Maryland abolishes death penalty

Ariana said:
Actually, it doesn't start at birth. You not only feel the baby moving, but you can also feel its emotions: every loud bang causes it to startle and its heartbeat starts racing. You can also feel when it's calm and relaxed - its heartbeat matches your own. You can feel its fingers scratching as it's trying to explore its surroundings. If you press your belly gently, it will press back. Babies even get the hiccups in the womb and you can feel that.
Click to expand...

You got me wrong. I know all of that. Life as a socialized creature starts at birth and abortion is mostly based on sociologic stands, events. So in this case we're talking about, life starts at birth.
 
Sorry for lobbing that abortion grenade in there and getting us on a tangent. But I've always been amused that the most strident opponents of the death penalty are usually the same people who want to make it easy to kill a living (yes, living, for all the reasons Ariana states) being in the womb. And if we justify the latter for socioeconomic reasons, then why can't we justify the former on the same grounds? The problem with the viability question is that it is an impossible line to draw, and as someone pointed out, it depends on arbitrary things like the quality of medical care available to the mother. Plus, as society and medical science progresses, that line is drawn earlier and earlier. Birth is at least a bright line, but that presents its own moral conundrums. Is there really a moral difference between killing a child one second after it is born and killing it one second before it is born? I think not, and all but the most militant pro-choice proponents seem to agree that ninth-month abortions are wrong. And, even assuming Flash's argument that children begin the socialization process at birth (though I'm skeptical of that, what is the evidence for it?), no one earlier was talking about a right to "life as a socialized creature" when discussing the death penalty. That seems like a cop-out.

I totally respect the views of people who view human life as sacrosanct and inviolable and therefore oppose the death penalty for that reason. (For example, I'm told Quakers believe it is wrong to kill even in self-defense.) I also understand and respect the views of people who believe the privacy and liberty of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn child. But I think anyone that tries to adopt both views is being hypocritical, or at least intellectually inconsistent. Perhaps that is why Flash is struggling to rationalize that inconsistency with a strained position like, "life as a socialized creature begins at birth."
 
Cornfed Hick said:
And if we justify the latter for socioeconomic reasons, then why can't we justify the former on the same grounds?
Click to expand...

I already explained why we can't justify the former from my own point of view, whether you count it or not.

Cornfed Hick said:
Is there really a moral difference between killing a child one second after it is born and killing it one second before it is born?
Click to expand...

To me the answer is yes. Although I wouldn't support aborting a nine month old fetus, it has to be done way before.

Cornfed Hick said:
And, even assuming Flash's argument that children begin the socialization process at birth (though I'm skeptical of that, what is the evidence for it?)
Click to expand...

Uhm, who can you get socialized with if there's nobody? You connect with people after you're born. Socialization isn't something you can reject, you automatically are a social person once you're born because you're born into a society whether you want it or not.

Cornfed Hick said:
No one earlier was talking about a right to "life as a socialized creature" when discussing the death penalty. That seems like a cop-out.
Click to expand...

I was. And you don't really need to state a grown man is a socialized creature, it's obvious. The life of a grown man is obviously socialized.

Cornfed Hick said:
Perhaps that is why Flash is struggling to rationalize that inconsistency with a strained position like, "life as a socialized creature begins at birth."
Click to expand...

It's not a strained position (i've been saying the same thing since the start of the abortion/death penalty conversation) and I certainly am not struggling. A fetus is obviously a living creature, I'm not blind or dumb enough to reject that fact. But what I'm talking about is something different and frankly, I feel like you're not trying to get what I mean. I base my whole stance on socialization.
 
Perhaps (> in response to Cornfed's previous post.) You'll note no "strident opponents" of the death penalty are pillorying those who support the death penalty & have mixed views on abortion; also, by your argument, an "intellectually inconsistent" position to take. This criticism (of hypocrisy & intellectual inconsistency), by your logic, is applicable to everyone; except those few who support the death penalty & abortion at any stage, for any reason i.e. those, in this whole argument, who value life the least. Abortion is far more complicated; an "impossible line to draw" you say. Is this the case with the death penalty? No. Therefore this simplistic comparison is a false argument.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
I think anyone that tries to adopt both views is being hypocritical, or at least intellectually inconsistent.
Click to expand...

As both a death penalty opponent and a pro-choicer, I have to admit that I've been struggling to rationalise this for myself. The line of reasoning for me pretty much goes with self-defence. If a mother's life is threatened by carrying a child, then she should have every right to get rid of it. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant as a result, she should also have that right, because it was an act of violence to begin with. However, I do have to say that I'm not as staunchly pro-choice as I am anti-death penalty. If a woman gets pregnant by her own responsibility (like ditching contraceptives), I don't see why she shouldn't carry the consequences. Before you say it, I believe the father of the child has the same obligations. I still believe that is for themselves to make up, however. No law, secular or religious, should have any say in this. And that is really the primary basis for my views here: Laws are fine and necessary, but there should be a limit to what a legislative rules. It is a strictly social institution, and should have no say in personal matters, which is to say that it also has no right to take away the only personal thing people have left when stripped - that is, life.
 
