An ethical question

[Gabriella84]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

It's an issue of innocence versus guilt. The innocent should live. The murderous should die.

You probably don't believe in guilt and innocence, believing that crime is just a function of social inequality. AM I right?

 

[dmp]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

Dumb, un-original question. It's like "If God can do EVERYTHING, can he create a rock so strong that he can't break it in half?"

:zzz:

 

[Avatar4321]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

First, this isnt really an ethical question.

Second, If you cant tell the difference between killing an innocent child for your actions and killing a guilty seriel killer, then you have some major psychological issues.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

To me, ending life is ending life.

Is that good or bad?

 

[5stringJeff]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

Gabriella, I oppose abortion, yet support the death penalty. Here's why: I believe that abortion is ending an innocent life, which is morally wrong. I believe that the death penalty is a justifiable punishment for crimes in which a human life is taken (e.g. 1st degree murder), and that the state is justified in punishing a person by death, if he is found guilty of such a crime.

 

[Said1]

Guys, hasn't the topic of this thread been done to death already? I think I'll join -=d=- and sit this one out.

 

[no1tovote4]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

It doesn't take very long to figure out the difference between innocence and perceived guilt. The offspring in an abortion are killed largely for the convenience of the parent without regard to the innocence or the validity of the life ended.

The murderer that gets the death penalty also disregarded the validity of a life and purposefully took that life, thus removing from respective innocence the right to life of another. In respect to the life of the victim, society tends to give the harshest penalty, the loss of the right they took from another.

In abortion the most innocent of life, yet to sin, still developing, has been taken 98% of the time for no other reason than the convenience of the mobile. The one with the least voice and the largest reason to be protected is left with no advocate. In the death penalty we go through years of appeals and in every step the convicted has advocates in order to speak for them. The differences between the two are immense, and in order to pay for the heinous crime that has netted one the death penalty society has judged the value of their life to be the price of the convicted's life.

Now for my personal opinion. The Death Penalty is not strict enough, while the convicted should not leave prison until they are in the narrow box assigned to all the living, they should be held in physical limbo until they should naturally go. Living in a small area, let out for small periods to walk in a small exercise area, unvisited and alone.

 

[Markainion]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

I had a professor ask this exact same question once. He didn’t even tempt to give an answer to this.

All he said was:

Conservatives tend to be anti-abortion but pro death penalty.

Liberals tend to be anti-death penalty and pro abortion.

And then asked why neither party was truly pro life or pro death.


The point was that it says something about the political difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats do tend to care about those in society that tend to have a greater struggle within society more than Republicans do. While on the other hand Republicans have always tended to be more protective of children than Democrats.

The reason for this is simple, Republican and the anti-abortion and death penalty group, tend to believe that their success is mostly do to themselves and how they were raised. That is why children are protected, so the innocent gets a chance to thrive and be successful too.

On the other hand Democrats tend to believe that the government need to help people make up for their failures. Therefore pro-abortion to save the women who get pregnant by mistake, and tries to save the murder that is sentence to death, because society was partially responsible for his act.

I tend to agree with the conservatism more than the liberals on this, but I have noticed that economics tend to affect peoples opinions. The Great Depression turned a significant number of Republicans, Democrats for life. While on the other hand a significant number of years of economic success have turned this country back into Republicans.

You now there are really a different between Democrats and Republicans beliefs deep down, even if it is often hard to see.

 

[GotZoom]

She is a Psychology major (check her profile).

She is using us for her class project.

 

[Joz]

She is a Psychology major (check her profile).
She is using us for her class project.

Why not? We're fun people.

 

[archangel]

Psychology and Sociology were the easiest classes I took in college...never opened a book...scored a average of 85% on exams....however I received a C+ on grades...was told by the so called professor that I did not submitt extra credit..therfore my grade was reduced to a C+ from a B....go figure!

I assume he meant that I refused to protest.....or is that kiss "ass".... :hail:

 

[Gabriella84]

Psychology and Socialogy were the easiest classes I took in college...never opened a book...scored a average of 85% on exams....however I received a C+ on grades...was told by the so called professor that I did not submitt extra credit..therfore my grade was reduced to a C+ from a B....go figure!

Since I attend a real university and always do the work assigned to me, things like that do not happen to me. You are assigned the grade that you earn.
And since classes are not in session, I do not have any projects to complete. Sorry to disappoint you on that one.

My question does not concern presumed guilt and innocence. It refers to human life. If you believe that only God has the right to end life, you should be opposed to killing anyone. Christian theology states "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Not to mention the fact that Jesus died for our sins. Whether you be an innocent unborn child or a convicted mass murderer, your life remains precious in the eyes of the Lord.

I am a firm believer in life in prison without parole. If you execute a murderer, you are repeating his crimes. At the same time, what is a worth punishment that knowing you will never get out of prison? Maximum security prisons do not carry the horrors of Gitmo, but they aren't exactly The Hilton either. Execution is the easy way out.

Forcing an innocent person to suffer on life support can be compared to torture. For the person and their friends/relatives.
Similarly, there is a school of thought that you do not have sustainable human life until several months into gestation. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean it is not plausible.

