Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Beckys_Mom

Capital Punishment - For or against?

171 posts in this topic

I don't understand when people are against abortion but for capital punishment. Doesn't make much sense to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could ask the opposite -- why are some against capital punishment but for abortion? (By the way, I'm in the other camp, but I see a built-in conflict in both positions. I think the reason as to do with when you get into the details of each.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand when people are against abortion but for capital punishment. Doesn't make much sense to me

One's a unborn human, the other's a criminal who more then likely committed a murder or a rape.

Baby or criminal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One's a unborn human, the other's a criminal who more then likely committed a murder or a rape.

Baby or criminal?

Was about to say something similar.One is always innocent dont know many unborn children out commiting murder.The other well every now and then one was innocent.As i said if cannot be proven 100% then no to capital punishment.If it is 100% bye-bye

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of one

Thou shalt not kill

When did we get the right to decide the moment of another's death exactly? What great wisdom and profound perception have we been given that allows us the certainty that this is a correct means of punishment? Death is irrevocable, there is no repentance, epithany or enlightenment available in the grave. We can claim that a murderer is beyond the capacity to experience those states - but they are only claims, we cannot know, only God knows - I say this because I know you have often claimed that God walks by you as a physical companion, others such as atheists operate on different consistent sets of morals of course and this may not apply to them in the same way.

The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill unlawfully" ie commit murder. The biblical god makes it very clear that society has not only the authority but the obligation to execute certain groups of peole and that killing in war is not murder etc But i dont base my opinion on religion or the bible, only on logic ethics and moralities of my own. I

appreciate others disagree but I believe that a person surrenders their right to life once they commit certain acts. ( I dont believe any one has an absolute right to life although we all have an innate right to life, but that right can be abrogated or lost through our behaviours)

I dont believe in an after life, but if i did then, logically, god would know the innocent from the guilty and judge them. The innocent might be redeemed and the guilty might be lost. But i can only know for sure, earthly events and only judge and punish people for what they do in this life. Our earthly life is caesars and subject to ceasar's dictates laws etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 100% totally disagree with you. It is not logical to think that executing 1000 people is justifiable if even one of those people are innocent! Your own argument explains my point. I'll quote you, with perhaps just a tiny change of wording here and there:

The dead can not be restored, the rape victim can never be the same again, the abuse victim will never be whole and sound, the unjustly executed can never be brought back; and so restorative justice cannot be put in place. as it can be for some crimes lesser sentences (eg, life imprisonment).

By your own reasoning, some crimes affect other people, and no matter if a person is reformed, the people will never be the same. But unjust executions also affect people, family, friends, loved ones, not to mention the innocent person themselves executed. An unjust execution affects the lives of other innocent people, and no matter that a person is posthumously pardoned, that pardon cannot bring them back to life.

There is a very large gap between definitely guilty and "beyond reasonable doubt". Most judicial systems in our world today need only prove things beyond reasonable doubt. How do we decide on a point where a persons' guilt is not disputed? A confession? With a confession it means that Timothy Evans was correctly executed, even though he was innocent (the Evans case was one of the watershed cases that led to the abolition of the Death Penalty in England).

The difference is in innocence and guilt. Innocent peole deserve a life but the guilty do not. Guilty people take the life of innocent people. the state takes the life of guilty people after a trial While i would prefer to be certain of the guilt of every condemned prisoner, it is in my mind worse to allow a guilty man to go free than to kill an innocent man The innocent man is not a danger to society but the guilty are. I appreciate it is a radical thought but as i watch society self destruct around me, and see family and friends murdered abused or raped, I wonder if such radicalism is not required.

Iif we could work out a way to do it, I would like to see all people mentally/emotionally capable of killing, raping or abusing an innocent person without just cause, put to death even before they commited the crime, or at the very least have them "genetically modified" so that they were incapable of commiting such crimes. If the only thing which stops them from commiting such crimes is fear of being caught and punished, then they dont deserve to live either.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand when people are against abortion but for capital punishment. Doesn't make much sense to me

For me, an unborn baby is an innocent, perahps the absolute epitomy of innocence and defencelessness, with no or little legal protection. It has done nothing wrong and thus deserves a life.

