Contradictory Dogma

Contradictory Dogma (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 8:50:10 AM)
This may not be so easy to answer. It may simply draw a bunch of nonsequitors about Refucklinazi's and how George Bush is a doo-doo head, but spring is a good time for hope, so I'll ask. Perhaps some few will provide honest answers about holding what seem to be mutually exclusive viewpoints at the same time. If having and using the death penalty makes the US uncivilized, no better than those we kill, why is easy access to abortion clinics any different? I'm genuinely curious here. I'm in favor of the death penalty more often than it is used, and I think the right side won the abortion battle in the 70's. I don't get how people oppose one and support the other.

kittinSol -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 8:53:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I don't get how people oppose one and support the other. I don't get it how people who deem themselves "pro-life" are in favour of the death penalty either. If you're trying for the longest thread in the history of the boards, you just made a good bet.

TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:03:48 AM)
Well I'll be dipped, Kitten! You mean we actually agree on something? The question works just as well if we flip the polarity. The positions are mutually exclusive without some extra-strength rationalization. How does that work?

Real0ne -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:04:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I don't get how people oppose one and support the other. I don't get it how people who deem themselves "pro-life" are in favour of the death penalty either. If you're trying for the longest thread in the history of the boards, you just made a good bet. Here we agree ks. THe problem of course is that we do not have an HONEST judicial/laws/enforcement system contrary to and despite peoples delusionistic views of it. When you can show me that we have a absolutely honest and righteous system all the way from the cops to the hangman then we can talk about a death penalty. Until then NO. As far as abortion is concerned, yah sure lots of people get them on the philosophy that its a fetus and a fetus is not a life. The supreme court ruled the way they did because one has to be born to be considered a citizen, hence a fetus has no rights till they are born. Leaving it up to the churches and peoples personal respect for life. I think the rampant rise in abortion speaks more toward how demoralized this society is than anything else to use murder for convenience so it is not surprise that we are taunting world war 3 fore the convenience of a bit of extra oil. We live in a nazi mentality of cold blooded killers do we not? After all we did rationalize that a fetus is not a human life, or at least that is the reason given to me, that and the many reasons of convenience for killing babies. The fact it was only one side of the argument that has never been resolved is irrellevant. It does not take to much of a leap of imagination to conclude that if killing adults were legal people would massacre each other and sleep just as good as they ever did in this country. They would simply rationalize that they were animals or something so its all good.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:06:29 AM)
It all has to do with individual rights. The potential human being growing inside a woman has no rights that supersede the rights of that woman. This is exactly what is meant by the old axiom on personal liberties: "you have the right to swing your fist right up to the tip of another person's nose." A fetus by its nature, by its mere existence, is imposing upon another person's rights, and therefore has no rights. The death penalty presumes another set of absurdities: the we can collectively grant the state a right we don't have as individuals. No individual has the right to take another person's life (see the axiom above), how therefore does it follow that we can collectively imbue the state with a right that none of us has individually? I'll try one more time: if it is unlawful to take another's life, it also wrong for the state to do so. In the former case the being in question has no rights, and on the latter case the being does have rights - the same as anyone else.

Alumbrado -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:10:22 AM)
All individuals have the right to take the life of another in self defense... As Dryden noted, that is the oldest law around. To carry this to the extreme, is Heretic proposing that when a mother dies in childbirth that the baby be charged with a homicide?

Aneirin -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:22:28 AM)
Maybe the difference between pro abortion and killing felons may come down to nothing more than vengeance.

TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado To carry this to the extreme, is Heretic proposing that when a mother dies in childbirth that the baby be charged with a homicide? That's extreme enough to leave me with no idea where it came from or went. Huh??? Wouldn't self-defense extend to society protecting it's members from serial killers and rapists?

TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:29:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro The death penalty presumes another set of absurdities: the we can collectively grant the state a right we don't have as individuals. What is absurd about that, Sugar? We do it all the time. Try going out and installing a stoplight at an intersection you think needs one. What is gov't good for, if not to do things individuals can't do themselves?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:35:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What is gov't good for, if not to do things individuals can't do themselves? You got me. As regards the death penalty, I have no idea what the state is good for. The problem is they make endless mistakes and prosecute innocent people to maintain the mere appearance of "law and order." It's all bullshit. If I had no other reason to oppose the death penalty it would simply be because the state makes so many mistakes and selectively prosecutes cases against minorities. Or do you actually believe that more people of color are murderers than their caucasian brothers?

faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:36:03 AM)
death penalty=should go to the ones with the most viscious crimes like murder and then they cut the body up. especially serial killers...they dont deserve to live....and yet some of them get a slap on the wrist and poof only have to see some psychiatrist cause they plead insanity. abortion= womans choice....its her baby in the first place.

SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:47:11 AM)
quote: If having and using the death penalty makes the US uncivilized, no better than those we kill, why is easy access to abortion clinics any different? I don't know, the god of the old testament was for abortion and capital punishment... julia

DomKen -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:48:44 AM)
I'm pro-choice and oppose the death penalty so I'll try and answer. I'm pro choice because I do not view a potential life as superceding the rights of the mother. As a man I also realize it is never going to be an issue I directly have to deal with and think it is best left up to those whom it directly affects. For the death penalty my view is three fold. First, after extensive investigation, I don't think the justice system at present, or under any reasonable set of rules, can guarantee that no innocents will be convicted and executed. Since this is a case of the state acting collectively I do not find it acceptable that the state should kill innocent people on my behalf. Second is the why of the death penalty. It's pretty clear to me that the death penalty is strictly a vengeance issue. It is also clear that it does not act as an actual deterrent. I see no positive in my society practicing blood for blood vengeance. Finally A close examination of when the death penalty is pursued and who the defendants are in those cases shows convincingly that the death penalty is applied against the poor and minorities unfairly and for quite clear political reasons. That politicians should be able to build their careers around killing poor people of color to assuage the populaces racial fears does not strike me as a reason to continue the death penalty.

TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 9:52:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Or do you actually believe that more people of color are murderers than their caucasian brothers? Given the differences in the death rate by violence, that would seem like a logical conclusion. How this came to be would be a whole other discussion. Now, as far as the death penalty being applied selectively, my solution would be to use it a lot more often than we do.

kittinSol -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 10:07:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Now, as far as the death penalty being applied selectively, my solution would be to use it a lot more often than we do. Well, please explain how, what, when, why, then, Rich. The suspense is killing me :-) .

Level -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 10:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This may not be so easy to answer. It may simply draw a bunch of nonsequitors about Refucklinazi's and how George Bush is a doo-doo head, but spring is a good time for hope, so I'll ask. Perhaps some few will provide honest answers about holding what seem to be mutually exclusive viewpoints at the same time. If having and using the death penalty makes the US uncivilized, no better than those we kill, why is easy access to abortion clinics any different? I'm genuinely curious here. I'm in favor of the death penalty more often than it is used, and I think the right side won the abortion battle in the 70's. I don't get how people oppose one and support the other. Rich, I'm against them both.

kdsub -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 10:29:44 AM)
Both subjects have been talked to death and your premise as been stated often in augments for and against both positions. I’m sure there will be nothing new in this thread. But they are important subjects and warrant continual discussion until a firm consensus is reached and laws enacted. I personally believe that in cases with no doubt of guilt then the death penalty is warranted. I look at it this way…If some ass murdered my daughter… I want him or her dead and I don’t give a damn about the sanctity of life. If I would want that for my family then I will not deny it for another. I want my daughter to have the choice of an abortion….but I would personally do everything in my power to dissuade her…even offering to raise the child myself. I see no conflict in my views. Butch

TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 10:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Well, please explain how, what, when, why, then, Rich. The suspense is killing me :-) . Nah. I certainly could, but I like watching that expression of fear and anticipation. [:D]

SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 10:55:20 AM)
quote: Both subjects have been talked to death and your premise as been stated often in augments for and against both positions. I’m sure there will be nothing new in this thread. Which is why I gave my throw-a-way answer... Nothing new to see, nothing new to read, nothing new to explore... just more flame bait fodder and no one's position will change. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro having a society where abortion is not necessary. I am not pro death penalty, I am pro having a society in which it isn't necessary. It is very easy to solve a problem by killing it once it exists, it is far harder to come up with ways to prevent it in the first place. I am for the right of women to have a choice to have an abortion. Because a woman makes a choice to abort a pregnancy instead of carrying it to full term does not make me someone that kills, it makes me someone that believes she has a right to make a choice with her body. Now if we want to debate whether or not tax money should pay for abortions... well that is a more viable debate because to force people to pay for things they do not believe in, like abortion, is wrong to me in some ways.... Same with war, I do not want to pay for war because I do not believe in it. I do not want to pay for executions because I do not believe in them. Now execution is a choice the state makes. For example, when the state of California kills someone, they say the people of California, now I am one of those people they are talking about... so when they execute someone, they are making me an executioner too. I am paying for it. And if they make a mistake, then I am a murderer. That is the difference to me, with abortion it is a private choice I have naught to do with between a woman and her doctor. With execution, I am in on it, it makes me the murderer. julia

TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:07:56 AM)
Yeah, I'd like the whole incense and peppermints and marmalades skies, John Lennon, Louis Armstrong bit myself, Julia. It doesn't exist. Declaring that you keep your head off in the delusional clouds of idealism doesn't change the contradiction of saying that an individual woman should be free to end the life of an inconvenient person but for the state to do the same is wrong.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875