 

[archangel]

Since I attend a real university and always do the work assigned to me, things like that do not happen to me. You are assigned the grade that you earn.


a "real university" Berkley is a state college just like all the rest of the California State Colleges...it use to be a great university...way back when...and by the way I attended...CSUN...which when I attended... it was called San Fernando Valley State College...then the system merged and all were called..California State University(.....)fill in the area!

 

[archangel]

Guys, hasn't the topic of this thread been done to death already? I think I'll join -=d=- and sit this one out.

 

[manu1959]

Here is an ethical question for you to ponder while I am toiling at my job:

Why do the same people who so strongly oppose abortion and ending life support also firmly support the death penalty?
To me, ending life is ending life.

probably for the same reason that you will kill a fetus but not a mass murrderer

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Since I attend a real university and always do the work assigned to me, things like that do not happen to me. You are assigned the grade that you earn.
And since classes are not in session, I do not have any projects to complete. Sorry to disappoint you on that one.

My question does not concern presumed guilt and innocence. It refers to human life. If you believe that only God has the right to end life, you should be opposed to killing anyone. Christian theology states "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Not to mention the fact that Jesus died for our sins. Whether you be an innocent unborn child or a convicted mass murderer, your life remains precious in the eyes of the Lord.

I am a firm believer in life in prison without parole. If you execute a murderer, you are repeating his crimes. At the same time, what is a worth punishment that knowing you will never get out of prison? Maximum security prisons do not carry the horrors of Gitmo, but they aren't exactly The Hilton either. Execution is the easy way out.

Forcing an innocent person to suffer on life support can be compared to torture. For the person and their friends/relatives.
Similarly, there is a school of thought that you do not have sustainable human life until several months into gestation. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean it is not plausible.

You question does concern guilt and innocence, guilt and innocence being different and one being worthy of punishment. Maybe this isn't the answer you want to hear, but this is it.

 

[Avatar4321]

My question does not concern presumed guilt and innocence. It refers to human life. If you believe that only God has the right to end life, you should be opposed to killing anyone. Christian theology states "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Not to mention the fact that Jesus died for our sins. Whether you be an innocent unborn child or a convicted mass murderer, your life remains precious in the eyes of the Lord.

Your question has everything to do with guilt and innocence. The question involves when it is just to take human life. It's never just to take an innocent life. Thus killing an innocent child would never be justified. And moreso killing a child to cover up and in an attempt to escape the consequences of your own sins makes it even worse.

Killing in self defense, for example, is a justified taking of human life, even though most of us would prefer to avoid that if we could. The key reason it is justified is because the aggressor is guilty of threatening or endangering your life or the life of those who you are defending.

Likewise, the killing of a mass murderer or a serial killer would always be justififed. Because they are guilty of a crime that requires them to be killed. Simply because we are encouraged to extend mercy on an individual basis does not mean society is required to eliminate justice and prohibited from taking the life of people whose crimes justify such a punishment. Jesus' atoning sacrifice did not eliminate the punishing of the guilty. It just provided a way for those who are guilty to become clean and for Christ to take upon them their punishment. The Atonement did not eliminate the laws of morality that govern society, nor their consequence. It simply transfered them onto someone else. Mercy cannot rob justice.

You seem to be under the impression that because Christ said "He who is without sin cast the first stone" that the adulter never died because of her sins. What Christ did was provide her time to repent. She still died someday, though not from the stoning the Pharisees wanted. And she still died Spiritually from the act itself. The consequence of sin, all sin, is death. We die because of sin. We die physical and spiritually because of it. Yet even though we die we can rise again. We can be Spiritually born again, and likewise we will rise in the resurrection someday. That is because of Christ. Because of Christ the consequences of our sins are not permanent. That doesnt mean that governments do not have power to punish those in society nor that capital punishment by a government is unjustified if the punished is guilty of the crime stated.

On a side note, isnt it interesting how liberals insist on a separation of Church and state yet will try to use scripture to justify their attempts to abolish the death penalty?

I am a firm believer in life in prison without parole. If you execute a murderer, you are repeating his crimes. At the same time, what is a worth punishment that knowing you will never get out of prison? Maximum security prisons do not carry the horrors of Gitmo, but they aren't exactly The Hilton either. Execution is the easy way out.

First, Maximum security prisons are alot worse than Gitmo. I suggest you study what goes on in each place alittle more indepth. In fact, i think the death penalty is alot more humane for these people than maximum security prison. Plus its less of a burden on society.

Forcing an innocent person to suffer on life support can be compared to torture. For the person and their friends/relatives.
Similarly, there is a school of thought that you do not have sustainable human life until several months into gestation. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean it is not plausible.

Since when does human life need to be sustainable before its human life? Does it make you feel less guilty to think of a child as just a glob of cells? I guess its your way of easing your conscience. There is an individual human life the second that first cell divides. It is not part of anyones body. Its an individual, unique human being created from a mother and a father. You can try to make arguments such as "it's not sustainable" to ease your conscience but it doesnt change the facts that its a unique and individual human life. If you are for infanticide atleast have the guts to admit it instead of justifying it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Libs don't like the very concept of guilt and innocence. Their goal is to destroy the moral fiber of our nation with moral relativism, thereby weakening it.

 

[Said1]

Libs don't like the very concept of guilt and innocence. Their goal is to destroy the moral fiber of our nation with moral relativism, thereby weakening it.

Too indecisive, afraid of grey areas.