posted 08-01-2000 11:47 AM            

I was watching the RNC, and they showed some of the protesters outside. There was a lady with a sign that read "End The Death Penalty NOW!", while wearing a planned parenthood (pro-choice) T-shirt.

Now, I know that both prochoice, and anti-death penalty are planks in the DNC platform. So I was just wondering, doesn't anyone else see the obvious contradiction present here? How do you justify this?
Not meaning to start a flame war, just geniunely curious (although a flamewar would be ok too)

posted 08-01-2000 04:39 PM            

------------------
piff loves you all :)
http://piff.cjb.net

posted 08-01-2000 05:20 PM            

You all seem very concerned with a person who could possibly be innocent getting killed, yet have no qualms with an child, who is without a doubt innocent, being killed. How odd.

While I admit that the justice system is seriously screwed up, I think we need to focus on making the justice system more effective, rather than toning down punishments in case we convict an innocent. After all, if the punishment is just a slap on the wrist, wouldn't juries be more likely to convict an innocent? They wouldn't have to feel as positive in their convictions as they would if they were sending a man to his death.

And as far as life in prison as opposed to the death penalty ... well, as one of the few on this board who pays taxes ... I'm not too cool with that idea at all. Sorry, but I can think of much more effecient uses of my money than sustaining a convicted killer.

As far as Christianity not meshing with the death penalty ... part of the problem is in the King James Translation of the bible, from which we get "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ... if you look at the hebrew text, it is not "shachat" (to kill), but rather "rashach" (to unjustly murder). The concept of capital punishment is widely spoken of through the bible, and if anyone cares to see them, I will post quite a few.

As far as believing that life doesn't begin until birth ... well, if you believe that, you are out of date, because even the prochoice lobby has recanted that. If you need proof, look at the partial birth abortion hearing ... the argument from Planned Parenthood, et all, was that aborting at partial birth was no worse than at the first trimester, because life begins at conception.

Now, on to specific quotes:

Robby said:
"I think it is an outrage that we allow the government to decide if we live or die when we can't even decide it for ourselves"

David replies,
The government doesn't decide if you live or die. You do, when you commit first degree murder. A panel of your peers determines whether or not you are guilty, and the death penalty cannot be enacted with at least two eye witnesses (or a confession), and absolutly no reasonable doubt. You are allowed infinite appeals, so you are more than welcome to contest ballistics, DNA, etc, etc, etc.

Robby continues,
"isn't being pro-life and pro-death penalty one too " (referign to a contradiction)

David replies,
No. No it's not. One person killed somebody. One didn't. I have no moral qualms about it.

Robby continues,
"People always make mistakes "

David says,
I personally don't think lying in wait and killing someone is a mistake. "Oops,I am plotting to kill this guy. Oh my, I am hiding in the bushes waiting him to get home. Oh, darn, I am assaulting him. Dag nab it, I seemed to have slit his throat. Oh, shoot, I am dumping him in a ditch".

Just my own two cents.

posted 08-01-2000 07:22 PM            

That's from the new testament and that "eye for an eye" stuff is from the old testament ... and Dave was saying how those old testament rules don't apply anymore.

Unborn children are more innocent than convicted killers but unborn children don't have complex thoughts. I don't really care about them ... they are alive but they aren't really living. Punishments for crimes should be to prevent crimes, not to get revenge. I wouldn't exactly call life without parole "a slap on the wrist."

What Robbie was saying about the government deciding whether we live or die was regarding doctor-assisted suicide.

posted 08-01-2000 08:33 PM            

You have completely missed the point. I was talking on how we can't legally kill ourselves. I don't plan on doing it any time soon, but I'd like to have th option open, I mean it is my life.

Dave said:
"I personally don't think lying in wait and killing someone is a mistake. "Oops,I am plotting to kill this guy. Oh my, I am hiding in the bushes waiting him to get home. Oh, darn, I am assaulting him. Dag nab it, I seemed to have slit his throat. Oh, shoot, I am dumping him in a ditch"."

posted 08-01-2000 09:11 PM            

David says,
This is a great example of taking a bible verse out of context ... you know, the thing that people always accuse Christians of?
This verse is not, repeat, is not speaking to the leaders of the day. It is speaking to the roman christians. It is telling them not to take revenge on those who persecute them for being christians, because God will provide for them and protect them. Completely out of context ...

