I seem to remember George Bush saying that no life should be destroyed for the sake of another.
If he truly believes this, why is he OK with the death penalty, which really gives no benefit to anyone, except maybe peace of mind to the victims' families?
Also, how is it then justified to send American soldiers to die for the freedom of Iraqis?
PS. Please do not remind me that I'm taking this quote out of context. I take it out of context on purpose because I, personally, do not believe that the life of an American soldier has less intrinsic value than an embryonic stem cell.
sfsdfd
10-13-04, 12:43 PM
Clarifying thread title.
- David Stein
Birrman54
10-13-04, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Neeperando
I seem to remember George Bush saying that no life should be destroyed for the sake of another.
If he truly believes this, why is he OK with the death penalty, which really gives no benefit to anyone, except maybe peace of mind to the victims' families?
Also, how is it then justified to send American soldiers to die for the freedom of Iraqis?
PS. Please do not remind me that I'm taking this quote out of context. I take it out of context on purpose because I, personally, do not believe that the life of an American soldier has less intrinsic value than an embryonic stem cell.
i'm not going to try and explain it all, suffice it to say you're grossly oversimplifying the situation. I also can't speak for GW Bush, and I'm at least mostly pro-choice.
However, I would guess that the death penalty is 'justified' in the sense that the offender commited some crime that would cause his life to be forfeit. I don't believe you could say a fetus has commited a crime.
birrman54
JasonF
10-13-04, 12:50 PM
My guess is it's got something to do with free will.
Babies* have not consciously chosen to sacrifice their lives in the name of abortion or stem cell research. Because they have not made that choice, it is (according to Bush's view) fundamentally wrong to make that choice for them.
Soldiers, by contrast, having knowingly and willingly enlisted in the Armed Forces knowing that they may be called upon to lay down their lives in defense of this country. So there is no inconsistency there.
Similarly, criminals who have committed capital crimes have done so knowing that there is the possibility they will be sentenced to death for their actions. Once they made that choice, there is no moral inconsistency in sentencing them to death and carrying out that sentence.
* For purposes of this discussion, I accept the premise that there's no relevant difference between a newborn infant, a fetus being carried, or even a fertilized embryo.
sfsdfd
10-13-04, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Birrman54
suffice it to say you're grossly oversimplifying the situation.
It's oversimplified, of course, but not by much.
It boils down to GW's binary view of the world: every person and everything is either good or evil. Babies are good; they need to be protected to the fullest. But they might grow up and do something evil, in which case their lives are forfeit and not worth protecting.
- David Stein
Mutley Hyde
10-13-04, 12:58 PM
If a baby in the womb ever commits a crime punishable by death, I fully condone it's fair, swift trial and upon conviction it's subsequent execution.
RoboDad
10-13-04, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
It's oversimplified, of course, but not by much.
It boils down to GW's binary view of the world: every person and everything is either good or evil. Babies are good; they need to be protected to the fullest. But they might grow up and do something evil, in which case their lives are forfeit and not worth protecting.
- David Stein
No, it is oversimplified to the greatest degree possible, and your trite explanation is neither helpful nor accurate.
RoboDad
10-13-04, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
My guess is it's got something to do with free will.
Babies* have not consciously chosen to sacrifice their lives in the name of abortion or stem cell research. Because they have not made that choice, it is (according to Bush's view) fundamentally wrong to make that choice for them.
Soldiers, by contrast, having knowingly and willingly enlisted in the Armed Forces knowing that they may be called upon to lay down their lives in defense of this country. So there is no inconsistency there.
Similarly, criminals who have committed capital crimes have done so knowing that there is the possibility they will be sentenced to death for their actions. Once they made that choice, there is no moral inconsistency in sentencing them to death and carrying out that sentence.
* For purposes of this discussion, I accept the premise that there's no relevant difference between a newborn infant, a fetus being carried, or even a fertilized embryo.
:thumbsup:
We can agree to disagree on whether this philosophy is good or bad, but you have done an excellent job if accurately summing up the president's (and my) beliefs (with the possible exception of a fertilized embryo outside the womb).
