Maryland abolishes death penalty

I'm late to the abortion tossin. Sorry, Cornfed, I just don't see a fetus as a human. Humans are life experience combined with genetic codes that form us into the shape and intellectual bases needed for those experiences to create someone. I generally think abortions are bad things. They are expensive, traumatic, and often, fraught with harassment and such. But I also think they are necessary medical procedures and that the right of the living female to choose whether or not a creature inhabits her body is more important than a proto-human that isn't yet an individual life form. You don't want to prosecute me for jerking off and wasting all those potential mini-mes, and we don't slap a woman in irons when her body pushes out a unique, never-to-be-repeated egg from her uterus while she mensturates. So yeah, I don't see much of a difference there.

A viable fetus? Sure. Now we're into some ethical conundrums.
 
... that is why I brought up abortion to begin with ... talking about a viable fetus. They are permitted to be aborted in the US at least ... I really do not see that as being substantially different than the death penalty.
 
LooseCannon said:
Sorry, Cornfed, I just don't see a fetus as a human. ...

A viable fetus? Sure. Now we're into some ethical conundrums.
Click to expand...

It's all line-drawing. When is a fetus viable? As I think Brucie wrote earlier, it depends. Worse: it may depend on the financial well-being of the parents, which seems like a thoroughly inappropriate way for determining when a child's right to stay alive begins. It is tough to see a four-celled organism as a human, I concede, but what if you can see a heartbeat on the sonogram? By definition, the organism is alive, but when does it become human? Other than the bright-line rules of conception or birth, the question of when human life begins is pretty murky. And I don't buy the "life experience/socialization" argument as a justification for the life-begins-only-at-birth argument, not in the slightest, because I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that life experience or socialization begins right at the moment of birth. Some believe that developed babies still in the womb can hear and respond to outside stimuli. If that's true, then the "life experience" starts before birth. Others (like me) think that newborns are idiots who can't process anything resembling socialization right away -- yet even so, no one would advocate killing a newborn, so that can't be the line we draw, either.

To be clear, I am not a staunch right-to-lifer. I see the gray area, and acknowledge that there may be legitimate public policy reasons for ending human life (warfare, self-defense, death penalty, abortion, etc.). That is why my concerns about the death penalty stem not from some overriding principle about the sanctity of life, but more from the practical (and real) problem of executing innocents unjustly. As for abortion, I am less bothered by things like the "day after" pill that may end the nascent life of a small organism of just a few cells, but more bothered by aborting fetuses that have a heartbeat and "look" human -- which, by the way, happens much earlier in the development process than I thought before we had our first child. I just couldn't look at that little dude with eyes, a mouth, arms, legs and a heartbeat, and not think "human." But that's a pretty personal view of the matter, I acknowledge.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Other than the bright-line rules of conception or birth, the question of when human life begins is pretty murky.
Click to expand...

It becomes even more murky when you consider that conception isn't nearly as bright a line as you might think.

Life is a continuous process, so the question is not when human life begins but when a new individual can be said to exist. This isn't easy to answer. You can't base your definition solely on unique DNA, because due to recombination eggs and sperm have that too. Many argue that a fertilized egg is a potential human being, but it requires a complex environment to develop. There's not enough information in a fertilized egg by itself to create a new human, so "potential" becomes a very nebulous concept.

When you're trying to define a human individual, you're better off looking at an actual property. Given the centrality of cognition to humanity, I think brain development is what you should look at.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
And I don't buy the "life experience/socialization" argument as a justification for the life-begins-only-at-birth argument, not in the slightest, because I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that life experience or socialization begins right at the moment
Click to expand...

You've done nothing to understand my points, have you? Just keeping saying the same stuff you've said earlier. The socialization argument wasn't based on abortion, it was based on the comparison of abortion and death penalty. Check the reply I posted to Ariana. I'm not here to talk about abortion, I joined the debate because it was about death penalty. The comparison was something I rejected from get go and I tried to explain why death penalty and abortion were incomparable by putting forward a perspective from the socialization angle. (Because a man who's facing death penalty has gotten into stuff, experienced and committed a crime, a crime that is considered a crime by rules of society. But an unborn fetus hasn't -even if you call communication socialization, he isn't experienced in the sociological sense because he hasn't yet stepped into the rules of society-, therefore they're incomparable.)

I'm not gonna defend "the justification of abortion by socialization", because it wasn't something I defended in the first place. I haven't talked about abortion solely here. Sheesh.

If you really want my opinion of abortion, I think pretty much the same way LC does.
 
People from UK might have more info on this. I clearly remember, few years ago, in UK a man was released after spending long time in jail, sentenced for murder, in a case that seemed pretty clear. New evidence came, which turned the case upside down, the sentenced person was released (already in old age), with heavy financial compensation.

I don't think I need to elaborate my point any further.

Besides, what's the point of penal system anyway? It should be punishing someone for the crimes done, together with removing that person and threat from society. Death penalty can be seen as a "punishment" for murder only if you believe in heaven/hell type of afterlife where the death row guy ends in Satan's fire pits for eternity after you electrocute him. Wouldn't solitary confinement for life be more of a punishment?.
 
The Flash said:
You've done nothing to understand my points, have you?
Click to expand...

Oh, I think I understand your points pretty well. First you said that life starts at birth, and it was "silly" to think otherwise. When Ariana pointed out you were wrong, you backtracked and said that "life as a socialized creature" starts at birth. Now when I pointed out that there is no evidence for that view, you now say you were talking about the death penalty, and "I'm not here to talk about abortion." In other words...