Tom says,
"That's from the new testament and that "eye for an eye" stuff is from the old testament ... and Dave was saying how those old testament rules don't apply anymore."

David says,
NO! Not true. We were speaking specifically on a verse (I believe it was from Leviticus), and I was saying that the rules of the Levite priests were no longer in effect, (i.e. "You shall wear no clothes of two different materials"). The old testament is still applicable to christians, but in places where two conflicting concepts are presented (i.e. to keep kosher, or not), the new testament wins.

Tom says,
"Unborn children are more innocent than convicted killers but unborn children don't have complex thoughts. I don't really care about them ..."

David says,
Not going to touch this.

Tom says,
"I wouldn't exactly call life without parole "a slap on the wrist."

David says,
From a white, middle class, sheltered view ... yes, you are right. Life without parole is a major deal. To a guy sleeping on the street, who hasn't eaten in three days, that view may differ.

Tom says,
"punishments for crimes should be to prevent crimes, not to get revenge."

David says,
I once heard from the (now retired, wasn't at the time) captain of the Moorpark highway patrol, that the surest way to ensure that your house will never be robbed is to park in your driveway ... and afix an NRA sticker prominently on you car. Makes sense, doesn't it? The consequence of being shot to death is enough to make a would-be thief want to avoid robbing your house like the plague. In a similar vein, the threat of losing ones life for killing another is much more effective then prison for life.

Tom says,
"About what you were saying about sustaining a convicted killer costing a buncha money ... having like 1230912 trials and appeals and stuff to overturn a death penalty conviction costs even more."

David says,
I wish you wouldn't state things as facts when they are not. First off, life sentences can be appealed to no end as well. Secondly, according to Time Magazine (7/2/94), the average high security cell costs $75,000 a year. Lets say the crime was commited at, lets see, age 21 (an age Paul suggested as acceptible). Let say the criminal lives to, lets say 60 (I know it's low ... but I do not want to be accused of scewing the statistics). That's 39 years. 39 * 75000 = 2925000. So, lets round down, and that gives us 2.9 million. According to the same article, it costs $94,000 to kill a criminal, total. (70,000 of that is spent on the cell!). Now, lets assume the death penalty suspect appeals 3 times (that is average, same magazine). Each appeal costs from 30,000 to 50,000 ... to be fair, I will use the high one. Again, to be fair, I will say that the life sentence guy doesn't want any appeals (unlikely, lifers average 3 appeals as well) So, lets see ...

deathpenalty (94,000 + (50,000 * 3) = 244000
life = 2925000

If you doubt the statistics, go get the magazine yourself ... I assume moorpark library has it. And don't accuse the stats of being scewed .. because Time Magazine is very left leaning, and if anything, would slant the stats the other way.

posted 08-01-2000 10:35 PM         

*An interesting statistic that I was just reading about: George Bush has executed somebody on death row an average of every 2 weeks.

posted 08-01-2000 10:44 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by tom:
You can't say the death penalty is just to prevent people from committing further crimes. Giving them a life sentence without parole would take care of that. I agree with what my brother said about being pro-choice and anti-death penalty. If you believe that life (or valuable life) doesn't begin until birth then there's no contradiction.

---

I'm not disagreeing with you Tom because I mainly agree with you I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

The problem with life in jail is that in some cases they get parole and then violent criminals can get out. Our justice system is so messed up that if you do give them life in jail without the possibility of parole they can continue to appeal for parole and even if they don't get it there's the possibility of them breaking out.

You said that if you believe that life doesn't start until birth than there's no contradiction but people who are pro-life believe that life starts whent he child is conceived, not birth. I'm pro-choice but I agree with life starting at conception.

posted 08-01-2000 10:45 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by piff:
I think if you commit murder in the 1st or 2nd degree than if you're convicted the family of the victim should be able to vote on whether you get the death penalty or not.

---

What if people inside the family disagree with each other?

posted 08-01-2000 10:48 PM         

Sometimes having a murderer put to death can give a family a sense of closure if one of their family members was murdered.

posted 08-01-2000 10:58 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
I once heard from the (now retired, wasn't at the time) captain of the Moorpark highway patrol, that the surest way to ensure that your house will never be robbed is to park in your driveway ... and afix an NRA sticker prominently on you car. Makes sense, doesn't it? The consequence of being shot to death is enough to make a would-be thief want to avoid robbing your house like the plague. In a similar vein, the threat of losing ones life for killing another is much more effective then prison for life.

