TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pro-choice, pro-death
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Pro-choice, pro-death

I was just pondering this...

Most conservatives are pro-life, and pro-death penalty

Whereas

most liberals are pro-choice, and anti-death penalty.

One wants to kill them when they're new, the other wants to kill them after they've killed someone else.

I just thought it was kinda odd, either way, I'm still Libertarian.

Re: Pro-choice, pro-death

quote:

Originally posted by Krysta_101 I was just pondering this... Most conservatives are pro-life, and pro-death penalty Whereas most liberals are pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. One wants to kill them when they're new, the other wants to kill them after they've killed someone else. I just thought it was kinda odd, either way, I'm still Libertarian.

Yea I've always thought it a bit odd too. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty and the way I get round it is that I dont consider a fetus to be a sentient life form at that stage (sounds harsh but I would consider it just like a limb) I also think euthenasia should be legal too

Anti-abortion. Agree with death penalty in principle (but due to mistakes and what I deem unjust executions of some people am opposed to it in practice). Pro-euthenasia too.

I agree with both of your points. Nice to see a fellow libertarian on the boards, by the way. The death penalty posses more than simply moral questions, as abortion does. Some argue that the death penalty should be in place, as we are wasting a lot of money on prisoners. While this is true, if you look at the number of people that recieved the death penalty last year, 125, then you can see this arguement holds no water considering the amount of people currently incarcerated, around a couple million I believe. This is actually interesting, as I have heard this arguement before from conservatives, albeit not very smart ones. The major arguement, however, is the oldest form of punishment, retribution. In order to stop this rant, I will end on one of my favorite quotes.

'An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind' - Mahatma Gandhi

by the way I'm listening to Groove Armada- Easy right now, what a freaking track

hi krysta nice to see u on this forum !

I'm libertarian, but I'm still anti-abortion.

First of all, as a society, it makes no sense to kill entire future demographics. I've read countless articles dealing with the problem of an "aging" population and the lack of numbers in future populations to continue to afford social programs, especially for the elderly. When you average approximately 1.5 million abortions a year in the United States (a conservative number), take that back to Roe V. Wade and then determine that those "children" would now be having children of their own, there is a large portion of the young demographic missing.

Even though I don't think it is necessary, I would be willing to concede the use of abortion when not used as birth control. Being a libertarian I do believe in personal freedom, but with that comes personal responsibility. If you wish to have sex, no matter what protection you may or may not use, it is up to you to be responsible in knowing that there is always a possibilty of having children. If you are not responsible in realizing the outcome of your actions, than that is no excuse for an abortion. And don't give me some crap about bringing a kid into a bad environment. Take any of those kids, and than once they become 18, of legal age, ask them if they would have mind being aborted instead of being brought into such a "bad environment." How many people are really going to choose death over life even in poor circumstances? If a time machine existed, and once you turned 18, someone came up to you and said, "your mother really wanted to abort you, but we wanted to give you the ability to make your own choice...do you mind if we go back and abort you?" What would you choose?

There are also countless double standards when it comes to abortion. We have attempted murder and attempted robbery to name a few charges based on future possibility, probabilty and tendancy. However, when it comes to a pregrant woman, which after syngamy is statistically shown to give birth to a living human a great majority of the time, we have no problems with killing. What makes the difference then, location? If we are able to keep the fetus alive outside the body, does that constitute living, or is it then okay to kill neonates that are unable to survive on their own? And if that is the case, what happens when we are able to bring a fetus to full term from fertilization outside the female body? Will that effectively end abortion, or do we extend things in the opposite manner? A three year old would not be able to survie without adult care and supervision, so is it then okay to "abort" a three year old?

When it comes to the death penatly, it's easy for me. You have all the rights that everyone else enjoys, until you take away another's. When you take away someone's right to life, than guess what, you forfeit your own. An unborn child also has that right, even though it is unable to survive on its own or speak for itself. I guess if you want an analogy it would be like kiling someone in a coma that is guaranteed to come out of it. If Terri Shiavo was guaranteed to come out of her vegetative state in 9 months and make a full recovery, would we have allowed her feeding tube to be pulled?

Well, my stances are as follows:

I'm pro-choice (though I think charging someone like Scott Peterson murder on 2 counts yet not charging a doctor whom of which performs an abortion a complete and utter misuse of the law) though I am against partial-birth abortions. If the baby is actually about ready to come out of the womb, no need to crush its skull and kill it. It's called an adoption agency, use one.

