What does it say about a person, politically, personally, and morally if they are simultaneously:
Pro-choice / Pro-abortion
Pro-euthanasia
Pro-death penalty
And Pro-sterilization/contraception?
Basically meaning, he/she is entirely for anything that increases the amount of people who die every day, and decreases the amount of people who are born every day?
Umm...doesn't sterilization/contraception ultimately reduce the number of deaths by reducing number of births?
Quote from: "Hydra009"Umm...doesn't sterilization/contraception ultimately reduce the number of deaths by reducing number of births?
Exactly my thinking... and I'd add abortion to that list.
I myself am all in favor of reducing the number of people being born (overpopulated planet). But I'm 100% opposed to the death penalty. I'm fine with euthanasia (as long as it's what the person being euthanized wants).
Quote from: "Voskhod"What does it say about a person, politically, personally, and morally if they are simultaneously:
Pro-choice / Pro-abortion
For individual freedom.
QuotePro-euthanasia
For individual freedom.
QuotePro-death penalty
Against murder.
QuoteAnd Pro-sterilization/contraception?
For individual freedom.
So I'd say that the person was pretty consistent. BTW, outside of China, very few people are pro-abortion. (That means in favor of forcing women to have abortions. It's not the same as pro-choice, which is in favor of allowing women to
choose - to carry to term OR to have an abortion.)
Quote from: "Atheon"Exactly my thinking... and I'd add abortion to that list.
I was going to, but the equivocation between pro-choice and pro-abortion makes me suspect that the OP might be in a pro-lifer. :-|
QuoteI myself am all in favor of reducing the number of people being born (overpopulated planet). But I'm 100% opposed to the death penalty.
Same here. And considering that these positions are all over the political map (Democrats tend to oppose the death penalty, but Republicans tend to oppose euthanasia, contraception, and abortion, so a combination of both camps isn't likely to be particularly mainstream), there might not be a whole lot of people who simultaneously hold all the positions the OP listed off. Especially since they rely on very different values.
For example, one's stance euthanasia is heavily influenced by notions of self-determination and hedonism (minimizing pain) vs moralistic concern, the idea that there's some sort of divine plan and the sacredness of life.
Abortion pits reproductive rights (most especially, bodily integrity (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity)) against moralistic concern and the sacredness of life (anyone sense a pattern here?)
The death penalty pits pre-modern notions of retribution (eye-for-an-eye punishment) vs enlightenment notions of justice (death penalty opponents tend to see the death penalty as cruel and inhumane)
And finally, the contraception "debate" such as it is, almost entirely revolves around ideas of reproductive rights versus religion (every sperm is sacred).
One of these things is not like the others...
Pretty much agree with Colanth except I'm not really sure why being pro-death penalty is being against murder, the two seem pretty unrelated.
Exactly, Shoe. An executed murderer can't repeat his crime. (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder. Some cases are that clear.)
First of all: I don't understand how you got this:
Quote from: "Voskhod"he/she is entirely for anything that increases the amount of people who die every day, and decreases the amount of people who are born every day?
Out of this:
Quote from: "Voskhod"a person whom is simultaneously:
Pro-choice / Pro-abortion
Pro-euthanasia
Pro-death penalty
And Pro-sterilization/contraception?
I'll grant you most of these would probably decrease the amount of people born each day, but to equate that to 'pro death' is absurd.
As for the increase in actual deaths...
:wtf:
I agree with Colanth as long as pro-sterilization is a personal choice and not forced upon them. However, when it is necessary to prevent more children from starvation or deprived of a healthy life, I support it. Solitary
Quote from: "Colanth"Exactly, Shoe. An executed murderer can't repeat his crime. (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder. Some cases are that clear.)
All people who've been sentenced to death supposedly met these criteria according to the states that sentenced them. The reality turned out to be different of course with new methods of testing resulting in exonerations. Yes, there are indeed cases where there absolutely seems to be no doubt as to guilt but the people in charge of making those decisions (prosecutors mainly) have no incentive to err on the side of caution and are protected by immunity.
Why do we need to kill murderers badly enough that we will inevitably commit murder ourselves in the process?
Exactly! And how many murderers are set free to do it again because the jury doesn't feel right killing them because they like their personality or for religious reasons. And why would anyone that has murdered be let out to do it again when the law is to protect society not punish. And why are our prisons so full of so-called criminal that are no threat to anyone but themselves. And finally, logically, two wrongs don't make a right. Solitary
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Colanth"Exactly, Shoe. An executed murderer can't repeat his crime. (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder. Some cases are that clear.)
All people who've been sentenced to death supposedly met these criteria according to the states that sentenced them.
The current standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a FAR looser one. And that's usually reasonable doubt as determined by a jury, which is a far cry from impartial in most cases.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Colanth"Exactly, Shoe. An executed murderer can't repeat his crime. (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder. Some cases are that clear.)
All people who've been sentenced to death supposedly met these criteria according to the states that sentenced them.
The current standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a FAR looser one. And that's usually reasonable doubt as determined by a jury, which is a far cry from impartial in most cases.
So you're against the death penalty then? Good for you.