---

I think this is so true. I don't think many criminals think of the consequence of going to jail. It's not something they think about until after the crime has been commited and they have been arrested. Anyway, in many cases, going to jail is not all that terrible. They have beds and get meals. In many jails they have t.v.s, basketball courts, they have recesses, and weight rooms. However, if a criminal sees a car with an NRA sticker in the driveway, they are going to immediatly think of the consequence of death. Unless they're suicidal no criminal wants to be killed.

When I used to live in the valley our house was robbed twice. My Dad went out and bought a gun and joined the NRA and then announced it to the neighbors, our house was never robbed again.

posted 08-01-2000 11:17 PM            

David says,
Still don't see where the contradiction lies. Republicans believe that innocents should not die, but people convicted of brutal and heinous murders should. Democrats believe that people convicted of heinous murders should not die, but for babies, it's ok (notice I said babies ... not unborn children. I would have said unborn children, but now with democrats advocating partial birth abortion ...)

Anne says,
"I'm pro-choice when somebody has been raped..."

David says,
Really? I would think that as a woman, you would not feel that way, as the ability to abort the child makes the rape more justifiable to a rapist, as one of the consequences is removed ... (American Journal of Psychology, November 1998, based on a study by Dr. David Reardon of the Elliot Institute ).

Anne says,
"Also if a woman will die if she has a baby I think she should be able to abort it."

David says,
Here is a quote from Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood (the largest prochoice lobby in existance):

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother"

Anne says,
"It seems like people who are pro-life are a lot more violent than those who are pro-choice. "

David says,
As opposed to killing fetuses, and selling the tissue to research labs? (there is a reason I wont buy anything that says "Not Tested On Animals" ... but thats a different argument.) In the process of partial birth abortions, the doctor waits for the baby to be 49% delivered, and then proceeds to make an incision into the back of the babies head, severing the brain stem. Yeah, pro-choicers are real pacifists.

Anne says,
"Also, with the death penalty you're running the risk of killing an innocent man."

David says,
Again, the most appropriate action would entail a reworking of the justice system, not an elimination of penalties.

posted 08-01-2000 11:28 PM            

David says,
Let me get this straight ... he was convicted of murder, sentenced to the death penalty, and then, upon his appeal, proven innocent, thus sparing his life .... I'm having a hard time determining the injustice here ... yeah, it sucks he was falsely sentenced, but he would have been sentenced the same way if there was no death penalty. He was proven innocent, and he walk free ... sounds good to me.

Robby says,
"And this is just one case with many like it."

David says,
An innocent man was set free ... I certainly hope there are many cases like it.

P.S. I would really like some specifics on this case ... because unless it occured before 1971, it would be impossible for someone to be sentenced to the death penalty in florida without 2 eyewitnesses AND corroborating evidence.

posted 08-02-2000 12:29 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Still don't see where the contradiction lies. Republicans believe that innocents should not die, but people convicted of brutal and heinous murders should. Democrats believe that people convicted of heinous murders should not die, but for babies, it's ok (notice I said babies ... not unborn children. I would have said unborn children, but now with democrats advocating partial birth abortion ...

---

I can see the Republican point of view because I do agree with some of their views. I am sort of for the death penalty but at the same time kind of against it. I am very much against partial birth abortions. There is no point in it whatsoever. If you're going to go along with the pregnancy that far you might as well give the child up for adoption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Really? I would think that as a woman, you would not feel that way, as the ability to abort the child makes the rape more justifiable to a rapist, as one of the consequences is removed.

---

As a woman, I do feel that way. I don't give a **** how the rapist feels. If a woman is raped she should not be forced to carry the child and then give birth to it. It's bad enough that she had such a heinous crime commited against her. Of course if she wanted to she could keep the child and either give it up for adoption of keep it. That's why I'm pro-choice in that matter, I feel it is the woman's choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
In the process of partial birth abortions, the doctor waits for the baby to be 49% delivered, and then proceeds to make an incision into the back of the babies head, severing the brain stem. Yeah, pro-choicers are real pacifists.

