Are you pro-death?

[Amelia G]

Lady Alias' abortion thread got me thinking about the debaters point anti-abortion folks always use where they point out that pro-choice folks are against the death penalty for criminal but in favor of it for innocent babies. I am always fun to have at parties with folks who love that point because I am pro-death across the board politically. So I thought it might be fun to do a poll and see how pro-death y'all are here. Feel free to post explanations.

[Amelia G]

I feel like mathematically there should be one more option. What did I leave out?

[Wickedanima]

I think the other option of "I'm Pro-Choice but would never have/approve of people really having abortions or using it s birth control, Anti-Death Penalty until someone murders/molests someone I love, and pro-Euthanasia until my very sick relative wants to go ahead and end his/her pain" takes up too much room. ^_^

[One Eyed Cat]

Pro-Choice (oppose at the point of "live birth" abortion) and Pro-Death (under certain circumstances). I would take a more nuanced stance on the last issue. I would need specifics.

OEC

[Buster Friendly]

I'm Pro-Death.

I should be allowed to give retro-active abortions to anyone who looks at me crosswise...

C-I-L my landlord.

...but baring that I'm pro-choice for "innocent" fetuses (babies don't need to parasitically suck oxygen, and nutrition from their mothers., calling it an "innocent baby" is a loaded term, and so is calling it a dirty, naughty, filthy, filthy sinful, slutty, raepist criminal predator fetus), pro suicide (fuck it, why not? Should be televised on cable though), and anti-death penalty as it is administered currently (again, no entertainment value. Gladiatorial combat has it charms.)

Unless I'm the one doing the killing the death penalty is far too inefficient, biased, and pointless. fooey on that!

[Pull~My~Hair]

pro death in general...yup

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I am pro death penalty in theory, but in practice the US needs some way serious review of the subject. We need to set some standards on death penalty cases instead of this make it ups as we go crap that puts values on the lives of the victims, comparing say Gary Ridgeway and

Euthanasia is tricky mainly for safety reasons. If someone besides the patient can mae the choice it needs serious peer review, also insurance companies must be kept far far away from the process, but i have no ethical qualms.

Dito suicide. but as long as the patient is ok with it, it seems silly to stop them

And abortion I am 100% pro choice. If you want to stop abortion, make this a world where unwed teens won't get driven into bankruptcy and shame for having a kid. But keep your laws out of it.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Pro-Choice (oppose at the point of "live birth" abortion) and Pro-Death (under certain circumstances). I would take a more nuanced stance on the last issue. I would need specifics.

OEC

After searching around I could not find a medical proceedure called "live birth" abortion. Since that sounds alot like a woman giving birth then doctors blubbing it like a harp seal (which I suspect is the purpose of the term, similar to "partial birth") could I get an actual definition of the proceedure?

[ForrestBlack]

I used to be pro-death across the board, but as I've gotten older I've come to the uncomfortable realization that far too many death penalty cases have been eventually overturned due to conclusive DNA and such. People are irrational in cases where the death penalty hangs in the balance and too many people have been wrongfully convicted for me to be comfortable ending their lives prematurely.

[Wickedanima]

I used to be pro-death across the board, but as I've gotten older I've come to the uncomfortable realization that far too many death penalty cases have been eventually overturned due to conclusive DNA and such. People are irrational in cases where the death penalty hangs in the balance and too many people have been wrongfully convicted for me to be comfortable ending their lives prematurely.

Oh I'm right with you there. But I also find myself anti- the anti-Death Penalty folk in many cases. I became that shortly after I was asked to write letters for Amnesty International on behalf of two convicted murderer drug peddlers that had been assigned the death penalty for killing cops in Indonesia.

There are some people that I think should die. Not lavish in prison to end up with Groupies. Particularly in cases where there's little doubt as to their guilt.

I guess I'm on the fence in the situation in my own way. If there is doubt, sincere doubt and insistence of innocence, it would be a shame if they where killed and proven Innocent later.