I'm pro-death penalty. For the simple fact that I know it's not cheaper per s�, but to be truthful, I would rather have my money fund someone who killed an entire family's death rather than his/her ability to live in a cell.

I am also pro-euthanesia since I think people should have control over their own lives if it does not affect the lives of others or infringe upon another's rights. I also don't think suicide should be illegal.

Ohhhh well, those are my two cents.

A libertarian that is pro-life, I firmly believe that you should never feel you have to perscribe to all of a party's values, but pro-life

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings A libertarian that is pro-life, I firmly believe that you should never feel you have to perscribe to all of a party's values, but pro-life

Yup, I believe in the rights of humans whether they are in their mother or not.

Re: Re: Pro-choice, pro-death

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yea I've always thought it a bit odd too. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty and the way I get round it is that I dont consider a fetus to be a sentient life form at that stage (sounds harsh but I would consider it just like a limb) I also think euthenasia should be legal too

I agree to that, even tho a fetus might be alieve (which is basically the pro life argument), its not more alieve than a pig or something else that we kill everyday without thinking about it.

But on the other hand, if you kill someone who comitted a crime, then you killed someone that was a living human beeing.

I'm SO not getting into this argument for the umpteenth time!

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly I'm SO not getting into this argument for the umpteenth time!

ditto

I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

When it can do long division

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

There is not clear definition. But i for one would say that even when the child is born, its not really "human". But to make things easier you must have a clear definition, and before the child is born would be a good one.

I ten to go with the doctors on that one - at the mo its 24 weeks (altho recently it has been said to be 22) If the doctors decide otherwise fine

So I guess the definition would be either as long as it's inside the mother or at the cutoff point for a viable premature birth. So, as science progresses and that cutoff point is pushed further back, we will have to deal with the repercussions of such new sicence. I had a class about modern biological ethics and this debate came up. It is a slippery slope that eventually leads back to syngamy. Fertilization in my viewpoint is not the start of human life due to sheer statistics, but syngamy is. Eventually science will get to the point where a human is viable both outside the mother's body and prematurely at the point of syngamy, and I guess according to the offered definitions, that will be the effective end of abortion.

I would also like to see where there is any concensus of doctors, or scientist in general of when human "life" begins.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

The issue isn't whether the fetus is "alive" or "human", as it is self-evidently both, the issue is whether it is a "person". The way I see it, personhood (and all the rights that personhood entails) is acheived at the point of biological independence: that is, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving independently outside of the womb. It's not a point that is easy to define with precision (as you'd know, being trained in the medical field), but we're generally talking 22-26 weeks gestation (i.e. close to the beginning of third trimester). Before this point, the fetus remains a part of the woman's body that cannot survive without her assent and it is therefore for her - and her alone, as the individual that has to carry the fetus throughout gestation - to decide whether she wants to allow it to continue to grow there within her or not. So far as I'm concerned, the fetus - as a dependant (parasitic?), biological mass - is afforded the same rights as any other organ in the female's body. The notion that a zygote consisting of 4 cells should be conferred the same rights as a sentient, fully-developed person is, for me, completely absurd.

The notion of "potentiality for personhood" is similarly nonsensical. The potential to become a "person" is not the same as actually being a person in the same sense that potential to become something is never the equivilent of actually being something (I have the potential, for instance, to become a doctor - should I, therefore, be conferred the same privilages as an actual doctor? Do we view acorns and oak-trees as identical objects?). Besides, every sperm cell and every ovum has the "potential" to become a person - are we therefore to legislate against men engaging in non-procreant ejaculations, or against women who ovulate? If not, why not? What's the distinction between the "death" of a sperm cell, the "death" of an ovum and the "death" of a bicellular unification of the two?