 
Zare said:
Wouldn't solitary confinement for life be more of a punishment [than the death penalty]?
Click to expand...

Not a crazy view. There was an interesting New Yorker argument about "super-max" prisons in the U.S., which made the point that 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, day after day for a number of years, causes severe emotional trauma and drives some inmates completely insane. The common view in response to this is typically, "waaa-waaa, cry me a river," particularly given that most of those inmates are convicted of violent crimes. Whether that is a fate worse than death is debatable, but a number of those inmates have indeed attempted suicide, including some who did so after being released.

I had a professor in college who was an extreme libertarian, essentially an anarchist. His view of the penal system was interesting: If anyone was convicted of a crime, defined as using force against another person against his or her will, the criminal would be put into a pit with no food or water. Anyone would be able to release that criminal from the pit if they could negotiate (1) a payment or promise from the criminal and (2) restitution or damages to be paid to the victim or the victim's family. The person who releases the criminal could essentially enforce any contract the criminal agreed to, including a contract for services, any breach of which would land the criminal right back in the pit, but that person would be liable in damages for any injuries caused by the released criminal and/or subject to similar criminal punishment if unable to pay those damages. So, if someone screwed up one time and robbed a liquor store with a toy gun, and I was confident that he was a good person who simply made a bad choice and could be redeemed, then it might be worth my while to bargain for his release, by getting money or promises from him and/or getting him to pay what should be a minor debt to the (unharmed) victim. The criminal would essentially be my indentured servant, if I wanted, until he paid off his negotiated debt. If my demands were too expensive and someone else offered to release him on more favorable terms, then he could choose the other offer. In other words, the free market would dictate the terms of his release. Even if someone snapped and killed a man who was cheating on his wife, I might be convinced he'd never commit another crime and negotiate to have him work at hard labor to build me a house with his bare hands for the next five years. But, if I thought the criminal was a gangster or career criminal, or a sociopath who just didn't care, then it would not be worth the cost/liability risk to release him from the pit, and assuming everyone else felt the same way, he'd rot to death. Not the most humane view of the penal system, but intellectually intriguing nevertheless. Those people who are redeemable would still be punished, by essentially being slave labor for a negotiated period of years (much the way many prisoners are treated now, anyway), whereas the incorrigible criminals would die at virtually no additional cost to society. The government wouldn't kill them -- they'd be free to bargain for their release -- only there would be no takers and they'd simply be allowed to die.
 
I thought it was funny, I just don't things to get personal.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Oh, I think I understand your points pretty well. First you said that life starts at birth, and it was "silly" to think otherwise. When Ariana pointed out you were wrong, you backtracked and said that "life as a socialized creature" starts at birth. Now when I pointed out that there is no evidence for that view, you now say you were talking about the death penalty, and "I'm not here to talk about abortion." In other words..
Click to expand...

You're still misconcepting my points. What backtracking, I've been saying the same stuff over and over again from the beginning. "Because a man who's facing death penalty has gotten into stuff, experienced and committed a crime, a crime that is considered a crime by rules of society. But an unborn fetus hasn't -even if you call communication socialization, he isn't experienced in the sociological sense because he hasn't yet stepped into the rules of society-, therefore they're incomparable." That's all I'm saying. What I mean by "Life as a socialized creature starts at birth" is that one has to get into the rules of society to be come a socialized creature. Ones facing death penalty have done that, unborn fetuses haven't.

I'm NOT saying fetuses aren't living creatures, or that they don't communicate with people. They obviously do. (Ariana did not prove me wrong but just misunderstood me) But they're not yet part of society and people facing death penalty are. Different situations. There's no talking about abortion from my side, I'm defending my thought of death penalty and that death penalty and abortion are incomparable.

I hate saying the same stuff over and over again but it seems I have to. I literally can't believe you're still having trouble getting what I'm saying.
 
I agree and I actually tended to leave conversation after my "dead-end" post to you, but initially came back after seeing Cornfed's post about my points. My debate with Cornfed has already started to run in circles, he says the same stuff and I do the same.
 
Cornfed --that anarchist's view was indeed interesting; but I'd question it being "intellectually intriguing". What would be stopping any criminal simply getting one of his criminal mates to "bargain" him out? i.e. with no conditions. Nothing, I'd suggest. Therefore criminals gangs/rackets would be free to commit crimes with little consequence. I hope you pointed this glaring flaw out to him? :D

Nice profile picture (change) Ariana! I was quite fond of the Jackson tho'...
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Cornfed --that anarchist's view was indeed interesting; but I'd question it being "intellectually intriguing". What would be stopping any criminal simply getting one of his criminal mates to "bargain" him out? i.e. with no conditions. Nothing, I'd suggest. Therefore criminals gangs/rackets would be free to commit crimes with little consequence. I hope you pointed this glaring flaw out to him? :D
Click to expand...

He did address that, I believe -- what supposedly would stop them is that whoever releases them from the pit would still (1) have to arrange for restitution to the victim and (2) have to stake their own liberty on the released criminal's future behavior by assuming liability for any crimes the released criminal later commits. For a minor crime, sure, it might be worth it. But for major crimes it shouldn't be -- maybe once or twice, that would work, but assuming the criminal enterprise continued (a safe assumption, otherwise why bail out your fellow gangsters), theoretically, eventually everyone would end up in the pit. Note, I'm not looking to defend this proposal, mind you, but it has a theoretical, if not practical, elegance. It does not solve the problem of imperfect police work and trials leading to criminals going free or occasionally innocent people being convicted and thrown in the pit.

Still, it's not a bad movie idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top