You're trying to split hairs Jim. The pro choice camp most certainly has staked out a position, to allow a life to be ended if the mother so chooses. They can try to wash their hands of it by saying they're just allowing the mother to choose. That doesn't work. They're redefining life, not words. I think that is much worse.

 

Y'know, I don't really get caught up in that. I'd prefer abortion not take place, but I also recognize the world as grossly overpopulated, and those extra people would create an undue burden on everyone. I look at the entire scope of the world and its history, and recognize human life as being pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. I can't allow myself to get caught up in the emotions of the abortion issue and place it pretty low on the priority scale. And I'm more concerned about those who are already here than those who might show up later.

 

The bottom line, however, is "pro-choice" or even "anti-abortion" aren't the absolutist statement that "pro-life" is. A person is not taking a pro-life stance by giving the state permission to kill in his name -- in fact, that is a decidedly pro-death stance. Just because "pro-lifers" feel like their cause is the most important cause of all doesn't mean they have staked the moral high ground to judge which life takes priority.

Y'know, I don't really get caught up in that. I'd prefer abortion not take place, but I also recognize the world as grossly overpopulated, and those extra people would create an undue burden on everyone. I look at the entire scope of the world and its history, and recognize human life as being pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. I can't allow myself to get caught up in the emotions of the abortion issue and place it pretty low on the priority scale. And I'm more concerned about those who are already here than those who might show up later.

 

The bottom line, however, is "pro-choice" or even "anti-abortion" aren't the absolutist statement that "pro-life" is. A person is not taking a pro-life stance by giving the state permission to kill in his name -- in fact, that is a decidedly pro-death stance. Just because "pro-lifers" feel like their cause is the most important cause of all doesn't mean they have staked the moral high ground to judge which life takes priority.

Sorry, as 75 said, you're splitting hairs. I could argue that I'm just letting the state kill in the name of the state, not in my name. I'm letting them choose. Just like the pro-choice person does with abortion.

Sorry, as 75 said, you're splitting hairs. I could argue that I'm just letting the state kill in the name of the state, not in my name. I'm letting them choose. Just like the pro-choice person does with abortion.

 

You elect those state officials.

You elect those state officials.

Based on the death penalty? No, I don't.

 

Does the representatives you vote for always do what you want them to, by the way?

If you really want rid of guns, then execute anyone who gets caught with a gun used in a crime, bet gun crimes go down.

 

I bet the change in gun crime would but so small you wouldn't even notice a difference. The vast majority of criminals live in the here and now and don't consider the longer term consequences of their actions.

 

An old mobster was interviewed in prison about his time active with the mafia decades ago. He was asked back in his active days if he thought he would end up in prison. The bluntness of his reply was unreal. He said almost no one makes it to old age in the mafia, they all knew they would either be killed in wars between families or would be sentenced to jail like he is now. But they didn't care, that was in the future and they didn't worry about it, they only cared about today. I could only shake my head but that is the prevailing view and most likely the prevailing view for those in violent crime outside the mafia.

I bet the change in gun crime would but so small you wouldn't even notice a difference. The vast majority of criminals live in the here and now and don't consider the longer term consequences of their actions.

 

An old mobster was interviewed in prison about his time active with the mafia decades ago. He was asked back in his active days if he thought he would end up in prison. The bluntness of his reply was unreal. He said almost no one makes it to old age in the mafia, they all knew they would either be killed in wars between families or would be sentenced to jail like he is now. But they didn't care, that was in the future and they didn't worry about it, they only cared about today. I could only shake my head but that is the prevailing view and most likely the prevailing view for those in violent crime outside the mafia.

 

How do you then possibly explain the crime rate of places like Singapore who have some of the harshest punishments for criminals in the world, and the lowest crime rates in the world. Your logic doesn't make sense when you look at the total picture. As long as you are involved in a society where the mainstream population isn't involved in mass famine, stiffer punishments tend to lead to lower crime rates.

Based on the death penalty? No, I don't.

 

Does the representatives you vote for always do what you want them to, by the way?

 

Wow. I guess your vote means nothing, I guess there is nothing you can do about it, so why bother. No need to get involved or to let others hear your voice. Sleep well!

How do you then possibly explain the crime rate of places like Singapore who have some of the harshest punishments for criminals in the world, and the lowest crime rates in the world. Your logic doesn't make sense when you look at the total picture. As long as you are involved in a society where the mainstream population isn't involved in mass famine, stiffer punishments tend to lead to lower crime rates.

 

How do you possibly explain the crime rate in places like Western Europe which hasn't executed a criminal during peacetime for several decades? I purposely used Western Europe to exclude Eastern Europe while they were under the cloud of communism. Communist countries used capital punishment as a way of instilling intimidation and fear of the goverment on the entire populace (not just criminals) just as much as punishment for crimes so I isolated them out for my example.

 

Speaking of intimidation and fear, Singapore and Middle Eastern countries also use severe punishment as a way to keep the populace in line. That would also keep crime low when citizens are always on the look out for big brother so that constant looming fear would naturally keep crime rates low.

How do you then possibly explain the crime rate of places like Singapore who have some of the harshest punishments for criminals in the world, and the lowest crime rates in the world. Your logic doesn't make sense when you look at the total picture. As long as you are involved in a society where the mainstream population isn't involved in mass famine, stiffer punishments tend to lead to lower crime rates.

 

Do we really want to live in a hyper-restrictive society such as Singapore? Is that where all this fear-mongering is headed?

How do you possibly explain the crime rate in places like Western Europe which hasn't executed a criminal during peacetime for several decades? I purposely used Western Europe to exclude Eastern Europe while they were under the cloud of communism. Communist countries used capital punishment as a way of instilling intimidation and fear of the goverment on the entire populace (not just criminals) just as much as punishment for crimes so I isolated them out for my example.

 

Speaking of intimidation and fear, Singapore and Middle Eastern countries also use severe punishment as a way to keep the populace in line. That would also keep crime low when citizens are always on the look out for big brother so that constant looming fear would naturally keep crime rates low.

 

I think you are confusing crime rate with murder rate. Western Europe's crime rate doesn't compare with a place like Singapore. Like you just admitted to, that type of punishment works if your goal is to reduce crime. Now you are wanting to bring things in like individual rights to the equation.

Do we really want to live in a hyper-restrictive society such as Singapore? Is that where all this fear-mongering is headed?

 

I certainly don't want it heading that way Jim. However, I do find that a large portion of our society who claim to be forward thinkers would love to make us a hyper-restrictive society, as long as they get to pick and choose what is being restricted.