EDIT: The second paragraph is not necessarily directed at you, Neophono. I'm not sure if you agree with the concept of "potentiality of personhood" or not, but I'm pre-empting that response if you give it. If you don't agree with this as an argument against abortion, then disregard.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The issue isn't whether the fetus is "alive" or "human", as it is self-evidently both, the issue is whether it is a "person". The way I see it, personhood (and all the rights that personhood entails) is acheived at the point of biological independence: that is, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving independently outside of the womb. It's not a point that is easy to define with precision (as you'd know, being trained in the medical field), but we're generally talking 22-26 weeks gestation (i.e. close to the beginning of third trimester). Before this point, the fetus remains a part of the woman's body that cannot survive without her assent and it is therefore for her - and her alone, as the individual that has to carry the fetus throughout gestation - to decide whether she wants to allow it to continue to grow there within her or not. So far as I'm concerned, the fetus - as a dependant (parasitic?), biological mass - is afforded the same rights as any other organ in the female's body. The notion that a zygote consisting of 4 cells should be conferred the same rights as a sentient, fully-developed person is, for me, completely absurd. The notion of "potentiality for personhood" is similarly nonsensical. The potential to become a "person" is not the same as actually being a person in the same sense that potential to become something is never the equivilent of actually being something (I have the potential, for instance, to become a doctor - should I, therefore, be conferred the same privilages as an actual doctor? Do we view acorns and oak-trees as identical objects?). Besides, every sperm cell and every ovum has the "potential" to become a person - are we therefore to legislate against men engaging in non-procreant ejaculations, or against women who ovulate? If not, why not? What's the distinction between the "death" of a sperm cell, the "death" of an ovum and the "death" of a bicellular unification of the two? EDIT: The second paragraph is not necessarily directed at you, Neophono. I'm not sure if you agree with the concept of "potentiality of personhood" or not, but I'm pre-empting that response if you give it. If you don't agree with this as an argument against abortion, then disregard.

See, I knew someone would make all of my points.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The issue isn't whether the fetus is "alive" or "human", as it is self-evidently both, the issue is whether it is a "person". The way I see it, personhood (and all the rights that personhood entails) is acheived at the point of biological independence: that is, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving independently outside of the womb. It's not a point that is easy to define with precision (as you'd know, being trained in the medical field), but we're generally talking 22-26 weeks gestation (i.e. close to the beginning of third trimester). Before this point, the fetus remains a part of the woman's body that cannot survive without her assent and it is therefore for her - and her alone, as the individual that has to carry the fetus throughout gestation - to decide whether she wants to allow it to continue to grow there within her or not. So far as I'm concerned, the fetus - as a dependant (parasitic?), biological mass - is afforded the same rights as any other organ in the female's body. The notion that a zygote consisting of 4 cells should be conferred the same rights as a sentient, fully-developed person is, for me, completely absurd.

I think the arguement that "person-hood" begins at biological independence has a couple problems. First is the case of permature birth. These children are unable to take care of themselves out of a strictly controlled environment that is meant to mimic that of the womb. Are these "things" then still eligible for an abortion? Is there any injustice or wrong in putting one of these "things" to death? If it is not acceptable to kill one, than I again go back to my arguement that science is the determining factor as to when the cells become "human." If that is the case I still put forth that it is only a matter of time before cells after syngamy are able to be brought forth to a viable human offspring in an artifical environment. I then wonder how we will look at abortion.

Second is the definition of "independent." I would argue that many individuals are not independent as far as being able to completely care for themselves until much after birth, childhood and in the case of some individuals with mental or physical defects, are ever able to be "independent." Is it than okay for these individuals to be "aborted?"

I understand how your definition arises, but I do believe there to be some major concerns with it.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew There is not clear definition. But i for one would say that even when the child is born, its not really "human".

For the love of God, what is it then?! Congratulations Mr. & Mrs. Babyowner. You are the proud parents of a fully functional, non-human mass of cells!

Don't have a lot of time here (I have to be up for work in 4 hours :-/), but quickly:

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think the arguement that "person-hood" begins at biological independence has a couple problems. First is the case of permature birth. These children are unable to take care of themselves out of a strictly controlled environment that is meant to mimic that of the womb. Are these "things" then still eligible for an abortion? Is there any injustice or wrong in putting one of these "things" to death? If it is not acceptable to kill one, than I again go back to my arguement that science is the determining factor as to when the cells become "human." If that is the case I still put forth that it is only a matter of time before cells after syngamy are able to be brought forth to a viable human offspring in an artifical environment. I then wonder how we will look at abortion.

There's a clear distinction between a premature birth and an aborted fetus, which is why I draw the line at about 22-26 weeks. Any "child" born before this stage has virtually no chance of surviving, and no aborted "fetus" has any chance of surviving up until this stage either. If it were possible to abort a fetus, find some way to keep it alive artificially and then find someone to take care of it as it develops into a child then I would say that this would be an acceptable solution. As it stands though, no fetus at this stage of development can survive outside of the mother's womb. In this sense, it is a part of the woman's body, therefore it is for the woman alone to decide what to do with it. You cannot force a woman to carry a fetus for nine months and then give birth to it if this is against her wishes - it's undeniably inhumane and I'm not sure that the child that grows from the fetus will have much of a life at the end of it either.