Quote from: "billhilly"So you're against the death penalty then?
In all but a VERY few cases. (Most of which are moot, since the intended victim already imposed the death penalty on the attacker.)
we should actually talk about post-death. that is what they religious do. but unfortunately it's untalkable. nobody has gone there have not yet turn back : )
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "billhilly"So you're against the death penalty then?
In all but a VERY few cases. (Most of which are moot, since the intended victim already imposed the death penalty on the attacker.)
That is interesting. I think I agree with you if I'm understanding your point. I don't have an issue with the death penalty in principle. It's the inevitable application process that hangs me up. A guy who is beaten to death with a fireplace poker while attempting to rape and murder someone seems about right to me. Are we in the same ballpark here?
Pretty much. A guy who beats someone to death on the street, in front of a dozen witnesses, who saw the attack start for no reason, and who claims that he killed the victim to see what killing someone feels like (actual case from a few decades ago), is a prime candidate for the death penalty.
Someone who almost certainly committed a murder for no good reason isn't. It's the "almost" that makes the difference to me. No matter how certain we can be, unless it's absolute certainty, the fact that the death sentence is final makes it wrong IMO.
Quote from: "AtheTurk"we should actually talk about post-death. that is what they religious do. but unfortunately it's untalkable. nobody has gone there have not yet turn back : )
Not completely true. There have been a few confirmed cases of people coming back from clinical death. But no reports of anything there.
Quote from: "Colanth"Pretty much. A guy who beats someone to death on the street, in front of a dozen witnesses, who saw the attack start for no reason, and who claims that he killed the victim to see what killing someone feels like (actual case from a few decades ago), is a prime candidate for the death penalty.
Someone who almost certainly committed a murder for no good reason isn't. It's the "almost" that makes the difference to me. No matter how certain we can be, unless it's absolute certainty, the fact that the death sentence is final makes it wrong IMO.
I'm not sure we can ever devise a system that ensures absolute certainty every time. We certainly don't have one now.
Reasonable doubt determined all to often by unreasonable people devoid of reasonable knowledge of events around them... Sense some silliness there?
I wonder about this sometimes.
Years ago, when my grandpa had a house in the woods of PA, there was a summer where all the deer died because of over population. They eventually made a recovery, but that year that they died was because of too many deer and not enough food.
Sometimes I wonder if the human population will fizzle out like that. The number of people rises exponentially every year.
Today the world population is about 6,800,000,000 almost 1 billion more than ten years ago
And in 1950 the world pop was approx 2.55 billion
I hope we can figure out how to be resourceful otherwise we are going to have a shit-storm of famine.
Billion. Not Trillion. But other than that; yeah. We used to have one or two great purging events per generation (mostly wars and the like) but that seems to have stopped. But unless we learn to stop breeding like rabbits, we'll have another one on our hands at some point in the future.
Quote from: "Plu"Billion. Not Trillion.
Fixed it.
And yea. I HATE war and violence. It gives me nausea. I do not want to witness that.
I can't imagine having to deal with knowing the detail of something like that going on. (although there are genocides going on right now, or at least recently) One of the reasons I am skiddish to turn on the news...
The Crusades and the Nazi Holocaust eliminated about 10% of the human population. Each. I don't even feel like getting my self sick thinking about today's population (literally) decimated from something like that. 680,000,000 people. obliterated. Fuck that.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Colanth"Pretty much. A guy who beats someone to death on the street, in front of a dozen witnesses, who saw the attack start for no reason, and who claims that he killed the victim to see what killing someone feels like (actual case from a few decades ago), is a prime candidate for the death penalty.
Someone who almost certainly committed a murder for no good reason isn't. It's the "almost" that makes the difference to me. No matter how certain we can be, unless it's absolute certainty, the fact that the death sentence is final makes it wrong IMO.
I'm not sure we can ever devise a system that ensures absolute certainty every time. We certainly don't have one now.
Which is why I'm almost never in favor of the death penalty. When mind-reading is acceptable evidence, we can be more comfortable about using it.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I hope we can figure out how to be resourceful otherwise we are going to have a shit-storm of famine.
We already do in many places. And people die in large numbers. There's no need to wait for the future to see what's going to happen - it's happening now.
Quote from: "jansnyder"Death penalty is no good. As an atheist, I do not support the death penalty, because it can be abused, used to kill scape goats, and has inconsistent cases.
So if a law can be misapplied, it should never be applied? That would eliminate all laws.
The death penalty is a punishment for breaking a law and yes, it should never be applied.
What about the death penalty for people like Anders Behring Breivik or Timothy McVeigh who, with no doubt, intentionally murdered large numbers of people?
Pro-Death, you act as if that's a bad thing. Life is suffering. Why must you force people into a life of suffering?
They are probably better off in a research lab than a box in the ground. Their minds might have valuable clues towards detecting and fixing these problems in the future.
Quote from: "AtheTurk"Nobody has gone there have not yet turn back : )
Of course, that is true, but some have gone quite close and reported their experiences. It is not outside the scope of science to talk about what happens after death. After all, what remains after death can be discussed.