Neeperando
10-13-04, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
My guess is it's got something to do with free will.
Fair enough.
This post was not so much meant as a flame. I seriously would like clarification on the President's stance here.
As far as the death penalty goes, I don't understand how we are able to decide when someone has forfeited their right to life. From a religious standpoint, it seems to me that such a line is for only God to draw. The Constitution doesn't forbid laws that end life, but it does forbid laws that end life without "due process". That said, if we let the church worry about the Bible and let the state pass laws as it sees fit then you could argue that a criminal convicted of a crime for which death is neither cruel nor unusual can be executed. An embryo (again we have to assume this means alive) has committed no crime and would hence be deprived of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" without due process and hence is forbidden by the Constitution.
So here with your help I answer my own question.
I still have some issues with the idea of killing Iraqis for the greater good of the rest of the Iraqis. I know the argument is that over 300,000 died of evil under the 25-year reign of Saddam, but I don't think that killing militant Iraqis on purpose and innocent Iraqis accidentally is a whole lot better. I think that's a somewhat different issue, though.
That said, I am still pro-choice, against the death penalty, pro-stem cell research and against the war. But at least I see how other people approach this problem.
The more I learn the more I realize that you don't have to be insane to vote for Bush, and I apologize to all Republicans who I secretly thought that about.
dick_grayson
10-13-04, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by RoboDad
No, it is oversimplified to the greatest degree possible, and your trite explanation is neither helpful nor accurate.
:whofart:
saoirse
10-13-04, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Neeperando
But at least I see how other people approach this problem.
The more I learn the more I realize that you don't have to be insane to vote for Bush, and I apologize to all Republicans who I secretly thought that about.
Very nice post. It's nice to see someone who can agree to disagree and not go crazy because someone has a different opinion.
Personally on those issues, for me it is a spirtual thing. I am for capital punishment, and though I disagree with abortion in most cases, I believe it should be legal.
CP - I feel we are souls temporarily in flesh. If the flesh is killed, it will be decided where we go next. SO in the case of a criminal innocent or guilty being killed, I believe if their life was good (they were innocent) they will have a faster entry to the greater life (what is commonly referred to as heaven). If they were evil bastards on the other hand, they will have to come back to this world and thereby having a much longer wait to get to the greater hereafter.
Abortion - while I don't like it, again I believe there is a course for souls. If a soul is to be on this earth, it will be one way or another. I think that if a child is aborted, that soul will be born unto another (and that person may even be better suited to raise that child). So while I'm not for it, I don't think it should be illegal.
I endorse the above message.
Mutley Hyde
10-13-04, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by saoirse
Very nice post. It's nice to see someone who can agree to disagree and not go crazy because someone has a different opinion.
Yeah, I'll second that. Good post, Neeperando. :up:
Geofferson
10-13-04, 01:24 PM
To recognize the moral parallels between these two scenarios, one has to acknowledge the notion that capital punishment embodies pro-life assertions, which I do (and I suspect W does as well).
dick_grayson
10-13-04, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
To recognize the moral parallels between these two scenarios, one has to acknowledge the notion that capital punishment embodies pro-life assertions, which I do (and I suspect W does as well).
Can you explain that. What is moral and pro-life about killing someone?
Jim
10-13-04, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
* For purposes of this discussion, I accept the premise that there's no relevant difference between a newborn infant, a fetus being carried, or even a fertilized embryo.
Since they can't be used for research that might or might not help people, what happens to the unused fertilized embryos at fertility clinics?
JasonF
10-13-04, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Jim
Since they can't be used for research that might or might not help people, what happens to the unused fertilized embryos at fertility clinics?
They are either kept in storage indefinitely or they are destroyed, depending on the wishes of the parents. Parent can also donate the embryos to infertile couples or to science, but both of those options are the exception rather than the rule.
Edit: Your question assumed they can't be used for research. That's not true. They can be used for research -- just not federally funded research.
