with 100% confidence?

And even if it is defined at an arbitrary duration, a process is still being disrupted that otherwise would eventually lead to life . . .

_

unsung wrote:

scb, I'm pretty much against abortion except for rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. But I'm not here to tell a woman what to do.

But I do have a question for you; in another thread you stated that illegal alien Harvard student should be allowed to stay because (I'm paraphrasing) he could find the cure for cancer.

I don't understand how you can defend him, as he was only going to have to move to his home country, and then not defend the life of an unborn child. Could that child not have the potential to cure some terrible affliction?

I'm not telling a woman what to do but I just can't find it acceptable.

Aside from the fact that we have considerably more reason to believe that the Harvard kid (who has stated that his purpose is to find a cure for cancer and has thusfar taken every possible step in that direction) would find the cure for cancer than a random unborn fetus (who has not declared that his purpose is to find a cure for cancer and likely won't have as much opportunity as the Harvard kid has had to make it a reality even if it were his goal), I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I get it, just not in this case. Doesn't fit.

Why not?

This is a life, so it's a black and white issue for me. No gray here. Dead is dead. Or it's a simple medical procedure. It's 1 or the other.

But we've done this dance before me thinks.

Really?? I have no recollection of that at all.

Basically, my position on this part of this issue is that just because a group of cells is alive doesn't make it a person, and killing a group of cells is not the same as killing a person. To use a crude analogy, my appendix was alive when it was still inside me. After I had a simple medical procedure (an appendectomy), it's no longer alive, but I wouldn't say it's "dead". That word, to me, implies the end to an independent consciousness that appendixes and fetuses don't have.

I'd also like to point out, since people seem to want to think more of fetuses which have developed into the 3rd trimester, that only 0.07% of abortions occur in the United States in the 3rd trimester (about 90% occur in the 1st trimester). So this idea of an actual baby (like we think of babies) being killed is not anywhere close to representative of the vast majority of abortions.

Jason P

scb wrote:

. . . I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.

It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.

_

Jason P wrote:

scb wrote:

. . . I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.

It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.

Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?

Jason P

scb wrote:

Jason P wrote:

scb wrote:

. . . I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.

It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.

Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick your points, I was just trying to condense the subject matter.

OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?

_

Jason P wrote:

scb wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.

Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick your points, I was just trying to condense the subject matter.

OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?

Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.

Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

Jason P wrote:

scb wrote:

Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick your points, I was just trying to condense the subject matter.

OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?

Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.

Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?

That's a good question. I'd save the baby.

But let's say there are 100 embryos and 150 plants...what do you save?

know1

scb wrote:

I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.

Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:

1. A fetus is not a person.

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.

Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.

Sad.

I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.

know1

The whole pro-choice/anti-abortion, etc., argument is just semantics designed to make people feel better about their own opinions.

The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.

For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.

Also, the argument for the death penalty saying they killed an innocent person is also a bunch of nonsense. Who is innocent? What is innocent? What if a guy is going to rob a store and he happens to shoot and kill someone who was previously convicted of murder? Would it be OK to let him go since he killed a non-innocent person? Wait, that's exactly what we're doing when we execute someone....

know1

Jason P wrote:

It has been interesting to read the different viewpoints on this subject so jar. Amazingly, the debate has been pretty controlled and engaging. Bravo.

Anyway, this is my thought on a life. I can't for the life of me judge when a human goes from an embryo to an actual "human". But I do think it's insane to define life as the second the baby leaves the womb. That would insinuate that 42 second before a mother gives birth that the fetus is just nothing. I would find it tough to argue that point convincingly (to myself). But I do understand that there is a transition somewhere in the 0 - 9 month period. But where does it happen? Can anyone say with 100% confidence?

And even if it is defined at an arbitrary duration, a process is still being disrupted that otherwise would eventually lead to life . . .

This is the crux of the entire issue. There are few who could reasonably argue that at some not-yet-defined point in the pregnancy, the baby is not a person.

What I always ask is why take the chance if we're not sure?

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

The whole pro-choice/anti-abortion, etc., argument is just semantics designed to make people feel better about their own opinions.

The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.

For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.

Also, the argument for the death penalty saying they killed an innocent person is also a bunch of nonsense. Who is innocent? What is innocent? What if a guy is going to rob a store and he happens to shoot and kill someone who was previously convicted of murder? Would it be OK to let him go since he killed a non-innocent person? Wait, that's exactly what we're doing when we execute someone....

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say.

Again, I've said it before, but I do admire your consistency on these issues.