It seems a lot of anti abortionists are? Are you? and how do you justify the contradiction?
It seems a lot of anti abortionists are? Are you? and how do you justify the contradiction?
I'm neither. I believe abortion is a personal decision and should be available as a choice to every one. I also believe that the justice system is fallible, it can't make perfect rulings or decisions regarding life and death.
they are not contradict to each other per se. i do believe there are people out there who believe abortion is murder, and murderer should get death penalty. for them it's all about justice and protecting human's life. they see abortion as murder, so they are against abortion. and they believe every crime should be punish accordingly. so there is no contradiction really.
^^ The death penalty is murder,state murder but still murder.
I am against the death penalty because it is too expensive. I really have no moral qualms with it because I believe that some people just do not deserve to live. On the other hand, I am essentially pro-choice. I prefer to say that I am pro-abortion, though, because I believe that for many people it shouldn't be a choice - some people just shouldn't have children. If you're an awful parent and cannot take care of your current kids and you get pregnant then you should be forced to receive an abortion and then have your tube ties (or for me - vasectomy). We also have too many people on this planet and really need to start seriously considering population control.
I also don't think there is much of a contradiction. I am not necessarily pro/anti abortion I am somewhere in the dirty middle ground as usual. However as a scientist I can tell you that a child is definitely human upon conception regardless of whether they are born or unborn. So it doesn't matter how you spin it abortion is killing a life, and if killing a life=murder then so be it.
And while the death sentence is also murder it brings the whole moral dilemma of justified murder up for debate. Just as a member of our armed forces pushing the fire button on their "real life computer game" is state sponsored and therefore "justified" murder so can be said of the death sentence.
So to wrap up
abortion=killing an innocent child
death sentence= killing a probably far from innocent adult
military=killing a person with government sponsorship (innocent or not)
Personally I don't see a contradiction, and believe that it is up to a states government, and our society in general to define right or wrong in the cases of murder; abortion, or death sentence.
I don't know what your field is but I know that quite a few scientists that ARE in this specific field would disagree. There's quite a difference between a sperm cell and an egg and then an actual fully-developed human being. I don't think that you'd get much consensus from very many other scientists that a bunch of cells are a human being from day one. They eventually become a human being which is why we have arguments over when abortion becomes wrong and why only early abortions should be allowed...
I believe abortion is a personal choice for the woman and her 'mate'. As for death sentence, depends on the crime. Some just need to terminated rather than waste space on housing til natural death.
I am an environmental biologist with a marine focus.
You said it yourself, a human zygote with 46 chromosome is definitely different than a fully developed human being. However that zygote with 46 chromosome is still a human being. It is not a martian, it is not the mother's cells, it is not the father's cells, it is not a rabbit, while it may not be a fully functional human being, no biologist the world over will tell you that it is not a human being, there is nothing else for it to be.
Whether you believe in the right of killing that human being is where people differ, and I don't pretend to know the answer to that question.
I would know quite a few biologists that would disagree. The brain doesn't even begin to form until week 6 and even then it's just a few brain waves. The baby doesn't start having the ability to dream for at least another 10 weeks. The baby doesn't develop a nervous system for quite some time. They are not even capable of surviving outside of the mother until week 25. I'm a mathematician - not a biologist - and so I am no expert but I do know quite a few biologists who would disagree about that pile of cells that will most likely become a human actually being a person at that point. How can you call something that doesn't even have a human brain yet - let alone be capable of thought, emotion, or anything else that makes us human - human?
My personal opinoin is Abortion is the mothers choice/right depending on how old the foetus is..if she cannot take care of the child after birth or the foetus is diagnosed with having a life long defect/disease which will not provide the child a good life, then abortion would be better!
On the case of the Death penalty, i am against it plainly because of the error in judgement made sometimes by the court due to lack of or wrong evidence, A life sentence is hard enough anyway and it provides the accused's family/friends/lawyer enough time to try to put the case right with a higher court!
I understand what you're trying to say, than tell me what a human zygote is if it's not human? We as a society may try and circumvent our morals by not calling a human, but it doesn't change the biological fact of the matter.
I would welcome anyone to give scientifically based details of why a human zygote is not human and explain to me what it actually is then.
Sperm cells and eggs cell are both haploid (half the number of chromosomes) but upon fertilization they fuse becoming a diploid (46 chromo) zygote , and become genetically speaking a new individual, with completely different DNA from mother and father.
Also by your logic people that are brain dead, or people with artificial hearts would not be human, when clearly they are.
I feel like you are trying to come from a societal viewpoint, while I am trying to keep this a purely science based discussion. In reality those two discussions are entirely different. I would invite your biologists friends to the forum, if they wanted to talk science of course. I would love to hear their viewpoints.