As I say, if there is a way of keeping a fetus alive and then ensuring it could be nurtured through childhood then this would be an acceptable solution. Inadequate medical technology, though, and a lack of willing foster parents make it an unattainable one.

quote:

Second is the definition of "independent." I would argue that many individuals are not independent as far as being able to completely care for themselves until much after birth, childhood and in the case of some individuals with mental or physical defects, are ever able to be "independent." Is it than okay for these individuals to be "aborted?"

I'm talking strictly about biological independence. If a mother dies during child-birth, for instance, the child could still be reared by a relative. Even though it is still dependent on another human being for sustinance (as we all are at that stage in development) it can survive independently from its mother. This, I believe, is the point of biological independence (and thus, personhood): where the being is no longer dependant on a direct, biological relationship with a specific biological entity to survive.

Eh, I kinda disagree with your view, Renegade, because your definition is based on current medical technology. This means that a baby that was born at 6 months of age 100 years ago was not supposed to be considered a human since the medical technology of the time wasn't sufficient to maintain it. Similarly, if we push it to the other extreme, one day a single celled zygote will be considered a human being.

Until recently, I have pretty much shared Neo Phono's view on the matter, but some biological facts and probable technological advances in the near future make this point of view blurry at best. First of all, there's the fact that most fertilized and functional zygotes (about 70%) simply fail to catch on to the womb and get flushed out anyways. Providing sufficient technology, those zygotes could be saved and grown into fully capable human beings. On the other hand, there's the matter of cloning. Imagine this scenario - you take your DNA and put it into a fertilized cell (no need to kill it, you can always wait till it splits up a few times and then just take one of many). Now, if you let it grow normally, it will grow out into a new person (kinda like your long lost identical twin). But if you reinsert that cell into your body, it will simply be reabsorbed and live with you happily until you die. So, is this cell a new person or still a part of your body? Well, it's both actually, and what will come of it depends on the environment you put the cell in. Actually, cloning is not necessarry, every organism has in itself a small number of cells that can develop into anything, including another human given the right circumstances. And talking about identical twins, there are also cases where the twins split, and then still inside the womb one twin simply reabsorbs the other one into his own organism.

Taken all this into consideration, the line is really blurry, because many cells can grow into independent organisms, and many such organisms get destroyed and reabsorbed by the body before they have the chance to become something new. In other words, I don't have the solution to the problem and the fence is really stuck deep into my ass.

On the other hand, if we're talking about aborting deformed fetuses and people who have hereditary diseases and who want to choose the one fertilized egg that does not carry their disease, I'm all for that.

As for euthanasia, sure, if someone wants to die, go ahead.

Now about the death penalty, personally I prefer labor camps. That way the criminals will actually be useful, and since there's always the possibility of one being wrongly accused, such mistakes can be more easily corrected.

The solution to the person-hood issue is simple. The nature of a fetus is fundamentally different from the nature of a naturally viable human being or "person" - it is the fetus' nature not to be independent. That is precisely what defines it. Even if it can be kept alive outside the womb through the use of medical technology, it does not change it's basic nature - that is, a developing organism that survives only by direct physiological dependence.

Until it crosses the threshold of viability - that is, natural viability, not the artificial viability of medical technology - it is not its nature to live as an individual, and therefore it cannot possess an individual right to live.

With regards to the original post:

I fully support both abortion and the death penalty in theory, but I don't support the death penalty in practice simply because it is irreversable and, given the rather glaring inadequacies of our current justice systems, it seems to me to be inappropriate for them to prescribe such a permanent penalty.

Abortion doesn't suffer from such uncertainty, it is a matter of will, not the product of (at best) an educated guess by a jury of one's "peers" (or in the case that one has any intelligence at all, one's inferiors .)

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Until it crosses the threshold of viability - that is, natural viability, not the artificial viability of medical technology - it is not its nature to live as an individual, and therefore it cannot possess an individual right to live.

Hmm...that statement is a little scary to me. First off, we return to the notion of premature birth. By this definition is it then okay to abort premature babies kept alive only through incubators? Have they crossed this defined threshold of right to life even though they are kept alive artificially?

Secondly, what about children born with congenital diseases that will never be naturally viable but are kept alive, sometimes leading very normal lives, through artificial means such as drugs, dialysis or other medical means? Are these non-viable individuals void of the right to live?

Or what about adults that are diagnosed with any number of diseases from cystic fibrosis to Parkinson's disease to any number of terminal or life-altering malities? Since these inviduals are no longer in posession of natural viability is there no harm in their murder? Do they also lack the right to live since they are viable only through medical and scientific means?

I can understand the basic notion behind your definition of when a "human" gains the right to live, but I think the definition itself holds some very dire consequences.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.