A killer abrogates or surrenders their right to life by taking the life of another. (as may do a rapist or an abuser) They are given a comprehensive trial with (in australaia at least) free legal aid for their defence. They have a chance to deny their guilt or to explain mitigating circumstances, and all of this can be taken into account. An unborn child can not speak for itself, has no defence lawyer to plead its case for life, and is never tried. It is innocent of any wrong doing. A big differnce in scenarios, IMO.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill unlawfully" ie commit murder. The biblical god makes it very clear that society has not only the authority but the obligation to execute certain groups of peole and that killing in war is not murder etc But i dont base my opinion on religion or the bible, only on logic ethics and moralities of my own. I

appreciate others disagree but I believe that a person surrenders their right to life once they commit certain acts. ( I dont believe any one has an absolute right to life although we all have an innate right to life, but that right can be abrogated or lost through our behaviours)

I dont believe in an after life, but if i did then, logically, god would know the innocent from the guilty and judge them. The innocent might be redeemed and the guilty might be lost. But i can only know for sure, earthly events and only judge and punish people for what they do in this life. Our earthly life is caesars and subject to ceasar's dictates laws etc.

I agree with a lot of what you say,i know many who are all against capital punishment but have the opinion that aborting a unborn child is perfectly acceptable.This makes absolutely no sense to me.Just because a politician and some irresponsible person decides they do not want responsibility it makes the situation perfectly acceptable to kill a innocent being under the excuse of "a womans right to choose".When it becomes a reasonable way of thinking that someone who has taken a life,a rapist,or any other heinous crime should be taken care of and allowed to continue living on other peoples hard earned money,compared to one who has never even had a chance to live.We as a society have become a cancer to ourselves.I am not religious but this way of thinking is foolish,selfish,and all around disgusting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is in innocence and guilt. Innocent peole deserve a life but the guilty do not. Guilty people take the life of innocent people. the state takes the life of guilty people after a trial While i would prefer to be certain of the guilt of every condemned prisoner, it is in my mind worse to allow a guilty man to go free than to kill an innocent man The innocent man is not a danger to society but the guilty are. I appreciate it is a radical thought but as i watch society self destruct around me, and see family and friends murdered abused or raped, I wonder if such radicalism is not required.

Iif we could work out a way to do it, I would like to see all people mentally/emotionally capable of killing, raping or abusing an innocent person without just cause, put to death even before they commited the crime, or at the very least have them "genetically modified" so that they were incapable of commiting such crimes. If the only thing which stops them from commiting such crimes is fear of being caught and punished, then they dont deserve to live either.

If everything in this world were black and white, then I may perhaps agree. However, almost everything in this world is a shade of grey. I would not condone letting the guilty go free, but that's why we have a judicial system that allows for incarceration. With using incarceration, if a mistake has been made then the person can be pardoned and released. With the death penalty, then they can be pardoned and their family will receive an apology.

Needless to say, I disagree with your hard line approach to the (flawed) human Justice system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad thing to see people, mostly religious who on one hand are dead set against abortion and on the other, have no problem with a god who committed genocide on a global scale which included more unborn children than all the abortions in history put together.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everything in this world were black and white, then I may perhaps agree. However, almost everything in this world is a shade of grey. I would not condone letting the guilty go free, but that's why we have a judicial system that allows for incarceration. With using incarceration, if a mistake has been made then the person can be pardoned and released. With the death penalty, then they can be pardoned and their family will receive an apology.

Needless to say, I disagree with your hard line approach to the (flawed) human Justice system.

Not suprising. I was brought up in conservative times by conservative parents and a conservative system. It worked very well for all of us, and so we (I) approve of that conservative approach.