Neeperando
10-13-04, 01:38 PM
Before you go singing my praises too much, I should clarify that while I'm finding more respect for the conservative POINT OF VIEW, I still have little to no respect for President Bush and his administration.
Thanks for the kind words, though.
Geofferson
10-13-04, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by dick_grayson
Can you explain that. What is moral and pro-life about killing someone?
I am in favor of capital punishment for 3 reasons:
1) It is the absence of the death penalty that leads to more innocent people being killed. When there is no death penalty, convicted murderers kill other prisoners and guards and if these murderers escape, they kill innocent civilians.
2) The existence of capital punishment is to prevent the greatest conceivable injustice: Allowing a person who deliberately takes an innocent person's life to keep his own.
3) Furthermore, it tells society that murder is evil in ways that no amount of imprisonment can ever convey. Every member of society perceives that killing murderers means society hates evil in a way that it clearly does not if it only imprisons them.
kvrdave
10-13-04, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Neeperando
The more I learn the more I realize that you don't have to be insane to vote for Bush, and I apologize to all Republicans who I secretly thought that about.
I feel warm inside :)
dick_grayson
10-13-04, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
I am in favor of capital punishment for 3 reasons:
1) It is the absence of the death penalty that leads to more innocent people being killed. When there is no death penalty, convicted murderers kill other prisoners and guards and if these murderers escape, they kill innocent civilians.
2) The existence of capital punishment is to prevent the greatest conceivable injustice: Allowing a person who deliberately takes an innocent person's life to keep his own.
3) Furthermore, it tells society that murder is evil in ways that no amount of imprisonment can ever convey. Every member of society perceives that killing murderers means society hates evil in a way that it clearly does not if it only imprisons them.
thanks for the post. those reasons make a lot of sense. I'm still not sure how I feel/where I stand, but......
JasonF
10-13-04, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
I am in favor of capital punishment for 3 reasons:
1) It is the absence of the death penalty that leads to more innocent people being killed. When there is no death penalty, convicted murderers kill other prisoners and guards and if these murderers escape, they kill innocent civilians.
2) The existence of capital punishment is to prevent the greatest conceivable injustice: Allowing a person who deliberately takes an innocent person's life to keep his own.
3) Furthermore, it tells society that murder is evil in ways that no amount of imprisonment can ever convey. Every member of society perceives that killing murderers means society hates evil in a way that it clearly does not if it only hands them a prison sentence.
The evidence is that capital punishment has absolutely no effect on deterence, so your point #1 is out. Points #2 and #3 are still valid, but whether they lead you to support capital punishment is a function of what messages you feel our society should be sending and how those messages should be sent.
Red Dog
10-13-04, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
The evidence is that capital punishment has absolutely no effect on deterence, so your point #1 is out.
I am mildly pro-CP, but I do not believe that general deterrence is a proper rationale for it either. CP is the proper form of retribution (eye for an eye) for 1st degree murder IMO.
Geofferson
10-13-04, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
The evidence is that capital punishment has absolutely no effect on deterence, so your point #1 is out.
Deterence is not the primary reason for CP (it is 1 of 3, for me).
Are you willing to have the blood of innocents on your hands every time a convicted murderer murders again?
Recently, a former Roman Catholic priest imprisoned for child molestation was murdered in prison by a convicted murderer. Whose blood is his hands on?
Personally, I would be much more willing to have the blood on my hands if an innocent man is wrongly executed than of my posed question above.
VinVega
10-13-04, 01:51 PM
I think capital punishment helps the victims' families find some closure on the situation.
dick_grayson
10-13-04, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by VinVega
I think capital punishment helps the victims' families find some closure on the situation.