---

Like I said earlier I am against partial birth abortions. I always thought they waited for the child's head to come out and then they gave it a shot in the neck but either way is terrible. I would love for partial birth abortions to be outlawed. I never said that pro-choicers were pacifists. I just wanted to point out that you never hear of pro-choicers out there killing pro-lifers. I'm not saying all pro-lifers are like that though. As a matter of fact, most pro-lifers are not like that at all and probably condemn those type of murders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Again, the most appropriate action would entail a reworking of the justice system, not an elimination of penalties.

---

I agree.

------------------
"I feel better when I hear them say Everything will be wonderful someday."

posted 08-02-2000 12:57 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach:
I don't think other people have the right to decide that a thinking human being is to be killed

---

I just want to state once again that I am pro-choice but can you really prove that unborn babies aren't thinking? Also, you said that you don't belive people have the right to kill a thinking human being, yet when that person commited the murder(s) they were thinking. Would you really rather have somebody around thinking about killing somebody else or a little baby who thinks about everything except commiting a crime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach:
To me it's like saying "you let that non cancerous tumor grow, it's not hurting you, and one day it could be president." See, absolutely ridiculous.

---

Actually what you said is ridiculous Zach. Is that supposed to be an analogy? Come on. Actually, the reason I've been having medical problems lately is because at the moment I have non cancerous tumors but they are causing me harm. They're making me sick and in the long run they could become cancerous and there are other long term consequences. That was just a silly example. You could have come up with a better one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach:
Does that mean we should kill the disabled, elderly, kids in komas, etc. If those people are spending each day in pain, I have no qualms about a cannon blast to the head.

---

A cannon blast to the head eh? If the elderly person was in pain but did not want to die do you still want to give them a "cannon blast" to the head? Also, was spelling comas with a k a typo?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach:
Also, doctor (or shotgun) assisted suicide is an unalienable right in my mind. If you want to die, then by all means go die.

---

I'm also for doctor assisted suicide if it's a decision made by the patient. I don't know about the shotgun assisted suicide though.

posted 08-02-2000 01:56 AM            

do people not realize that children are our future? How can we expect the future to get any better if we think of unborn children as nothing more than an un-wanted responsibility or a chore? What we're doing is desensitizing society to the point that when we see murder on the TV or kill a fetus all we do is think "well at least its not me". No one bothered to think of what that child could grow up to become, they just thought of him as a brainless tumor. We look at mass murderers and think "aww...maybe he had a bad childhood...lets go easy on him" what the ****? What about the dead child that wasn't given a chance to HAVE a bad childhood?

------------------
piff loves you all :)
http://piff.cjb.net

posted 08-02-2000 02:51 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by piff:
ok so according to almost everyone who's posted on this topic its not ok to kill someone who's been proven guilty of murder...but it is ok to kill an unborn child because the mother doesn't want something growing inside of her and since it's not actually "alive" or whatever? Hey makes sense to me...lets start killing coma patients too, what a burden huh? Ohh...mother-in-law gettin old and on your nerves, don't want the responsibility? Hell...cut her spinal cord while she's sleeping.

---

I think it's o.k. to kill somebody who has commited a murder under certain circumstances. Just like I believe abortion should be allowed in certain cases. I understand that it's not possible to do that though. I've already had these talks with my Mom. You don't really have a point with the coma patient or the mother-in-law example. Don't start getting irrational here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Piff:
Ooh...so that guy killed 30 people, ****ed the bodies, then ate them...lets be sympathetic with him, maybe it was temporary insanity. We look at mass murderers and think "aww...maybe he had a bad childhood...lets go easy on him"

---

I would definetly call for the death penalty in a case like that. Just because a person had a bad childhood doesn't mean you should go easy on them. Lots of people have bad childhoods and don't grow up to be criminals. I do feel sorry for people who had a tough time growing up but that doesn't mean I would forgive them for a crime they have commited and let them get away with it. They should definetly be punished with the appopriate punishment. Whether the person gets the death penalty or what not is beyond my control. Of course I will always have my opinions on the matter. It is hard to say where to draw the line though.

posted 08-02-2000 10:26 AM            

Yes Dave, but of course for the seven years he was held he had to endure DAILY ANAL RAPES! Plus far too many of these people are not being set free. Dave please visit http://www.mumia.org and read what they have to say.