Not everyone agrees. In my opinion it is more important for the system of society to work well, than for individual rights to be protected at the cost of damaging the society. I see in the modern world a very (perhaps fatally) flawed social system where individual rights supercede the rights of the society which protects those individuals.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad thing to see people, mostly religious who on one hand are dead set against abortion and on the other, have no problem with a god who committed genocide on a global scale which included more unborn children than all the abortions in history put together.

ER which genocide on a global scale? And if you refer to the mythological flood then i think you will find that more babies are aborted in the world each year in the modern age than there were humans alive on the earth within the time frame of that story. At that time in the earths past historians will tell you that the total poplation of the world was only in the few millions and that at times like those of global plague the population went down so much it may even have approached a non viable level. i am not a creationist but an evolutionist and I believe every baby has a basic right to a life However an adult woman has competing rights which, in some cases, may overide the right to life of her baby.

According to the WHO between 40 and 50 million unborn babies are aborted each year. In the US alone since abortion was legalised about 50 million unborn humans have been aborted Nearly a quarter of all pregnancies in the US, not counting miscarriages, are aborted

Now those figures truly are world wide genocide.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point an embryo becomes a human being. This is a tough one -- it is rank superstition to say that this happens at conception -- that suddenly the cell (its just one cell at this point) has a soul or something.

By the time it is born, has it become a human being yet? It certainly seems more likely, but, again, there is reason to doubt -- it is clearly not capable of rational thought, or even really of focusing its eyes to be considered sensate, but we can tell it clearly is able to feel pain. So at minimum at this time it is some sort of animal.

The Buddhist tradition is that during the pregnancy the life spirit of someone who has recently died comes to inhabit (parasitize?) the developing baby, and at that point it becomes a human being. Of course biologists have never been able to identify any event that might indicate when that happens. From their point of view, you start out with a bit of flesh and end up with a baby -- in a gradual process where there is no demarcation. Either view has pretty much the same moral result.

Obviously, to me at least, any abortion is immoral, but some acts are more immoral than others (murder is more immoral than petty thievery). Early abortion is perhaps a minor offense compared to late-term abortion, in turn a lesser offense compared to something like infanticide. This is a major flaw in Christian thinking -- that all breaks with the harmony of the universe are equivalently bad -- that all sins are "sin." Forget about sin: remember that we alter ourselves by what we do, and that offenses harm us -- in Asian terms, bring bad karma -- and in the end we can destroy ourselves, but some things do more harm to us than others.

So I conclude that abortions should be avoided, all else being equal, but it is often the case that all else is not equal. In fact, this rule applies to all moral issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Buddhist tradition is that during the pregnancy the life spirit of someone who has recently died comes to inhabit (parasitize?) the developing baby, and at that point it becomes a human being. Of course biologists have never been able to identify any event that might indicate when that happens. From their point of view, you start out with a bit of flesh and end up with a baby -- in a gradual process where there is no demarcation. Either view has pretty much the same moral result.

It's been suggested that it happens when the mother first feels the baby move ..... the 'quickening'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill unlawfully" ie commit murder. The biblical god makes it very clear that society has not only the authority but the obligation to execute certain groups of peole

The Torahic God.

Where's God make that clear in the New Testament? If anything he makes the exact opposite clear. Many things between Old and New are in direct opposition, that's why they called it New.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pro-choice-baby.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill unlawfully" ie commit murder. The biblical god makes it very clear that society has not only the authority but the obligation to execute certain groups of peole and that killing in war is not murder etc But i dont base my opinion on religion or the bible, only on logic ethics and moralities of my own.

Which apparently are rather lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

At some point an embryo becomes a human being. This is a tough one -- it is rank superstition to say that this happens at conception -- that suddenly the cell (its just one cell at this point) has a soul or something.

By the time it is born, has it become a human being yet? It certainly seems more likely, but, again, there is reason to doubt -- it is clearly not capable of rational thought, or even really of focusing its eyes to be considered sensate, but we can tell it clearly is able to feel pain. So at minimum at this time it is some sort of animal.