I don't know what it is because I am not a biologist. I am just trying to say that I wouldn't call it a biological fact when I know of (but don't personally know or even know the names of; I've just read quite a lot of debates on this that did have biologists) quite a few biologists who would debate otherwise. It's like saying that a pile of metal is a car; it isn't a car until it's made into one. A human zygote could be a pile of a bunch of organic matter and cells. As a non-biologist, I am unqualified to have a biological conversation but I do recognize the arguments from both sides. I am merely pointing out that I wouldn't talk with such certainty and call something that is up for a debate a fact when quite a few of your peers would disagree. From a personal level, I have trouble calling something with no human brain, no organs, no nervous system, no emotions and no memories a human being. And if it is a human being, it certainly doesn't deserve the same level of protecting as a human being that isn't essentially a parasite to another human being.
I cannot comment on the scientifically based details because I have not even pretended to be a biologist; I'm a mathematician. I wouldn't call brain death people or people with artificial hearts non-human because someone with an artificial heart will still have the brain capacity of a human-being and be no different than any human being. Hell, you can change all of their organs and limbs until they are Darth Vader and they will still be human-beings. With brain dead people, you have to get into a whole new realm of ethics debates about the possibility of them coming back or if they're better off dead. I have no desire to debate euthanasia.
I don't have any biologist friends. I have met biologists and I have read biology books and debates on this topic by biologist. I went to the university and had to take a biology course as general education and so I did meet the professor and teaching assistants. I have no desire to study biology and I didn't put any effort into that course; I passed with a C and went on to classes that I cared about.
I'm anti abortion and anti death penalty, but I don't see a contradiction on people how are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. In abortion, you kill someone completely innocent and defenseless. On death penalty, there is due process of law and the commitment of a felony.
The opposite is true: if you're pro-abortion, then you must be pro-death penalty. IMO, though.
In the third world countries, where population is a problem--one cannot ignore the necessity of abortion. It may be due to poor financial condition, poor health or poor social environment. But sometimes the abortion is done based on gender ( only girls are aborted). That is definitely a crime. In my personal opinion, do not bring the child if you cannot take care of him/her for whatsoever reason.
Must be hard for a woman to make a decision for abortion, and even harder when she is catholic. Sort of all of the odds are stacked against her. Preventive measures are not supported by the church, and once she falls pregnant, which is almost a given, abortion is almost impossible. If abortion is possible, all of the guilt and remorse that come from her religious beliefs will maim her psychologically for life.
I am pro abortion (within strict limits) and con death penalty.
Being against death penalty is easy to explain. It's inhumane and no-one should have the power to decide over somebody else's death, no matter how the person subject to the death penalty may have behaved.
Being pro or con abortion is more difficult as there are 2 aspects to consider:
- the right to live for the unborn child
- the right of the mother to do whatever she thinks is right with her body
So in my mind it would be fair to solve those competing rights by means of a compromise. In Germany there is such a compromise, and the legal situation is as follows:
- if in an emotional conflict the pregnant woman may abort within the first 12 weeks after having been to an official public consultant, explaining to her all aspects (legal, financial, social, emotional, physical etc.) of keeping the baby or aborting
- physical or psychical health of the pregnant woman is affected and could only be solved by an abortion
- the pregnancy was caused by crime such as rape - also in this case the abortion is legal within the first 12 weeks
All in all, I think this is pretty fair to all sides.
Sorry but this is absolutely genocidal. This means that in a country in those poverty conditions the government (the state) can apply a "national health care program" to "cut the problem from the root", but it is a crime when the individual decides based on a personal preference regarding children's gender, like in China? Why does the first have the right to kill and the second doesn't?
Why doesn't this very same logic apply to the yet-to-be-born-human-being? While the criminal convicted to death penalty has behaved somehow badly, the child has not "behaved" in any way yet.
About the first, it should not be taken as a matter of right or law, but ethics. Shall the already-delivered (the mother or whoever) be entitled to this value call? Should the mother be the one who says "he has the right to be born"?
Regarding the second, this is the easy one. "Her body'? Last time I checked, when a woman is pregnant, it means there is a human being in there. Another human being. So this is not "her" body.
According to science yes, definitely another human being in there (see posts above). But some people in an effort to ease their conscious about the moral issues relating to abortion attempt to view it as an extension of the mother's body. While it is true a mother's body does suffer (pain and overall health decline), by claiming that a fetus/zygote or any other stage of human development is not a human just takes all merit from an argument and makes that person sound like a fool. (No offense, Afaceinthematrix, I still like you).
I guess it all comes down to your definition of a human. Science has defined a human as being an organism that is classified as Homo sapiens. Some people narrow that definition to something that has a heart, soul, brain, and is capable of living outside of another human being.
It doesn't matter if the fetus is human or not. If you cut off your finger, it's human too - but you can't murder it.
What matters is whether you consider it a person or not. It doesn't even need to be human. If we come into contact with aliens (I mean the smart kind, not alien animals) one day, they would also qualify as persons with the same rights as humans. Some people also think that some species of great apes (apart from us) come close to the definition of person and need to have some special rights too and some countries have even created laws for it.
And honestly, a one-cell human definitely is not a person yet. Where you draw the exact line is a difficult problem, but the 3-4 months that is frequently used seem to be a good solution in my opinion.