Dave said:
"I wish you wouldn't state things as facts when they are not. First off, life sentences can be appealed to no end as well. Secondly, according to Time Magazine (7/2/94), the average high security cell costs $75,000 a year. Lets say the crime was commited at, lets see, age 21 (an age Paul suggested as acceptible). Let say the criminal lives to, lets say 60 (I know it's low ... but I do not want to be accused of scewing the statistics). That's 39 years. 39 * 75000 = 2925000. So, lets round down, and that gives us 2.9 million. According to the same article, it costs $94,000 to kill a criminal, total. (70,000 of that is spent on the cell!). Now, lets assume the death penalty suspect appeals 3 times (that is average, same magazine). Each appeal costs from 30,000 to 50,000 ... to be fair, I will use the high one. Again, to be fair, I will say that the life sentence guy doesn't want any appeals (unlikely, lifers average 3 appeals as well) So, lets see ...

deathpenalty (94,000 + (50,000 * 3) = 244000
life = 2925000"

That truly is sick! don't give me some **** about you being "pro-life" because it is obvious that you are pro-death! How would you like it if you were convicted of a murder you didn't commit, and when you pleaded to be given life in prison the jury said, "Ummm... I don't think I can afford it... you die!" Not fun eh?

Piff said:
"ok so according to almost everyone who's posted on this topic (excluding david cause I usually agree with him anyway) its not ok to kill someone who's been proven guilty of murder...but it is ok to kill an unborn child because the mother doesn't want something growing inside of her and since it's not actually "alive" or whatever? Hey makes sense to me...lets start killing coma patients too, what a burden huh? Ohh...mother-in-law gettin old and on your nerves, don't want the responsibility? Hell...cut her spinal cord while she's sleeping. OOh...so that guy killed 30 people, ****ed the bodies, then ate them...lets be sympathetic with him, maybe it was temporary insanity."

posted 08-02-2000 10:44 AM            

Paul Says:
Err...maybe he was giving the anal rapes... heh, you never know.

Silly Head Robbie Says:
when you pleaded to be given life in prison

Paul Says:
If I was innocent I don't think I would be pleading for life in prison, I think I would be pleading for an appeal.

Piffmaster Says:
What about the dead child that wasn't given a chance to HAVE a bad childhood?

Paul Says:
Woah Ha! That was as bad as some of silly head Robbies comments. Do you even see what you are saying? sheesh.

posted 08-02-2000 10:57 AM            

Moving right along,

Robby says,
"Yes Dave, but of course for the seven years he was held he had to endure DAILY ANAL RAPES!"

David says,
And he wouldn't have if he had been sentenced to life in prison? You are not arguing that the death penalty is bad, but rather, that the justice system is screwed up ... which I agree with. So no debate here.
And I am still waiting for a name.

Robby says,
"That truly is sick! don't give me some **** about you being "pro-life" because it is obvious that you are pro-death!"

David says,
Wow, here is another great example of quoting out of context .... your brother said that it is cheaper to keep someone alive, and I am showing him that it isn't. Thats all. Never said I enjoyed killing at all.

Robby saysm
"How would you like it if you were convicted of a murder you didn't commit, and when you pleaded to be given life in prison the jury said, "Ummm... I don't think I can afford it... you die!""

David says,
Again, this is a problem with the justice system, not with the death penalty. And again, I agree that the justice system is screwed up. So no argument there.

Finally, as far as the Mumia case ... yes, I am very aware of it ... Here is the summary from the supreme court facts on file:

"On December 9, 1981, William Cook was pulled over for driving the wrong way on a one way street, with his lights off. His brother Wesley Cook (Mumia Abu-Jamal) was sitting across the street from where Cook was pulled over, in his taxi. Multiple eyewitnesses at the scene reported seeing William Cook strike Officer Daniel Faulkner in the face before Faulkner tried to handcuff him, and seconds later, seeing Mumia Abu-Jamal run across the street and shoot Faulkner in the back from a distance of less than two feet. Officer Faulkner swung around and fired a return shot and fell to the ground, at which point Mr. Jamal stood over him and shot multiple times at Faulkner. As he lay unarmed and almost dead on the ground, Mumia shot a round from less than one foot, between Faulkner's eyes. The gun that was registered to Mumia was found between him and his victim, empty. Matching bullets were recovered from Faulkner's brain and on the scene."