The Buddhist tradition is that during the pregnancy the life spirit of someone who has recently died comes to inhabit (parasitize?) the developing baby, and at that point it becomes a human being. Of course biologists have never been able to identify any event that might indicate when that happens. From their point of view, you start out with a bit of flesh and end up with a baby -- in a gradual process where there is no demarcation. Either view has pretty much the same moral result.

Obviously, to me at least, any abortion is immoral, but some acts are more immoral than others (murder is more immoral than petty thievery). Early abortion is perhaps a minor offense compared to late-term abortion, in turn a lesser offense compared to something like infanticide. This is a major flaw in Christian thinking -- that all breaks with the harmony of the universe are equivalently bad -- that all sins are "sin." Forget about sin: remember that we alter ourselves by what we do, and that offenses harm us -- in Asian terms, bring bad karma -- and in the end we can destroy ourselves, but some things do more harm to us than others.

So I conclude that abortions should be avoided, all else being equal, but it is often the case that all else is not equal. In fact, this rule applies to all moral issues.

IMO it is neither a religious issue nor does it having anything to do with sin. It is a philosophical, moral and ethical issue. Basically humans, by their self aware nature, confer on each other a greater right to life than they do on other creatures. In part this is a selfish product of our individual nature living as separate consciousneses and bodies We see oursleves as special and confer some of that specialness onto others of our kind, but usually reserve a "more special" place for ourselves..

An individual human begins genetically at conception, and in nature if it is viable will inevitably grow into an indpendent separate genetic human being. To interrupt that growth and devolpment requires compelling reaons. For example if the child is badly malformed and will never be able to live indepndently as a thinking human being, or if its development threatens the life or health of the mother. Thus while i believe abortion should be legal and govt funded, I also believe that it should be regulated based on logic and ehtics An unborn does have a baisc right to life as do all human beings.

Each case needs to be arbitrated by 'experts" A womans simple desire to end the life of a baby ,is no more ethical than a daughters desire to end the life of her parents because they cause discomfort difficulty or inconvenience in her life An unborn is no differnt genetically to an ninety year old, apart from the eflugence of time. Ps after three months before birth a child hears and responds to external sounds and can even learn and store some of this in their brain.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the USA should abolish capital punishment. Innocent individuals are killed by the State, and this is the worst kind of injustice. As previous posts note, DNA evidence and false or forced confessions play parts in the argument to end the death penalty, which is rejected by most First World industrialized governments. It also seems too uncivilized for modern times, but I definitely see why other people support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which apparently are rather lacking.

Perhaps you could explain your comment to Mr. Walker. I'm sure that he would appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it is neither a religious issue nor does it having anything to do with sin. It is a philosophical, moral and ethical issue. Basically humans, by their self aware nature, confer on each other a greater right to life than they do on other creatures. In part this is a selfish product of our individual nature living as separate consciousneses and bodies We see oursleves as special and confer some of that specialness onto others of our kind, but usually reserve a "more special" place for ourselves..

An individual human begins genetically at conception, and in nature if it is viable will inevitably grow into an indpendent separate genetic human being. To interrupt that growth and devolpment requires compelling reaons. For example if the child is badly malformed and will never be able to live indepndently as a thinking human being, or if its development threatens the life or health of the mother. Thus while i believe abortion should be legal and govt funded, I also believe that it should be regulated based on logic and ehtics An unborn does have a baisc right to life as do all human beings.

Each case needs to be arbitrated by 'experts" A womans simple desire to end the life of a baby ,is no more ethical than a daughters desire to end the life of her parents because they cause discomfort difficulty or inconvenience in her life An unborn is no differnt genetically to an ninety year old, apart from the eflugence of time. Ps after three months before birth a child hears and responds to external sounds and can even learn and store some of this in their brain.

Given your guidelines Hellen Keller would not have been born, maybe even Stephen Hawking would have been aborted.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.