For the rest, I pretty much have the same opinion as kaysch. Nobody should have the right to murder other people, definitely not the government.
It's just not so simple. In the case of an abortion we are talking about conflicting rights as I wrote (and at least in Germany they are rights, not just ethics).
At the beginning of a pregnancy there are just a few cells, but there is also a pregnant woman with a supposedly huge problem; otherwise she would probably not even consider an abortion. So with this conflict of interest at hand, there is a point for a woman to have a right to abort under a strict framework.
After 12 weeks all major organs of the unborn child have been developed, so one could consider it to be more or less complete, even if it still has to develop a lot.
That's why the German legislator has chosen the 12 week limit for the right of a woman to have an abortion.
No, it's not a complete human being yet.
Maybe I spoke a little sloppy. It may have the DNA of a human and so it is technically not a human but it certainly isn't a person at the beginning. By that logic, the skin cells that fall off of me every second that contain all the DNA necessary to clone another one of me don't deserve the same "rights to life" as I do. So why should the cells that are in a woman deserve those same rights to life? Having human DNA certainly isn't enough.
I am for the death penalty. Atleast for severe crimes. Especially for serial killers. If we used the death penalty, our prisons would be less crowded and less taxes supporting people that did wrong.
Executing serial killers would help bringing down prison costs in the USA? In the whole history of the USA there have been roundabout 250 cases of serial killers, see the list here:
Even if you multiply that number by 2 or even 3 to cover the grey area of cases where no pattern has been found to mark a murder as a serial murder, I think the USA should be able to survive even if serial killers are not executed.
I say it would help us anyway. Why do we keep paying for food and probably tv for people that won't straighten up and /or never get out of prison.
If that really has any relevance, why use expensive drugs/gas/electricity to kill delinquents? Why not going back to good ol' stoning or crucifiction? Stones are for free, and the cross and the nails could even be re-used. Also, why limiting the death penalty to severe crimes? To really bring down the costs for prisons in the USA, I'd suggest to crucify everyone "that did wrong" as you say. Parking offences, pissing in public or making mistakes in the tax declaration would be history...
Because to kill them means you are just as bad as they are,at least they can probably claim madness as a defence for murder,what is your defence?
You just want to kill them to save a few dollars,why not go one step further and kill the long term unemployed,plenty of money to be saved there.
I am talking about getting rid of mass murderers. Even if they do get out , they will probably kill another life. you can look at it this way,get rid of the murderer first, you save a life.
The cost of killing prisoners in the U.S. by the death penalty is far greater than the cost of keeping them alive. There are so many court fees involved that the dollar amounts skyrocket. Just look at the costs of the death penalty of my state of California. California has had the death penalty since 1978: 34 years. In 34 years we've only put 13 prisoners to death. Meanwhile, the inmates of death row have cost California $4 billion dollars. That works out to 4,000,000,000/13 = $307,692,307.69 PER PERSON. Do you still think that the death penalty saves any money?
I have no moral issues with the death penalty personally. But the costs are ridiculous. The only time that I think we should use the death penalty is if the death happens during the crime. For instance, if a man is shooting at police officers (or anyone actually) and the police officers (or again, anyone that's interested in self-defense) shoot back out of self-defense and the man dies then so be it. We're better off without that person on this planet and that was the death penalty.
I personally think that prison needs to be about rehabilitation. If we want to seriously cut costs then we need to stop human storage as one of the largest businesses in this country. Our prisons are privatized and so prison officials try to get as many people in there for as much time as possible so that they get more money from the government. Our prisons are factories for turning non-violent offenders into violent career criminals. We lock up more people per capita than any other country in the world and we lock up about the same amount of people as China and India - who triple our population.
Do you want to cut cost at the prison level? How about letting out all people there for drug charges and instead rehabilitate and treat them so that they can become productive tax paying citizens? We need to stop sending people to jail that aren't a threat to society. Michael Vick (famous NFL player for people that don't follow American sports) went to jail for 18 months for dog fighting. Yeah, it was wrong. I love animals and am against animal cruelty. But sending someone to jail for 1.5 years on the taxpayers' dime when he didn't hurt a single person? That was stupid and an insane waste of money. I personally would have fined him a few thousand dollars (he has the money) and then taken that money and given it to an animal shelter or other charity that helps animals. That almost neutralizes his crime anyways.
For people that are violent criminals that are a major threat to society and that we cannot rehabilitate, then send them to jail for life. For those people, prison should be about keeping us safe. If we let them out, they might kill more people. However, I don't believe that prisoners should get the cable television that they do, the recreation centers, libraries, etc. I am a huge fan of chain gangs. They should be chained up and forced to do extremely hard, but meaningful to society, labor that essentially pays for their stay at the prison and makes it worth my buck.
The death penalty has been abolished in some countries purely because too many mistakes were made. A bit hard to give some one a pardon if you have already executed them.
Abortion is illegal in some countries too as a hang over from some moral laws although it always has been obtainable under the table or illegally.
So you could say that one shouldn't support the death penalty for the one reason, what if you are making a mistake.
Abortion could probably be looked at the same way.