I've heard that it doesn't provide the closure they thought they'd get. I think the pain/hatred.....all that, is still there. Or so I've heard.
taa455
10-13-04, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
The evidence is that capital punishment has absolutely no effect on deterence, so your point #1 is out. Points #2 and #3 are still valid, but whether they lead you to support capital punishment is a function of what messages you feel our society should be sending and how those messages should be sent. Isn't the ultimate deterrent insuring a murderer does not commit another murder? I believe you are talking about indirect deterrence, which is not what his point #1 was referring to, imo.
littlefuzzy
10-13-04, 02:00 PM
If a convicted murderer is put to death, I can absolutely guarantee that *HE* will not kill anyone else... That is one form of deterrence.
Thor Simpson
10-13-04, 02:06 PM
Since we can't allow cruel and unusual punishment in this country, capital punishment is the way to go. Otherwise it would be a much more humiliating and drawn-out public punishment for murder.
dork
10-13-04, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
2) The existence of capital punishment is to prevent the greatest conceivable injustice: Allowing a person who deliberately takes an innocent person's life to keep his own.
Originally posted by Geofferson
Personally, I would be much more willing to have the blood on my hands if an innocent man is wrongly executed than of my posed question above.
:hscratch:
Numanoid
10-13-04, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by dork
:hscratch: Agreed. Geofferson must die!
natesfortune
10-13-04, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Neeperando
I seem to remember George Bush saying that no life should be destroyed for the sake of another.
If he truly believes this, why is he OK with the death penalty, which really gives no benefit to anyone, except maybe peace of mind to the victims' families?
Also, how is it then justified to send American soldiers to die for the freedom of Iraqis?
PS. Please do not remind me that I'm taking this quote out of context. I take it out of context on purpose because I, personally, do not believe that the life of an American soldier has less intrinsic value than an embryonic stem cell.
First of all, please understand that Bush is NOT blocking stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research. Since lots of Americans have moral problems with it, he is simply not allowing their tax dollars to fund this research - that's it. Any private company can continue on embryonic stem cell, and even states can do it if they want - it's just not federally funded.
Secondly, one often sees this "how can somebody be pro-life and pro death penalty?" stuff.
This is most often asked by people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty, ironically enough. Yet these people don't see that irony, it seems.
I think the first position holds fine, because the fetus is completely innocent, and deserves its right to be born(they say) - they didn't do anything to anyone. The person getting executed was born and actually did something wrong enough to justify(they say) killing him for society - he broke rules he was award of, and probably took somebody else's life when doing so.
On the other hand, the pro-choicers are for letting the guy who made that decision off the hook and killing the innocent fetus. Yet they still ask this question.
Again, I want to make clear I don't think this stuff, as I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
However, I think the question you asked doesn't hold much water.
Neeperando
10-13-04, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by natesfortune
First of all, please understand that Bush is NOT blocking stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research. Since lots of Americans have moral problems with it, he is simply not allowing their tax dollars to fund this research - that's it. Any private company can continue on embryonic stem cell, and even states can do it if they want - it's just not federally funded.
Secondly, one often sees this "how can somebody be pro-life and pro death penalty?" stuff.
This is most often asked by people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty, ironically enough. Yet these people don't see that irony, it seems.
I think the first position holds fine, because the fetus is completely innocent, and deserves its right to be born(they say) - they didn't do anything to anyone. The person getting executed was born and actually did something wrong enough to justify(they say) killing him for society - he broke rules he was award of, and probably took somebody else's life when doing so.
On the other hand, the pro-choicers are for letting the guy who made that decision off the hook and killing the innocent fetus. Yet they still ask this question.
Again, I want to make clear I don't think this stuff, as I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
However, I think the question you asked doesn't hold much water.
First, I understand that Pres. Bush has not blocked stem cell research, but it is well known that the research he has allowed is not very useful to scientists. His argument for what he HAS allowed is that these lives have already ended and there's no point in wasting what we've already got. I certainly appreciate his "balancing of science and ethics" here, but when you put my question in the context of Bush's apparent conviction that all life is sacred, I think my question is fair. (ED - missed the part about new stem cells being legal but not federally funded. I thought that we were only allowed to do research on already existing lines and that creating new lines was banned. Is creating new lines legal if it's not done with federal money?)