On the other hand, I'd hate Ted Bundy to still be alive.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

I'm pretty pro death across the board, except for suicide. When it comes to those terminally ill or those that are very old and tired of living with downward spiralling health, sure. Everybody else though are usually just mentally unstable and probably could just use some good counseling and maybe some good drugs. As for abortion, it's not that I think it's such a wonderful thing. It's just that since I'm a guy, I don't feel like I have the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body. I think it should be her choice.

[Raza]

Pro-choice, anti death penalty, pro-euthanasia/suicide rights.


Also fine with consensual killings of other kinds, like cannibal fetishists getting their kicks with a willing victim, or duels and sports involving lethal violence.

[One Eyed Cat]

After searching around I could not find a medical proceedure called "live birth" abortion. Since that sounds alot like a woman giving birth then doctors blubbing it like a harp seal (which I suspect is the purpose of the term, similar to "partial birth") could I get an actual definition of the proceedure?

"Intact dilation and evacuation" was the procedure banned. It goes beyond procedure and law for me though. In some cases, infants simply are born anyways. I'm pro-choice and prefer the Roe v. Wade trimester system. I am basically "abortion on demand" to pro-lifers. I just can't fathom an actually living infant, outside the womb, being exterminated. The procedure is unnecessary. These cases need not occur. It's an existential mindfuck for anyone believing in natural rights occuring at actual birth. So: That's the one caveat I put on that issue. I want the law to stay roughly as it is now (open to making it easier to have an abortion procedure though). Roe was narrowed in Planned Parenthood.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I am pro death penalty in theory, but in practice the US needs some way serious review of the subject. We need to set some standards on death penalty cases instead of this make it ups as we go crap that puts values on the lives of the victims, comparing say Gary Ridgeway and

Euthanasia is tricky mainly for safety reasons. If someone besides the patient can mae the choice it needs serious peer review, also insurance companies must be kept far far away from the process, but i have no ethical qualms.

Dito suicide. but as long as the patient is ok with it, it seems silly to stop them

And abortion I am 100% pro choice. If you want to stop abortion, make this a world where unwed teens won't get driven into bankruptcy and shame for having a kid. But keep your laws out of it.

So your position is to have no laws pertaining to abortion? Can you explain how that would work exactly? Personally, I view polls as asking for basic principles not nuances of law. That's why I couldn't answer the third question. At what point is it no longer abortion based on your principles?

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Pro-choice, anti death penalty, pro-euthanasia/suicide rights.


Also fine with consensual killings of other kinds, like cannibal fetishists getting their kicks with a willing victim, or duels and sports involving lethal violence.

I want exclusive rights to film all this. I actually don't have a problem with any of it (in principle anyways) as long as there is definitive proof of consent.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I still cannot find any information on a proceedure where the doctor destroys an otherwise viable fetus after it has been removed from the woman's body.

The closest I can find is inducing premature delivery where the fetus is so undeveloped it is almost guaranteed that it will be non viable. In the various dilation and extraction method, the fetus is rendered non viable before it is removed. I can not find any procedure where the fetus is destroyed after it is removed from the woman's body.

[One Eyed Cat]

I still cannot find any information on a proceedure where the doctor destroys an otherwise viable fetus after it has been removed from the woman's body.

The closest I can find is inducing premature delivery where the fetus is so undeveloped it is almost guaranteed that it will be non viable. In the various dilation and extraction method, the fetus is rendered non viable before it is removed. I can not find any procedure where the fetus is destroyed after it is removed from the woman's body.

There was a SCOTUS case on that issue. I would not oppose either method you mention obviously. I'm more trying to understand what principle you apply here. Non-viability? I'd agree with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/sc...ion/index.html . I support the decision in principle. I would not have voted in the majority for reasons pertaining to the usual stare decisis slippery slope mentioned by Roberts as desirable.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

So your position is to have no laws pertaining to abortion? Can you explain how that would work exactly? Personally, I view polls as asking for basic principles not nuances of law. That's why I couldn't answer the third question. At what point is it no longer abortion based on your principles?