Sorry for going too deep into this but I really struggle to understand what Flash means by "socialization process at birth". Are you really implying that it's okay to abort a fully developed baby just because nobody knows it and it's not a part of a social group?

I'm sure you know that a baby recognizes and reacts to its mother's voice and very often to its father's voice. Babies even recognize music that they have heard before being born. All this is a form of socializing, although it really is instinctive and serves to facilitate bonding. There is an entire school that is based on pre-natal upbringing, although I'd say they are taking things a bit too far.

If lack of socialization can be an argument in favor of abortion, would you say that a recluse who has lived in total isolation for 40 years could be easily killed as well? I doubt that.
 
Ariana said:
Sorry for going too deep into this but I really struggle to understand what Flash means by "socialization process at birth". Are you really implying that it's okay to abort a fully developed baby just because nobody knows it and it's not a part of a social group?

I'm sure you know that a baby recognizes and reacts to its mother's voice and very often to its father's voice. Babies even recognize music that they have heard before being born. All this is a form of socializing, although it really is instinctive and serves to facilitate bonding. There is an entire school that is based on pre-natal upbringing, although I'd say they are taking things too far.

If lack of socialization can be an argument in favor of abortion, would you say that a recluse who has lived in total isolation for 40 years could be easily killed as well? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

I knew you'd say that, the second paragraph, especially. But communication and socialization are completely different things. The things you've stated are communication. Socialization begins after entering a society and to enter a society you have to be born first. A man who lives in total isolation is also a social person, because he's a part of society.

The Flash said:
Uhm, who can you get socialized with if there's nobody? You connect with people after you're born. Socialization isn't something you can reject, you automatically are a social person once you're born because you're born into a society whether you want it or not.
Click to expand...

Also about the first question, if you check my last post responding to Cornfed, you can see that I don't support the abortion of a fully grown baby. It has to be decided way before.
 
Perun said:
In my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that.

I used to debate this with my ex wife, when I 'd argue just to argue :)

I believe that self defense is described as 'eminent danger'. But, my argument was: what if someone that is criminally insane (if that is even used anymore), is he an eminent danger to society just by being alive? If someone takes shot at my wife/child/friend with intent to kill and I killed that person in self defense, that is justifiable. If this same person lives, goes to jail, does his time, and comes back to kill my wife/child/friend.... what then? (I can't help playing the devil's advocate, sorry)
 
Flash, I read that but I also read your opinion that killing a baby right before it is born is more justifiable that the other option. Which basically means the same.
Here's another question - if a baby dies before being born, can the parents bury it? And if your answer is yes, how could they have a burial ceremony when this child has never lived, has never known social conventions for burial practices and has not been a part of society?

And yes, socialization and communication are different, but the former cannot happen without the latter.
 
I think the reason why you're having a difficult time fully grasping my arguments is that I'm basically trying to tell you why I don't think death penalty and abortion are comparable by comparing them. It's a stretch, I'm doing my best to explain my stance but it's likely to go into a dead end, it may have already gone into it.

I'm not getting into the burial ceremony question simply because I'm not well informed about the matter.
 
I'll ask one question first: if I see a situation like that, can I defend my family? I will google around to find the answer, but I know that legal or not, I would.

Second, same situation, yet it's your life in danger both times. That should easily fit the premise.
 
The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force ordefensive force, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.

Found that quote in wiki. I'll look for citations.
 
The Flash said:
I think the reason why you're having a difficult time fully grasping my arguments is that I'm basically trying to tell you why I don't think death penalty and abortion are comparable by comparing them. It's a stretch, I'm doing my best to explain my stance but it's likely to go into a dead end, it may have already gone into it.
Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned a thing about death penalty. What dragged me into the discussion was the abortion issue, so if that topic is closed, I have nothing more to add. :p
 
Also, what is your aim in defending yourself generally? Defending yourself only? Or killing your "attacker"? These two things do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
In a country with no guns how, Wasted, do you propose to defend yourself with deadly force?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? A bat, a hammer, a knife. If he has a gun, he fires some shots and is going to reload, and I swing a bat, throw a cinderblock at his head, something.
 
But you understand my second question? By swinging a bat, or throwing something, your aim is to stop the attack, & scare away the intruder/attacker --right? The aim is not to kill, regardless of their motives --yes/no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top