There were 5 eyewitnesses: Cynthia White (she was within 30 feet), Michael Scanlon (accross the street, probably about 100 feet away), Albert Magelton (walking with Scanlon), Robert Chovert (was parked behind Faulkner's car ... saw Mumia extend his arm,gun in hand, in Faulkner's direction) heard two gun shots). The defense's only witness, Robert Harkins, says that he saw the shooting, but that Mumia only shot Faulkner twice, so the fatal blow must have been dealt by a third party. This evidence has been held up through 13 different appeals.

posted 08-02-2000 11:17 AM            

Paul Says,
I don't think that to be a Republican or a Democrat you need to support these ideas. There are always exceptions to the rule, like me.
I consiter myself to be a Democrat but I only think the death penalty should be consitered in extreme circumstances, where there is no doubt that the crime was comitted in an unaltered state of mind and was deliberate. (I am NOT saying that a man on hallucinogenics, or any other drug for that matter, should recieve leniance after committing a crime under that altered state of mind. I AM saying however, that he should not be given the death penalty under any circumstance.) I also think that prison life is too easy on the prisoners in this country. I think that life in prison without parole SHOULD be a worse punishment than death. I also believe in correction not punishment. Trying to correct the person into an upstandable citizen instead of dooming their life to a cell. I do understand that this is usually impossible in murder cases though.
This country has a habit of taking revenge on it's criminals (jeez, I kida remember this from our Junior year eh Dave and Terry?) rather than trying to correct the person, and I dont believe this is the right way to deal with it. That is the reason why there are more people locked up in the US than in any other country. (and dont bring population into this, its percentage based) We lock our people up, let them out eventually, and they have no skills, so they resort back to crime and get locked up yet again. This is not a way to run an institute called "corrections." I think it should be called more like the institute of punishment or payback they way it is run now.

posted 08-02-2000 04:08 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pacman:
I also believe in correction not punishment. Trying to correct the person into an upstandable citizen instead of dooming their life to a cell. This country has a habit of taking revenge on it's criminals rather than trying to correct the person, and I dont believe this is the right way to deal with it. We lock our people up, let them out eventually, and they have no skills, so they resort back to crime and get locked up yet again. This is not a way to run an institute called "corrections." I think it should be called more like the institute of punishment or payback they way it is run now.

---

I completly agree with Pac. I don't think you can correct rapists or child molestors. There is no cure for them and when they get out of jail they almost always strike again. I think those people should be locked up and have the key thrown away. With criminals who aren't violent or others who didn't commit major crimes there should be facilities to teach them how to live in our society. I watch America's Most Wanted and I've seen stories where some jails are teaching criminals some tactics they will need in every day life. I remember this one story though, in one of the maximum security prisons, which housed murderers that weren't going to get out on parole for a very long time if ever. What they had them doing was pretty interesting though. They gave each one a wild horse and they worked with it every day and trained it. It was just kind of neat to see them interacting and becoming attached to the horses. While these criminals were in jail they were doing something useful for society. I've also seen other jails where they have the inmates training seeing eye dogs etc.

posted 08-02-2000 04:19 PM         

That's not hippocritical. It's hippocritical to be pro-choice but against the death penalty. Or pro-life and for the death penalty. Sheesh Pacman, what were you thinking?

------------------
"I feel better when I hear them say Everything will be wonderful someday."

posted 08-02-2000 07:03 PM            

Im not really all for 1, im kinda sitting in the middle just like a lot of american's are out there. I am pro-choice, I think that people should have a option to have a abortion, give it up for adoption, or any other thing (using pregnantecy [sp?] as a example).

Also, I guess I could say I am pro-death too because if someone goes out and take's someone's life, i think that they should also have their life taken. It's not that hard of a decision, take a life, give your life. But hey, that's just my 2 cents.

posted 08-02-2000 10:00 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen:
In the grand scheme of things, will one human life EVER make a difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen:
I think it should be similar to maybe a 3 strikes your out deal. I don't want to pay for some good-for-nothing to spend the rest of his life in a cell. What if someone gets thrown in jail for unpaid parking tickets, and it's his third offense you ask. Well, to put it bluntly, **** happens. He/She shouldn't have screwed up the first 2 times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen:
I know if I was slated to die, and I didn't want to, I would be angry and upset, but not everyone can be happy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen:
Maybe I'm just selfish and dull-witted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen:
I probably just made an ass out of myself.

---

------------------
"I feel better when I hear them say Everything will be wonderful someday."