OEC

No laws regarding abortion? Well likely very few, most making sure pregnant women are not being forced or coerced into it.

It would work pretty simply imho. If you are pregnant and do not want to carry the baby to term at any point in the pregnancy you contact a doctor. The doctor reviews with you the best procedures to terminate the pregnancy and a method is selected. The only time the well being or viability of the fetus takes precedent over the health or well being of the pregnant woman is when the pregnant woman decided that is how it should be.

It may sound harsh, but really i do not think the law should ever override someones personal medical choices except in extreme cases.

Even the procedures that are used as the scary monstrous procedures (partial birth and likely live birth abortions) exist for a reason, usually to lower the risk to the pregnant woman during the procedure. I seriously doubt many doctors sit around thinking up cruel things to do to a fetus which brings you back to, if there is absolute no reason for this procedure, why does it exist? Now if you can put together a panel of doctors who provide abortions to tell me the procedure is cruel and unnecessary, then I will revisit my opinion. Otherwise I see no need for restrictions.

[One Eyed Cat]

No laws regarding abortion? Well likely very few, most making sure pregnant women are not being forced or coerced into it.

It would work pretty simply imho. If you are pregnant and do not want to carry the baby to term at any point in the pregnancy you contact a doctor. The doctor reviews with you the best procedures to terminate the pregnancy and a method is selected. The only time the well being or viability of the fetus takes precedent over the health or well being of the pregnant woman is when the pregnant woman decided that is how it should be.

It may sound harsh, but really i do not think the law should ever override someones personal medical choices except in extreme cases.

Even the procedures that are used as the scary monstrous procedures (partial birth and likely live birth abortions) exist for a reason, usually to lower the risk to the pregnant woman during the procedure. I seriously doubt many doctors sit around thinking up cruel things to do to a fetus which brings you back to, if there is absolute no reason for this procedure, why does it exist? Now if you can put together a panel of doctors who provide abortions to tell me the procedure is cruel and unnecessary, then I will revisit my opinion. Otherwise I see no need for restrictions.

Fair enough. We probably would draw the distinction of extreme cases a bit differently. The procedure no longer exists from a legal standpoint.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

There was a SCOTUS case on that issue. I would not oppose either method you mention obviously. I'm more trying to understand what principle you apply here. Non-viability? I'd agree with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/sc...ion/index.html . I support the decision in principle. I would not have voted in the majority for reasons pertaining to the usual stare decisis slippery slope mentioned by Roberts as desirable.

OEC

Non-viability is induced by either stopping the heart or destroying the brain if there is one. Once the fetus leaves the body, the doctors are already no longer allowed to cause further damage to it ecxept in extreme cases. The primary principle I apply in this is my famous "ask a doctor" or, more specifically "ask a doctor who specializes in the field" which they painfully seem to avoid in these matters.

I mean, imagine if they banned a seldom used hear procedure without having miles and miles of testimony from heart specialists instead relying on general practitioners, activists and senators. That is basically what they did here. Now you study law so I will ask, how much testimony in this case was from doctors who provide abortions?

[One Eyed Cat]

Non-viability is induced by either stopping the heart or destroying the brain if there is one. Once the fetus leaves the body, the doctors are already no longer allowed to cause further damage to it ecxept in extreme cases. The primary principle I apply in this is my famous "ask a doctor" or, more specifically "ask a doctor who specializes in the field" which they painfully seem to avoid in these matters.

I mean, imagine if they banned a seldom used hear procedure without having miles and miles of testimony from heart specialists instead relying on general practitioners, activists and senators. That is basically what they did here. Now you study law so I will ask, how much testimony in this case was from doctors who provide abortions?

There was quite a bit both pro and con. No consensus there either. Kennedy seems to be setting a limiting principle. I wouldn't have joined in the opinion given the stated intent of Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. You just can't get around the possibility of a Roe revisit there. That would be my legal stance based on that context though.

OEC

[jonny.illuminati]

I think the other option of "I'm Pro-Choice but would never have/approve of people really having abortions or using it s birth control, Anti-Death Penalty until someone murders/molests someone I love, and pro-Euthanasia until my very sick relative wants to go ahead and end his/her pain" takes up too much room. ^_^

i agree with pro-choice UNLESS someone thinks its birth control... it's not birth control...

why are people anti-death penalty until it affects them personally... what about the people you don't know who have had friends or loved ones molested/murdered...

[Ajax Knucklebones]

i agree with pro-choice UNLESS someone thinks its birth control... it's not birth control...

why are people anti-death penalty until it affects them personally... what about the people you don't know who have had friends or loved ones molested/murdered...

I have known women that has used it as such. One girl went through it six times. To me, that's just uncalled for, lazy, irresponsible, and one of the reasons, put into play, why some people are against it.

[DoctorZ]

Isn't abortion also hazardous to the don't-wannabe-mothers health, too? At least, in some degree?

They always seemed that way to me.

If they are... then wouldn't 6 abortions be a little... dangerous?

[KilLAtomiK]

well im against abortions even when its cases like **** since its not the kids fault and it can be given away for adoption instead. im pro death penalty because its better than the state having to suport someone serving a life sentence. im not so sure about euthanasia, i guess if someone is in a hospital suffering and theres no way to ease the pain its ok.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Isn't abortion also hazardous to the don't-wannabe-mothers health, too? At least, in some degree?

They always seemed that way to me.

If they are... then wouldn't 6 abortions be a little... dangerous?

I'm pretty sure, at the time, she didn't give a shit.

[Buster Friendly]

i agree with pro-choice UNLESS someone thinks its birth control... it's not birth control...

why are people anti-death penalty until it affects them personally... what about the people you don't know who have had friends or loved ones molested/murdered...

Well, see... here's the thing-

I am anti-death penalty as a state sanctioned, and implemented form of punishment. It has been proven to be less cost effective than life in prison- the cost of the trials, and the appeals process, etc. is greater than just feeding an inmate till they die of old age.- it costs the state more, and is not a proven deterrent, time and again criminals say that the thought of the death penalty doesn't phase them.

Sure summary executions like the ones they have in china would cut down on costs, but if you want that kind of judicial system, I suggest you go live over there for a while.

Oddly enough the thing that the criminals say IS a deterrent, the thing they say does give them pause, is the thought of an armed population. An interesting argument for fewer gun laws (although there's a counter argument for that in the number of shootings that occur in families who have guns.)

I certainly have no qualms about the taking of human life. If it were my own family, I would not rely on the state to deliver me justice. However extrajudicial killings cannot be sanctioned by the law for very good reason. Dueling, revenge killings, and gang warfare are all corrosive to civil society.

I am for medical experimentation as opposed to the death penalty, let criminals who are deemed to be too dangerous to ever be allowed back into society to serve some benefit to humanity.

...but maybe not organ harvesting. Because, y'know, that's what the chinese do.

[Dysphem]

"Death is the solution to every problem; no man, no problem." --Joseph Stalin

You can call that my own summary opinion on what it means to be "pro death"...which I'm not. In fact, I try to avoid lumping myself in with any of these political euphemisms that people keep inventing. More to the point, my political sentiments run as contrary as possible to the intervention of the state in the lives of individuals like you and me, especially where personal and existential questions are concerned. To me, the greater moral question is not whether or not an unborn child should be allowed to live, but rather, whether or not a corporation should be allowed to ship 50,000 jobs overseas at the drop of a hat. In light of some of the state-sanctioned bullshit that goes on in this country, the abortion question is pretty much moot, as far as I'm concerned. We don't charge a woman with negligent homicide if she miscarries as a result of reckless behavior during pregnancy...why outlaw abortion?

As far as the death penalty is concerned: at risk of seeming hypocritical or biased, I'd probably lean a bit more towards supporting it if someone with a multi-million dollar income ever even stood a chance of being sentenced with it in this country. What mainly concerns me is that once the state authorizes itself to execute people, where does it draw the line to stop? Are we talking "justice for all" here, or "an eye for an eye", or "euthanasia for dissidents and the poor", or maybe just "let's kill everyone and let (deity of choice) sort them out"?

Suicide/death by consent: Your life is in your own hands. If you want to go out, and do it in a way that doesn't hurt anybody else, the state should not interfere. As it stands, the only legal method of offing yourself is to join the military, where your death will be considered a constructive gain in the service of God and country, and all that bullshit. Go figure.

In short, it shouldn't be the state's decision whether you live, nor should it be the state's decision for you to die. To a certain extent, the state is incompetent to make such decisions, but moreover, the decision should be yours, and yours alone, and the state should do nothing to prevent you from making that decision as you see fit.

By "state," I of course mean "political construct" rather than "one of the flat fifty".

[Wickedanima]

i agree with pro-choice UNLESS someone thinks its birth control... it's not birth control...

why are people anti-death penalty until it affects them personally... what about the people you don't know who have had friends or loved ones molested/murdered...

I just think its a part of human nature to have intellectual ideas about circumstances they haven't experienced, and find themselves thinking entirely different with an intellectual situation becomes very real to them.

I have known women that has used it as such. One girl went through it six times. To me, that's just uncalled for, lazy, irresponsible, and one of the reasons, put into play, why some people are against it.

I agree, its wrong for abortion to be used like that. There should be a system in place to put multiple abortion cases with one woman under review, and put her in for counciling...

Having said that, there's no reason to outlaw a thing, or take away the individual right because some people abuse that right. With any freedom, there will be someone abusing it.

[Fleisch]

Pro-choice, anti death penalty, pro-euthanasia/suicide rights.


Also fine with consensual killings of other kinds, like cannibal fetishists getting their kicks with a willing victim, or duels and sports involving lethal violence.

I agree! for last we only need to match psychopaths with mentally unestable people (that may agree to be eaten or killed in ritual) , like this we dont have to pay taxes for mental healt care and the psychopaths dont target the good working productive members of society!

[DoctorZ]

>.>

We need to go back to the good down home values of the Roman Empire.

GLADIATORIAL COMBAT FOR ALL!

[inox]

well im against abortions even when its cases like **** since its not the kids fault and it can be given away for adoption instead.

In my opinion, a woman has a right to complete sovereignty over her own body, and all other interests are secondary to that. No exceptions.

[Wickedanima]

In my opinion, a woman has a right to complete sovereignty over her own body, and all other interests are secondary to that. No exceptions.

*standing ovation*

[Amelia G]

In my opinion, a woman has a right to complete sovereignty over her own body, and all other interests are secondary to that. No exceptions.

Amen. I think a man also has a right to complete sovereignty over his own body and that is why I also am pro suicide rights, although I understand the difficulties with implementation there, same as the difficulties with death penalty implementation.

[Lady Alias]

Pro-Death across the board. I understand people's objections to the death penalty, with the DNA and such in the past, but now we DO have the ability to be accurate.

[DoctorZ]

Just to be a bit of a bastard (no pun intended) The woman does have complete rights over her body. But the father also has rights over his would-be child.

I'm ok with abortion, as long as both parents agree to it.

[Buster Friendly]

Just to be a bit of a bastard (no pun intended) The woman does have complete rights over her body. But the father also has rights over his would-be child.

I'm ok with abortion, as long as both parents agree to it.

I am only in favor of this if the man was willing and able to give birth to the fetus.

Invent a man womb or GTFO

[DoctorZ]

So all a man is to you is a semen depositor?

[Lady Alias]

The woman is the one going through the severe psychological and physical pain for nine months. That takes precedence over the male's desire to spread his seed.

[Buster Friendly]

So all a man is to you is a semen depositor?

To me?

Personally?

men ain't shit. I don't need 'em for nuthin'. I can deposit my own sperm.

Philosophically? I suppose men are the joyous bringers of Phallus.

But whatever, squirtin' sperm ain't really much of an accomplishment in my book.