The reason I can be pro-choice and anti-death penalty without being hypocritical is that I believe no person should bring harm to another person. I think abortion is as wrong as wrong can be. BUT, I don't think that outlawing abortion will help curb the practice or encourage adoption. I think it would increase the amount of young women who try to do the procedure with clothes hangers, which is bad for both mother and child.
I think many pro-choice people you meet will tell you that they're not in favor of abortion, they're just against outlawing it.
Jim
10-13-04, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by natesfortune
First of all, please understand that Bush is NOT blocking stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research. Since lots of Americans have moral problems with it, he is simply not allowing their tax dollars to fund this research - that's it. Any private company can continue on embryonic stem cell, and even states can do it if they want - it's just not federally funded.
Because the majority of medical research is federally funded, he has put severe limitations on the research. Since the fertilized embryos will be discarded or frozen indefinitely until there is an equipment malfunction and then discarded, why aren't the people against embryonic stem cell research not up in arms against the embryos being thrown away?
Geofferson
10-13-04, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by dork
:hscratch:
If an innocent man is wrongly executed, I'd be willing to have his blood on my hands if opponents of capital punishment are willing to have the blood on their hands of further innocents killed by a murderer who was not executed.
Red Dog
10-13-04, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Geofferson
If an innocent man is wrongly executed, I'd be willing to have his blood on my hands if opponents of capital punishment are willing to have the blood on their hands of further innocents killed by a murderer who was not executed.
My head is spinning.
JasonF
10-13-04, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by natesfortune
First of all, please understand that Bush is NOT blocking stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research. Since lots of Americans have moral problems with it, he is simply not allowing their tax dollars to fund this research - that's it. Any private company can continue on embryonic stem cell, and even states can do it if they want - it's just not federally funded.
Without disagreeing with anything you say (although I support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), I think the "We won't fund it because some people think it's immoral" thing is a red herring. Every American taxpayer has his or her tax dollars used to pay for programs he or she finds immoral. It's part of being in a pluralistic society. I've even included a little puzzle in this post to provide an example of one way tax dollars are being used to fund something some Americans find immoral. Can you fill in the blanks?
N _ B L _ _ D F _ R _ I L !
Hint: The same letter goes in all of the blanks. Try an "O"!
Geofferson
10-13-04, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
My head is spinning.
Hey, this is a no spin zone. :grunt:
;)
Red Dog
10-13-04, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
Without disagreeing with anything you say (although I support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), I think the "We won't fund it because some people think it's immoral" thing is a red herring. Every American taxpayer has his or her tax dollars used to pay for programs he or she finds immoral. It's part of being in a pluralistic society.
I went through this yesterday. You can be against it not because you find it immoral but because you think government funding (and the strings that come with it) of all medical research is wrong (and take 'wrong' to mean inefficient and/or wasteful) whereas faster progress can be made through private funding.
This is where you give the 'oh you kooky Libertarians' non-responsive reply.
dork
10-13-04, 02:54 PM
_ H Y _ U K _ _ K Y L I B E R T A R I A N S !
JasonF
10-13-04, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by taa455
Isn't the ultimate deterrent insuring a murderer does not commit another murder? I believe you are talking about indirect deterrence, which is not what his point #1 was referring to, imo.
I reread Geofferson's post and you're right -- he's not talking about deterence -- he's talking about killing potential recidivist murderers, which is an entirely different thing. Mea culpa!
JasonF
10-13-04, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
I went through this yesterday. You can be against it not because you find it immoral but because you think government funding (and the strings that come with it) of all medical research is wrong (and take 'wrong' to mean inefficient and/or wasteful) whereas faster progress can be made through private funding.
This is where you give the 'oh you kooky Libertarians' non-responsive reply.
I was only addressing natesfortune's "We shouldn't fund it because some people find it morally objectionable" argument, you kooky libertarian. I believe that's an internally inconsistent argument, since we fund all sorts of things people find morally objectionable. The Libertarian "Market Uber Alles" argument has the virtue of being internally consistent (if nothing else :p).
Buy: