Abortion proponents often claim pro-lifers who support the death penalty are inconsistent (an admission that preborns are human, btw).

This January 4 opinion in the LA Times about GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was typical:

When analyzing Huckabee's platform more closely, however, a major contradiction arises. Huckabee claims to value the "sanctity of every and each human life." Yet, he also declares that capital punishment is needed within American society.

Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, does this mean that those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion are grossly inconsistent, considering the innocence and guilt of the parties involved?

I'm all for the death penalty if the criminal is residing in the physical body of another and that other wishes them not to be there. Of course, taking up residence in a woman's uterus would likely kill them to begin with. Guilt or innocence is not equitable in your analogy since only the criminal would be capable of either.
Perhaps an analogy between opposing militaries would be more fitting. What is a soldier guilty of when they are killed? Belonging to the 'wrong' side?

Yes. Absolutely inconsistent. How can we value human life of all kinds if we take them away, guilty or not?

The death penalty system is grossly arbitrary, racist, unjust, and impractical. There is no reason to support it.

The Catholic Church has spoken against capital punishment in the United States since the debate over its practice in 1972. In 1974, the U.S. Catholic Conference had gone on record in opposition to capital punishment (Resolution Against Capital Punishment). In 1982, Pope John Paul II addressed the diplomats of several countries advocating the rights of prisoners, which include the abolition of the death penalty. In 1999, Pope John Paul II said that the penalty of death is “both cruel and unnecessary”(USCCB 2006). The Bishops of individual states in the U.S. have upheld that position, including the Bishops of Oklahoma, Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Missouri (Melton).
The Bishops of Oklahoma in particular issued an addendum in response to the use of lethal drug injections in executions. They said, “the use of health-care professionals and the health-care industry, whose occupation is to maintain human health and prevent death, to kill, we find to be both repugnant and open to dangerous developments. This use of health-care professionals could condition both the professionals and the public to accept the notion of death at the hands of the physician” (Statement in Opposition). They also mentioned the involvement of German medical professionals under Nazi rule, taking part in the massacre of millions of people, as an example of what it could lead to.

Many other churches also reflect this point of view. The American Baptist Churches, American Friends, Disciples of Christ, Church of the Brethren, Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church in America, Greek Orthodox Church, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, Presbyterian Church in the USA, Reformed Church in America, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and several Jewish groups have all taken official stances opposing the death penalty (Melton). The American Baptist Churches in particular drafted a Resolution on Medical Societies and Capital Punishment by Lethal Injection in 1982, supporting the American Medical Association’s opposition to physician involvement. Prompted by the lethal injection execution of Thomas Lee Hays in Oklahoma, the church reaffirmed its opposition to the death penalty as well as the recognition that involvement would be a blatant disregard for the Hippocratic Oath.

In 1968, The National Council of Churches of Christ, an ecumenical council of over 103 church bodies, released a joint statement that gave the primary reason for its opposition to the death penalty. This is the belief in the worth of human life and the dignity of human personality as gifts from God. The deliberate killing of human beings is therefore an unacceptable option (Megivern). James Megivern, a theologian and author of The Death Penalty: A Historical and Theological Perspective, reiterates, “The magnitude of a crime…cannot be the issue. Life is the issue, and deliberately destroying human life, all human life, any human life, is wrong, period. Punishment, yes. Death, no. People are not to be killed, not by any “right” of the state, not in God’s name, not for revenge, not to deter another, not at all. That is the nature of the right to life, the dignity of the human person, the law of God, and the teaching of Jesus."

The value of life does not change based on the actions of the person.

This is one of the only areas I'm not liberal in. I'm a pretty unforgiving person since my experience with the justice system. Eye for an eye. Fine with me.

Thanks alot Jill...I smell Zeke coming.....

"Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, does this mean that those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion are grossly inconsistent, considering the innocence and guilt of the parties involved?"
-----------
Jill, pro-aborts don't accept the "innocent party" as a person at all. So, no, I do not think that they would be grossly inconsistent in this scenario.

I still say everyone is inconsistent if the position varies between the two. If you don't oppose the death penalty but are pro-life, there is a problem. If you are pro-abortion but anti death penalty, there is a problem. The question here is the dignity of human life.

PiP, I am pro-life, and I support the death penalty. Foremost, this is a soundly Biblical position. The life of the taker of innocent lives shall be taken as just punishment.

I appreciate the position many of my Catholic friends take on this, the "seamless garment" approach. Ok. It's not a hill I want to die on, pardon the pun. I'd rather not waste time arguing in favor of putting to death less than 100 murderers a year while we continue to murder 1.3 million innocent babies a year.

I'm just here to say being pro-life and pro-death penalty is consistent.

Actually, the question has nothing to do with the dignity of human life and everything to do with the ability of the state to maintain control and order in society.

The death penalty is the ultimate and natural extension of the concept that one can defend themselves from an unjust aggressor. If a man were to break into your house with deadly intent and you were to shoot him dead, you would (conceivably) not be charged with a crime because any reasonable person could see that you were defending yourself.

The death penalty is a way for the government to have access to the same principle that allows you to defend yourself in your home.

This is the crux of the debate over the death penalty.

Well, seeing as I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty, I am not inconsistent.

I dont think that abortion and the death penalty is a fit analogy to be honest with you.

But, I can completely understand how someone could be pro-life and be pro-death penalty. Just as I can understand how someone would value all form of human life.

If you understand the things that happen in life (i.e. you know someone in law enforcement or you yourself are in it); you understand the fact that "rehabilitation" does not always work. Some people are just "broken" and nothing we, as a society, do will fix that person.

Anyhoo, just my thoughts.

I view the death penalty in the same line as self defense. Society has a right to be protected from predators. Just as you have a right to kill a predator in self defense, I view the death penalty as the state protecting citizens from a predator.
It also helps protect us from the do-gooders who these dirtbags con into helping them escape or getting them released.

In my state some do-gooders got this guy out of prison because his DNA didn't match what was found in a rape victim. They didn't concern themselves with this guy's history, which included forcing a woman off the road in an attempted kidnapping, her baby in the back of the car being the only thing that saved her.
Anyway, this inbred was released and a few years later a young woman turned up missing. Her vehicle was found on the property and body was found in various burned pieces in a bin. Of course he was innocent as a lamb.
Turns out this young woman had been raped, tortured, and murdered and this lowlife had been fantasizing about doing just something like this while in prison. He got his special needs nephew involved as well. Nice uncle.
Our state unfortunately doesn't have the death penalty. One can only wonder what torment the victim's family goes through. I hope those do-gooders sleep well at night because I'm sure her loved ones don't.

As well as the rapist-murderer in Kentucky who was finally executed as well, his supporters fighting to the end to save him and get him released. This was before DNA testing and the con job he pulled on these saps was second to none. You have to give him that. Jerry Falwell, the media, you name him were fawning over this "innocent" man. Years after he fried they did a DNA test and it determined that he did indeed commit this crime.
Turns out he had a history of sexual deviancy, including an attempeted rape at gunpoint, that his supporters just chose to overlook. I mean, so who's perfect?
Talk about getting a last laugh from the grave.

MK! I'm In CHICAGO! :D

"PiP, I am pro-life, and I support the death penalty. Foremost, this is a soundly Biblical position."
Taken in context, I don't see how it can be consistent. "They did it in the Bible" isn't a proper defense, especially if you want to argue it from a real-world perspective. I feel Zeke coming in. You can argue Bible this, Bible that, but it doesn't make the death penalty just, at all. Respect for life is not soley a Biblical issue.

"The life of the taker of innocent lives shall be taken as just punishment."
The death penalty is in no way just. It is backwards to say we value human life by taking it away.

"Actually, the question has nothing to do with the dignity of human life and everything to do with the ability of the state to maintain control and order in society."
Since the death penalty is not necessary to maintain control and order in society, your argument falters. If you are a pro-lifer, what is at the crux of your belief? The dignity of human life? How does this change due to the actions of the person? If that is the case, you really can a pro-abortion stance, saying that "invading the womb" is also worthy of the death penalty, after all, because it can help the woman "maintain control and order" over her life. And still, you fail to mention how control and order is maintained via imprisonment.

"The death penalty is the ultimate and natural extension of the concept that one can defend themselves from an unjust aggressor. If a man were to break into your house with deadly intent and you were to shoot him dead, you would (conceivably) not be charged with a crime because any reasonable person could see that you were defending yourself."
There is quite a bit of difference between death row and urgent self-defense. In a high-security prison, the aggressor is contained and nobody's life is in direct danger. When the prisoner dies, he is not charging into a persons house with deadly intent. He is contained, escorted, systematically killed. Any reasonable person could see that this is NOT such a self-defense.

"The death penalty is a way for the government to have access to the same principle that allows you to defend yourself in your home."
As I said this is obviously not the same thing. If you want to take it to the religious perspective, the Church also indeed recognizes this. There are types of killing such as war and self-defense that are allowable in society for the obvious reason. There is no real reason to have the death penalty. It doesn't protect society more than prison does, because the person in question is already contained and debilitated. Furthermore, it is expensive, unjust, racist, arbitrary, and ineffective. Your "principle" is not the crux of the debate at all.

"you understand the fact that "rehabilitation" does not always work."
lol, I don't think the people in question here are going to be released early but be in jail for life. "Rehabilitation," in the practical sense, is not a primary argument in opposition to the death penalty. If you want to bring up Tucker, she only asked for life in prison rather than the death penalty. Everyone claims that she was rehabilitated, but that was not the only reason that people wanted the sentence changed. From the spiritual side, this may be one of many arguments, in the sense that she or he did not have the time God would give them to repent and "accept" salvation.

"Some people are just "broken" and nothing we, as a society, do will fix that person."
Still, how does the death penalty fix this, and not life in prison?

Pip- you know, there are times that I almost feel guilty for supporting the death penalty. I'm so liberal minded in every other way. But I think that there's a part of you that can't really comprehend it until you've been involved with a really violent crime yourself. I'm really not a violent person. But there's a sense of need for retribution that I'm pretty sure just can't be comprehended until you hit a certain level. It might be a bit screwy, but I can COMPLETELY understand the desire to kill those who kill. Makes complete sense to me.

PIP,

No prison has been built that someone cannot escape from. Predators will prey on guards and other prisoners. They will also prey on the gullible who want to "understand" and help them, often using them as a means to help them escape or get them released.
The death penalty "fixes" it so they never prey on another human being. How many women did Ted Bundy kill after he fried?

"Society has a right to be protected from predators. Just as you have a right to kill a predator in self defense, I view the death penalty as the state protecting citizens from a predator."
You overlook that prison does the same job.

"Of course he was innocent as a lamb."
This happens very few times, less even than the amount of innocents that have been executed already.

"Our state unfortunately doesn't have the death penalty. One can only wonder what torment the victim's family goes through."
Most families of victims initially want the death penalty for reasons of revenge. Revenge is not justification for the death penalty. Emotions and feelings do not affect whether something is morally right or wrong.
The testimonies of families that have watched the person being killed often never feel the closure they think it will give them. Most of the time they understand how barbaric it really is, and begin the realization that their loved one will never come back, and instead they are watching someone else die in front of them.
Sometimes they call watching it torture. Imagine how these families also feel if they watched one of the many botched executions.

"As well as the rapist-murderer in Kentucky who was finally executed as well, his supporters fighting to the end to save him and get him released."
Most of the real pleas regard the need for a change of sentence to life in prison INSTEAD of the death penalty. The pleas of individual people for release should not be anything new (I'm sure there are people like this for centuries). The true requests of 'clemency' involve a fair change in sentence. If the person is released because a few people want him to be rather than exonerating evidence, well, it only shows how arbitrary our justice system is.
You bring up an interesting point about DNA- we think it is a failproof system. If the DNA testing did not work in nailing this guy, think about how such evidence may fail in proving a criminal guilty?

"Talk about getting a last laugh from the grave."

Your feelings and outrage do not make a good argument against the death penalty. Feelings are not a good barometer on what's right and what's wrong.

A friend of our, a former convict who adamantly supported the death penalty summed it up this way.
Look at a predator as that bear in your backyard. You try to be nice and give him a steak. The bear takes the steak, then rips your head off and spits it out. He said to always view dealing with human predators in the same light.

Also a former police officer had this to say to those who oppose the death penalty: "Let them pull a few dead bodies out of a ditch and I promise they will change their minds".

"The death penalty "fixes" it so they never prey on another human being. How many women did Ted Bundy kill after he fried?"

Euthanasia "fixes it" so that people never feel pain or suffering again. I guess that makes it okay.

You say that the death penalty is this great "fix it" option. In fact, as has been demonstrated, it is completely flawed, unjust, and barbaric.
I guess this is where priorities come it. Do we become a society that values life, that does as much as it can to make facilities as protected as possible? Or one that gives systematic murder the
a-OK, hoping that it will fix all of the problems?

"But I think that there's a part of you that can't really comprehend it until you've been involved with a really violent crime yourself. "
My godsister was killed by a drunk driver that got a couple months of jail time. Was i freaking angry and extremely upset? Yes. I have never gotten over it. Will I feel justified by taking the guys life? Never.

"It might be a bit screwy, but I can COMPLETELY understand the desire to kill those who kill. "
"Feelings" don't make a moral right or wrong.

"He said to always view dealing with human predators in the same light."
This is not a proper response to my argument. You didn't address it at all.

"Also a former police officer had this to say to those who oppose the death penalty"
I know many law enforcement agents that are opposed to the death penalty.
I guess that makes my argument?

PIP, a few years ago I was involved with a violent crime. I had been on a date and a man shot me in the leg and shot and killed my boyfriend at the time. He wasn't caught until three years later and it was for a purse snatching. Even with my testimony, he only got 15 years on a plea, with parole possibility after 7 years. I still wake up from nightmares caused by PTSD. If I had a gun and him in front of me, I would kill him in an INSTANT. I would pull the switch for the electric chair. There is no one in this world who could convince me that that man does not deserve to die. What makes his life worth anything?

Sorry, that got a little more angry than I intended it to. Touchy subject, obviously.

PIP,

No prisons don't do the job. What happens when these animals get loose? What happens when they prey on other prisoners or guards?

The point is PIP it should never have happened at all. It wasn't rare enough for this young woman or her family, or our community where she was loved and respected.

Botched executions? I'm more concerned about victims who are tortured, raped, beaten, burned, terrorized, sliced up and open, and gunned down for entertainment. I understand some families of victims in New Jersey were bitterly disappointed and enraged when the death penalty was repealed there.

That Kentucky rapist-murderer had a life sentence. His supporters wanted him released. By the way you should see how he sliced up his sister in law. Imagine what he could do to another prisoner or guard, or to another woman if he escaped, maybe with the help of one of those idiots he conned.

Outrage. How can one not feel outrage? Hey you got to give it to this guy though, he did get the last laugh from the grave.

Please, how many women were murdered by Ted Bundy after he fried? No I don't feel the death penalty is the "great fix" I feel it is a means of protecting society from predators and those taken in by them.

I wasn't addressing an argument, I was just making some comments.

My sympathy to you on the loss of your godsister. Drunk driving is treated entirely too leniently. However, this driver did not deliberately kill your godsister. He didn't tie her up and rape and torture her. He didn't kill her for the deranged satisfaction it gave him.

I'm surprised you actually know police officers who oppose the death penalty. I have yet to meet just one.

Abortion proponents often claim pro-lifers who support the death penalty are inconsistent.

...

Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, does this mean that those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion are grossly inconsistent, considering the innocence and guilt of the parties involved?

Neither are inconsistent.

If someone is anti-abortion but pro-death penalty, it just shows that he consistently places no value on the lives of women or criminals.

If someone is pro-choice and anti-death penalty, it just shows that she consistently values the lives of both women and criminals.

Mary- police officers pretty much run the gamut. I've met police officers who are conservative and liberal, ones who seem genuine and caring, and ones that honestly don't give a rat's rear. I agree that drunk drivers should be dealt with more harshly. I would never, ever touch the wheel of a car if I've had anything to drink. I don't understand people who can knowingly do something like that.

Erin,

How horrible. My sympathy to you on your loss and the trauma you endured and still do. Apologize for being angry? You have every right to be!! This animal will be loose in a few years.
Were you his first victims? Likely not, nor will you be his last. Erin if only you could shoot or fry this guy, we'd all be better off.
Again, my heart goes out to you.

Reality,

I happen to place a great deal of value on the lives of women, especially those preyed upon by criminals, which also included some who are practicing abortion legally. Please check out Cemetary of Choice.

I place no value on the lives of those who prey on others, as they obviously have no value for anyone's life, including yours. Society has a right to be protected from these predators, just as you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself from a predator.

Mary- I was more worried about PiP thinking that I was shouting at her, which I wasn't. The whole issue still tends to get me really worked up. Honestly, I'm not sure in terms of victims where we ranked. When they caught him for snatching a purse, my testimony couldn't be used to charge him on murder, it could only be used on my assault. So he got off with a plea on armed robbery. I've not really been a fan of the legal system since then.

I happen to place a great deal of value on the lives of women

In that case, you must be pro-choice. Because it's a well-known fact that legal abortion is safer for women than illegal abortion.

Erin,

I hear you. Like you I am not angry with PIP, its an issue that, like you, gets my blood pressure worked up. Hearing what happened to you does nothing to lessen my rage. I think the world of PIP, and you too.

Its like drunk driving, you'll get the same reaction from me. I've handled more than a few mangled bodies in the ER.

Reality,

No it isn't. Check our cemetary of choice.

"What makes his life worth anything?"
Erin, I'm very sorry this happened to you. I live in a very violent city and am studying health care there so I see these things happen around me a lot, too. It's very very hard. I understand you feel different than me on this issue.
I can't begin to understand a situation such as yours. In my research most of the people who were understandably angry and upset did not feel closure after watching the death penalty. I'm not saying what you do feel or suggesting what you should feel because I don't know. But I feel that everybody's life is special, and that one can't take a consistent stance on life issues if they think the value of human life changes based on what they are or what they do. I believe that society should have a basis of punishment and protection of society but I don't think we are barbarians. The death penalty is barbaric.

"What happens when these animals get loose?"
We catch them again, and I assume they put them in solitary confinement or something similar? I am not an expert on prison rules.

"What happens when they prey on other prisoners or guards?"
What happens when any prisoner breaks the rules? That stuff isn't up to me, at least.

"I'm more concerned about victims who are tortured, raped, beaten, burned, terrorized, sliced up and open, and gunned down for entertainment."
We are all concerned for these people, but I think we all should be concerned for anyone who is tortured. It is hard for me to understand those who are against the torture of the unborn but not those that are middle-eastern or prison inmates. If all human life is precious, how can you look at the torture of another human being and still condone it? It blows my mind, honestly. It makes be very sad. I almost want to cry.

"I understand some families of victims in New Jersey were bitterly disappointed and enraged when the death penalty was repealed there."
I'm sure some were.

"Outrage. How can one not feel outrage?"
I think we all feel outrage. Are you saying that because I am opposed to the death penalty, I am not extremely angry and upset for what these people have done to them?

But again, our feelings don't make the death penalty right, or wrong. In my studies we have learned that morality is not a study of feelings.

"No I don't feel the death penalty is the "great fix" I feel it is a means of protecting society from predators and those taken in by them."
Well you did say that the death penalty was a "fix" to prisons that have security flaws.

"He didn't tie her up and rape and torture her. He didn't kill her for the deranged satisfaction it gave him."
He expressed no apologies, however. Thanks for your sympathies everyone. I do understand everyone has different experiences and points of view.
Placing more value on some murder victims than others is a decidedly human emotion but not justification for a legal decision.

"I'm surprised you actually know police officers who oppose the death penalty. I have yet to meet just one."
Well, everybody is different, I guess. I know soldiers who are against torture, too.

"Apologize for being angry? You have every right to be!! "
I agree that you have no right to apologize for being angry. We simply disagree on this issue, I don't think any less of you or Mary for disagreeing, but I am not going to budge on this issue. I think respect for life applies to every life.

PIP,

Maybe we catch them, then again maybe we don't. Maybe they leave a body or two in a ditch until we do.
They're predators and will likely prey on guards and prisoners. They're not going to grow a conscience or a sense of empathy in prison.

What torture? Most of these cons die far more humanely than their victims. Also unlike their victims, they had a choice never to commit a crime in the first place and end up getting themselves killed.
I do recall one account of a con who fried a few minutes longer than he should have. Being that he murdered a 3 year old girl, he had her face shoved in a mud puddle while anally raping her and she drowned, I was only sorry it take a lot longer. How long do you suppose it took her to die? What torture did she endure? As a parent, I can't fathom the torture her parents will endure for the rest of their lives.

I will address more comments later, I'm off to dinner and a movie. Continue to discuss

Mary,

WRONG. Illegal, unregulated, black-market free-for-all abortion kills many more women than legal, government-regulated, doctor-provided abortion.

PIP,

No, I said no prison is escape proof, and it isn't. Also, these psychopaths are amazing con artists who can sucker someone into helping them escape. My support the death penalty is to protect society from murderous predators.

As for your godsister, nothing makes my blood pressure rise more than the injury and death inflicted by drunk drivers. What's especially infuriating is that most are repeat offenders. What do these people have to do to get them off the streets? I've seen too much of it. Our society is entirely too lenient, but thankfully we have such organizations as MADD and people working for stricter laws. Again, my deepest sympathy to you and your family on your loss.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-115-en.html

Induced abortion is one of the most performed medical interventions. Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions. 20 million of the 42 million abortions performed annually are illegal and unsafe. Legalization of abortion can prevent unnecessary suffering and death of women.

Worldwide more than 1/3 of all pregnancies are unplanned. Every year nearly 1/4 of all pregnant women worldwide choose to have an abortion (circa 46 million annually). The legal status of abortion makes little difference to overall levels of abortion incidence. Where illegal, most abortions are done with unsafe methods. Where illegal, it is primarily women without financial means who take recourse to unsafe abortion methods, resulting in the death of a woman every 6 minutes.

At the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, unsafe abortion was recognized as a major public health problem. The WHO estimates that 20 million of the 42 million pregnancies which are terminated by induced abortion every year are performed under unsafe conditions and in an adverse social and legal climate, resulting in approximately 70,000 deaths each year due to infection, hemorrhages, uterine injury and the toxic effects of agents taken to induce abortion.

70,000 per year: that's one BIG "Cemetery of Life."

tp,

That's a fallacy. The death rate from illegal abortion was steadily decreasing for years and was at an all time low in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade.
According to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, then called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, the leaders of the movement to legalize abortion fabricated statistics and death rates for illegal abortion, though they were well aware the death rate from illegal abortion was steadily declining. They had a compliant media to assist them in perpetrating this lie.
You may also want to visit the Cemetary of Choice and see how much "safer" legal abortion really is.

Erin
I[m sorry about the experience you went through. The perpetrators sentence was actually pretty good by Canadian standards. I don't support the death penalty because of the possibility of convicting the wrong person (we have a number of these wrongfully convicted cases before the court and the Steven Truscott case is one that immediately comes to mind) and because of my Catholic faith (i've expounded on this before). My dad always use to say though, that he favoured the death penalty for the murder of policemen and I agree with this. Why? Because, these people are on the front lines and when you kill a person in uniform, you know what you are taking out.
And Mary, I totally hear you about murderers of children. I still think that Paul Bernardo should be executed. He was the sadistic murderer of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

PIP,

The majority of states have switched their capital punishment to leathal injection. Which, IMO is far to lenient for some of the crimes that sickos in this world commit. I know in Alabama, we still have the electirc chair, but prisoners have the "option" on which form of death they recieve. Our Electric Chair is painted bright yellow and has been named "Big Yellow Mama".

The Supreme Court has not ruled on if the electric chair violates the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), nor have the ruled if Capital Punishment itself violates the 8th Amendment.
-----------------------------------------
Mary,

I completely agree with everything you've said about the death penalty and prisons. There will never be a prison that is "escape proof". Hell, someone escaped from Alcatraz. And it was in the middle of water!

Also, why should these violent, repeat offenders get the luxuary of a bed, three meals a day, medicine, TV, radio all at our expense?
-------------------------------------
Erin,

I am very sorry you had to be subjected to that. I can not believe that they could not get him on murder or even attempted murder! He should spend more time in prison than just seven. Please show up to his parole hearing and make sure you story is heard so they will not give him a chance to be released before he serves his whole sentence.

My heart and thoughts go out to you...

That's a fallacy. The death rate from illegal abortion was steadily decreasing for years and was at an all time low in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade.

And yet, after Roe v. Wade, it decreased even further: from 4.1 deaths per 100,000 abortions to 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

It's no fallacy: legal, regulated abortion is just plain safer and much better for everyone. Think about it: illegal abortionists don't care if a girl is 13, or if she's 36 weeks pregnant, or if she's being pressured by her molester. Illegal abortionists don't need to bother with counseling, or ultrasound, or parental involvement, or informed consent, or licensing, or basic hygiene, or anything. Illegal abortion is truly just about the cash, and they really don't give a shit what happens after. Why should they? It's not like the police can find them once the girl is dead.

Reality,

Actually, no one could know for certain how many illegal abortions were performed prior to it being legalized here in the US so its at best anyone's guess. Dr. Nathanson also admits that NARAL used made up figures for both the illegal abortion rate and death rate.
46 million abortions and only 70,000 deaths world wide? While I in no way trivilize the deaths of these women, I would hardly consider that astronomical. I think close to 50,000 die in the US every year alone from drunk driving accidents. How many die worldwide of malnutrition, violence, and treatable disease?
Have you also considered the primitive medical conditions in some of these countries as well, where "treatment" of any kind for any reason is dangerous and usually deadly.
Some of the women in the cemetary for choice who died of legal abortion also suffered hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation, but since they died legally I suppose that doesn't matter.
Illegal abortion goes on despite laws against it?
So does drunk driving, rape, and murder.

tp,

The death rate had been steadily decreasing for years prior to Roe because of better surgical techniques, as well as antibiotic and IV therapy, not because it was suddenly legalized in 1973. The trend just continued.

Uh,tp, what you're describing sounds much like what has occured at Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics.
Sexual predators have been protected by having their 13year old "girlfriends" aborted. No questions asked. Also, no parents notified.
Abortion clinics have been closed for unsafe conditions and substandard care, the most recent in New Jersey where instruments actually had rust on them. These conditions were discovered only after a badly mangled woman was admitted to the hospital. Where were the regulating and licensing agencies?
Have you looked at the lists of predators in the abortion industry that Heather has listed? Drug addicts, sex offenders, and doctors who have lost their licenses?
Please tp, visit cemetary of choice.

Midnite,

Thank you for your support, it means a lot coming from you.
We are definitely on the same page with this issue. Maybe it comes from my being raised in a big city with big city crime, or listening to sob sisters who feel sorry for and want to "understand" predators.
I remain convinced that some people are wired to be predators, period, and no one will ever be safe while they are still alive.

You're right about Alcatraz. They never found the guy either!

Actually, no one could know for certain how many illegal abortions were performed prior to it being legalized here in the US so its at best anyone's guess.

All the more reason to keep abortion legal. When it's legal, we can count it, take steps to reduce it, and know whether or not our interventions are effective.

Dr. Nathanson also admits that NARAL used made up figures for both the illegal abortion rate and death rate.

He is only one person. Personally, I get my statistics from the CDC and the WHO, not NARAL.

46 million abortions and only 70,000 deaths world wide? While I in no way trivilize the deaths of these women, I would hardly consider that astronomical.

Of course you don't, because you don't care about women's lives.

I think close to 50,000 die in the US every year alone from drunk driving accidents.

WRONG!! Jesus Christ, this stuff is very easy to find:

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

"There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year."

That's a far cry from 50,000 or 70,000.

Have you also considered the primitive medical conditions in some of these countries as well, where "treatment" of any kind for any reason is dangerous and usually deadly.

Ever notice how it's mostly primitive, uncivilized countries that ban abortion? Fascinating, no?

Some of the women in the cemetary for choice who died of legal abortion also suffered hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation, but since they died legally I suppose that doesn't matter.

For every one woman who dies of legal abortion, there are dozens who die of illegal abortion, and dozens who are alive thanks to abortion being legal and safe in their country of residence.

Illegal abortion goes on despite laws against it?
So does drunk driving, rape, and murder.

But laws against rape, drunk driving and murder don't result in more deaths. Laws against abortion do.

It's like outlawing heart surgery because legal heart surgery "only encourages laziness and overeating." Such a law would logically cause more deaths, not less.

Mary,

Funny thing about Alcatraz, MythBusters did an experiment and proved that the guy that escaped could have dont it, and made it safely to land....

I completely understand the big city/crime. I live in Birmingham that is currently ranked as the 6th most dangerous city to live in. We had (I think) almost 120 homocides last year, and we've already had one this year. We're off to a GREAT start!!

How many women die from illegal abortion depends on whether you are counting only in the USA or including the Third World. Most maternal deaths from illegal abortion occured (and continue to occur) in the Third World.

The death rate had been steadily decreasing for years prior to Roe because of better surgical techniques, as well as antibiotic and IV therapy, not because it was suddenly legalized in 1973.

Since when do illegal abortionists use improved surgical techniques? Since when do illegal abortionists have the ability to prescribe antibiotics?

Face it: legal abortion is safer because it is legal and regulated by the government.

Sexual predators have been protected by having their 13year old "girlfriends" aborted. No questions asked. Also, no parents notified.
Abortion clinics have been closed for unsafe conditions and substandard care, the most recent in New Jersey where instruments actually had rust on them. These conditions were discovered only after a badly mangled woman was admitted to the hospital.

And you only know about it because abortion is legal, and women know the names of their legal abortion providers, so they can name names and point fingers, and justice can be served.

When abortion is illegal and secretive, the rare abuses become routine, because there is absolutely no oversight whatsoever. And when a woman dies from illegal abortion, odds are the illegal abortionist won't be investigated.

After all, when someone dies of illegal drug overdose, do the police waste their time trying to find the dealer and charge him with murder? Not in my experience.

The value of a person's life does not change based on his or her actions. However, if we are to place equal value on all lives, there will be limited times when capital punishment is called for.

Take two real cases: Ed Kemper and Ted Bundy.

Both were guilty of similar crimes: serial murders of young women.

But it was necessary to execute Bundy, unnecessary to execute Kemper.

Why? Because Kemper recognized that he was a danger to others, turned himself in to the police, and was a model prisoner. He was not violent in prison, He never attempted to escape. Locking Kemper up was sufficient to protect innocent people's lives.

Bundy, on the other hand, had already escaped twice to kill again. Clearly, locking him up was not enough to protect innocent people from his drive to kill.

Somebody who remains a danger to others needs to be taken out, or we are placing MORE value on his life, LESS value on the lives of his victims.

We should not preserve the life of somebody who chooses to habitually kill over the lives of innocent citizens, prison employees, or even fellow inmates. People who hire hit men from behind bars, who attempt to escape after having committed violent crimes, who are violent toward prison staff or other prisoners, are choosing to be a continued threat to other people's lives. If we are to value all lives equally, we need to place enough value on the lives of prospective victims to take out the perpetrator.

Consider it a parallel to "life of the mother". Only the fetus does not CHOOSE to be a threat to the mother, whereas the criminal DOES CHOOSE to be a danger to others.

Show me an armed and aggressive fetus and I'll concede that you need to hold the same stand on both.

It's perfectly consistent to support the DP but oppose abortion, because it's about our responsibilities toward other people. We have an obligation to protect the vulnerable from those who would harm or kill them. Which means protecting the unborn from abortionists and the public from murderers.

Contrariwise, I see a consistency in opposing the DP but supporting abortion -- Might makes right. The strong have every right to kill whoever they please to get what they want, be that a woman killing a fetus becaue it interferes with her plans or a criminal killing a convenience store clerk because she is between him and the money he wants. If your philosophy is "It's okay to use violence to get what you want," then yeah, it's wrong to prohibit abortion and it's wrong to punish criminals.

Christina,
So killing the escapee/violent prisoner is the answer? Why not tighten up security within the prisons to eliminate it? There must be SOMETHING better than killing someone, no?

(((Erin)))

Wha?

reality, I know of THREE guys just off the top of my head who were criminal abortionists before legalization, and didn't kill any patients, but after legalization they got sloppy and started playing Russian Roulette with their patients' lives and started killing them: Benjamin Munson, Jesse Ketchum, and Milan Vuitch. No dead patients when killing a patient meant almost certain prison. Two dead patients apiece once they saw no more threat of going to prison.

Legalizing didn't change WHO was doing abortions. It changed the COST of botching them from "You're looking at doing time, for sure," to "Maybe the family will sue, but you've got insurance."

Who benefitted? Certainly not Margaret Smith, Carole Schaner, Wilma Harris, Jeannie English, Linda Padfield, and Yvonne Tanner.

Jill said, "Foremost, this is a soundly Biblical position. The life of the taker of innocent lives shall be taken as just punishment."

Jill, I'm a bit wishy-washy on the death penalty. I don't support it, but have heard many times about it being supported biblically. I tended to read past the passages regarding of judgement of people here on earth, but I would love to know how you came to be so decisive about it. I get Zeke's position on it, but am curious as to what verse or set of verses you see that pinpoints pro-death penalty biblically. I am open-minded here!

tp, the death rate from abortions were plummeting all through the 20th century. Legalization made the total abortion deaths trend LEVEL OFF briefly, as abortion became more common and the declining risk was offset by the astronomical increase in numbers.

Crediting legalization with reducing abortion deaths makes no sense. What, did it RETROACIVELY prevent deaths fifty years earlier?

Then the CDC stopped counting. They PRETEND that they count, but their efforts are dulsatory at best.

reality, most illegal abortions were performed by doctors. They had access to everything that a doctor has access to.

Do you think that they said to themselves, "Oh, it's illegal, so JUST TO SPITE THE POLITICIANS I will NOT reach up on my shelf and get that bottle of antibiotics. Just to spite the politicians I will leave my curette in the drawer and use a coathanger!"

They did abortions the same way they'd have done them had abortions been legal -- with what instruments and medications they had at hand. With one likely exception: I think they were more careful before legalization, because they were pretty much gonna go to prison if they killed a patient with an illegal abortion.

Educate yourself. Don't just swallow the tripe the abortion lobby feeds you.

the crime sited most-often here is murder. I think this punishment applies also to treason. I'm wondering if this isn't a much harder crime to think and have a decided opinion about.

And when a woman dies from illegal abortion, odds are the illegal abortionist won't be investigated.

What are you smoking?

I will concede that in Chicago, at least, a relvolving door legal system allowed dangerous quacks to continue to practice, but the were indeed investigated, arrested, and prosecuted.

Whereas after legalization the quacks didn't even face the legal annoyance of a criminal investigation. Yeah, that sure must have motivated them to clean up their acts!

Why was my name called?

AB, the criminal is CHOOSING to remain violent, CHOOSING to escape. He is CHOOSING to remain a danger to others. There reaches the point where you say that he has to take responsibility for his actions. Spell it out clearly: "If you attempt escape, attempt to take out a contract on somebody's life, violently assault somebody while in prison, then kiss your sorry life goodbye." And it's HIS choice to play by the rules or forfiet his life.

Erin, I was giving a hug after you told about the horrible crime you suffered.

Ahhh, OK. Heh, I was confused.

Anyone else watching the debates?

Somg and reality,

How many women die from illegal abortion depends on whether you are counting only in the USA or including the Third World. Most maternal deaths from illegal abortion occured (and continue to occur) in the Third World.

Posted by: SoMG at January 5, 2008 6:11 PM

Actually how many women die from abotion depends on whether you actually count women who have died or just estimate like the WHO and Guttmacher do.

If you rely on estimates which cannot be facts because they are estimates, then you certainly aren't counting women who have died and you absolutely cannot assert that these numbers are factual.

I don't know how they estimated and neither do you so we can't know if the estimates are good or total crap. We just don't know. We just have to live with that.

Estimates are just made up numbers not facts.

Legalization made the total abortion deaths trend LEVEL OFF briefly, as abortion became more common and the declining risk was offset by the astronomical increase in numbers.

After legalization, abortion deaths declined from 4.1/100,000 to 0.6/100,000. As Mary has already conceded, safer abortions are due to improved surgical techniques and antibiotics. As doctors took over the provision of abortion, it became much safer.

most illegal abortions were performed by doctors.

Am I supposed to just take your word for it? Illegal abortions were performed by anyone who knew how to do it.

They had access to everything that a doctor has access to.

Obviously not, because illegal abortions were more deadly than legal, doctor-performed abortions.

Do you think that they said to themselves, "Oh, it's illegal, so JUST TO SPITE THE POLITICIANS I will NOT reach up on my shelf and get that bottle of antibiotics. Just to spite the politicians I will leave my curette in the drawer and use a coathanger!"

EXACTLY. Of course they didn't! Because they weren't doctors in the first place. They didn't have curettes and antibiotics.

Educate yourself.

I have. That's how I know that illegal abortion has always been more deadly than legal abortion. Just look at the CDC statistics.

Whereas after legalization the quacks didn't even face the legal annoyance of a criminal investigation.

You ought to know that's nonsense. Just look at all the stories heather posts. Thanks to legalization, sloppy abortionists are investigated, prosecuted and stopped from performing abortions. That's why abortion is so much safer now that it's legal and regulated. Government oversight makes it safer.

Man, I just want to rip that stupid toupee off of Richardson's head.

hippie,

Actually how many women die from abotion depends on whether you actually count women who have died or just estimate

It's a whole lot easier to count if abortion is legal. Don't you agree?

Sorry to be overly pragmatic here. The death penalty is really more expensive than incarceration because of the legal fees associated with exhausting the appeals process. Life without parole is cheaper.

I think an innovative way to reduce the cost of incarceration would be to outsource it to another country. We could send the prisoners and a few administrators to another country and warehouse the prisoners at a tenth the cost to do it here. If they escape, the locals will know them because they won't know the language and customs etc.

Personally I oppose the death penalty mostly because it is possible to execute an innocent, although unlikely.

Christina,
I'm not saying your wrong. Like I said, I'm wishy-washy on the subject, here. And then, thanks to John, I'm more wishy-washy about it!

My thinking was can't we just put them in a solitary confinement situation or something that eliminates conversations, escapes, contact with others, etc. so we don't have to put them to death? To me, this is MUCH worse suffering than a quick death.

Hey, we can even put a T.V. in the room that shows one of Hillary's speeches, and it plays over & over & over again!

hippie,
I like your idea!!! Outsource it! Perfect!

Reality 5:56PM

I can't quite understand your rationale about legalizing abortion. Its possible keeping abortion illegal was already keeping the abortion rates down, the death rate was steadily decreasing and had been for years. Isn't that what you would want? If abortion is such a good thing, why would you want to take steps to reduce it?

Reality, Dr. Nathanson had nothing to do with the CDC, he was one of the leaders in the movement to legalize abortion in this country and a founder of NARAL. He stated that he and the other leaders deliberately falsified statistics on the number of illegal abortions and abortion deaths. They had the support and help of the nation's media to do this.

I don't care about women's lives? Please, tell me how many women die of malnutrition, treatable disease, abuse, accidents, and violence on a worldwide basis? Do you have any problem with the large number of women who died of legal abortion that are listed in cemetary of choice?

16,855 deaths in this country alone from drunk driving. Its just as easy to fine that there were 42,636 car accident related deaths in this country in 2005, or 115 people a day. Not too far of a cry from 50,000 to 70,000. But then, I suppose you don't care about the lives of American motorists.

Mainly primitive countries that ban abortion? Fascinating indeed, considering the claim of 20 million illegal abortions, all the more reason thousands, even millions more women should be dying, don't you think? I have to wonder if the illegal abortion estimates are being exaggerated. 20million illegal abortions and only 70,000 deaths? In countries with primitive health care? You said this was an estimate, right? Do you think it just might be grossly exaggerated, given this death rate?

For every woman who dies of legal abortion there are dozens who die of illegal abortion and more lives that are saved.
70,000 worldwide deaths from illegal abortion is miniscule if indeed there are 20million illegal abortions. So women dying from legal abortion isn't quite as bad as women dying from illegal abortion?

Reality, you haven't shown me that illegal abortion results in more deaths. I told you the death rate was steadily decreasing in the country before Roe v Wade. According to your statistics 22 million women worldwide had legal abortions. Did any of them die and how many?
Also my point about the laws is that we don't legalize something simply because people will do it anyway. I can't say that 16,885 drunk driving deaths, and 16,692 estimated(the ones we know about) homicides in the US in 2005 shows how effective our laws are in preventing deaths.

reality,

The point isn't how easy it is to count abortion related deaths. The point is that the estimates are unreliable. If some large estimated death toll is supposed to shock and appall the public into believing that legal abortion will somehow save women, I am skeptical because the estimate is politically motivated by those who provide abortions and is unverifiable because it is just a guess.

If you don't insist on decisions based on facts, then you get, well, decisions based on guesses. That is hardly a good standard in legislation or in medicine.

Erin,

What a horrendous thing to have happen to you. I am very sorry..that must have just been awful.

Ab Laura,

You crack me up for real!

Hey, we can even put a T.V. in the room that shows one of Hillary's speeches, and it plays over & over & over again!

We won't have to worry about them ever escaping or having to execute them..they probably would just end up killing themselves. I know I feel like I'm having an aneurism every time I hear her voice!

Yes, it is hard to estimate abortion numbers in regions where it is illegal.

The increasing use of misoprostol has made illegal abortion in the Third World safer than before.

Elizabeth,
Heck, you can even have the T.V. on mute & get the same effect!!!

.......there's just something about her......

Reality 6:15PM,

Contrary to popular misconception, most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices or in hospitals under contrived reasons. That would explain the decreasing death rate, as well as the use of antibiotics and IV therapy, as well as better surgical techniques. We had an abortionist here in town who did abortions in his office for a long time, prior to Roe even. Also Reality, you may have misunderstood an earlier post. Over the course of the 20th century the death rate from illegal abortion went down because of better antiobiotic and IV therapy, not because of legalization. The death rate was already at an all time low in 1972 the year before Roe v Wade, and leaders of the movement to legalize abortion were well aware of that when they deliberately distorted the statistics.

No Reality, sexual predators were caught in spite of PP and the other clinics that protected them. A predator, I believe it was in Connecticut, brought a 15y/o girl to the clinic. No questions asked. It was later discovered she was a runaway being held captive by this lowlife and was rescued by police, no thanks to PP. Also, PP is being sued by the parents of a 13y/o girl impregnanted by her soccer coach. Again, no questions asked when her "big brother" aka the soccer coach brought her for an abortion. One can only wonder as to how many predators haven't been caught.

Abortion abuses were more routine when illegal? Maybe part of reason the death rate from illegal abortion was steadily decreasing was that illegal abortionists, mostly doctors, were more careful. They couldn't risk being caught.

Misoprostol is not FDA approved for any obstetrical use. including abortion.

It doesn't always work and the manufacturer warns against any obstetrical use of the drug. Caveat emptor.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607609143/abstract

Outsource Prisons? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That will ***NEVER*** happen in our life time. Someone is forgetting that prisoners have the protection of the Bill of Rights.

There is no way in hell Congress or any President will allow us to outsource prisons to another country. First, it would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the prisoners to have quick and adequate contact with their laywers. Also, their family would be pissed that they had to go to another country to see their son, brother, husband, father, etc.
-----------------------------------
Also, this would take away jobs from America. We, as a country already outsource things to other countries and thousands or millions of Americans lose their jobs b/c of this.

Maybe it's just me, but I get extremely angry when I call customer support and get someone in India that can not speak English properly I am tempted to throw my phone out the window. Seriously, you cant understand them (or at least I cant). So I tell them politely that I can not understand them, and could they please transfer me to someone who speaks better English. A person from Belkin actually hung up on me when I asked him to transfer me.

So in all honesty, If you want more people to drop below the poverty level, then go ahead and outsource. But, there will be MANY legal complications that go along with it...

Speaking of illegal abortionists being more careful, I read that when John Kennedy's mistress, Judy Campbell, became pregnant, both she and JFK turned to their mutual friend, Chicago mafia chieftain Sam Giancana to arrange an abortion, which was illegal then.
Ms. Campbell was admitted to a hospital where the abortion was performed, I'm sure under contrived reasons, and from what I read the doctor was a nervous wreck and exceptionally careful, no doubt because he would answer to Sam Giancana if anything went wrong with the abortion and Ms. Campbell was harmed in any way.

midnite, "First, it would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the prisoners to have quick and adequate contact with their laywers. Also, their family would be pissed that they had to go to another country to see their son, brother, husband, father, etc."
----------
teleconference...via internet!!! It would be like they are "right there"! Heck, they're lawyers wouldn't even have to get out of their P.J.'s!!! Think of all of the techie jobs it would create here. We could even train the current guards, etc. how to schedule them! They could be guard turned secretary...how awesome would that be! :)

Thou shalt not kill

AB,

Tele-conference would not be a good idea. Anyone could hack into that and hear private, condifential conversations.

The value of life does not change based on the actions of the person.

Posted by: prettyinpink at January 5, 2008 2:37 PM
.......................................................

I completely agree. If someone should attempt to harm me, I cannot allow Satan to jump out of them and into me. I must be strong in Christ and not allow another's evil to become my own. Retribution is the work of Satan. Only Satan would wish harm on any of God's children.

Georgie,

I am confused. If someone broke into your home to rape, torture and murder you; you'd what exactly? Just sit there and take it like a shot from the doctor? You wouldnt even try to protect yourself?

"They're not going to grow a conscience or a sense of empathy in prison."
I'm not arguing that they will.

"What torture?"
Well besides the obvious, we WERE talking about botched executions. If you are not sure about what that means, I could relay a few examples for you.

"As a parent, I can't fathom the torture her parents will endure for the rest of their lives."
I don't doubt that at all, but these stories are not furthering your argument. You are saying these people deserve to die, which I won't argue about that. I think they deserve the same treatment they give. The question is whether it's right. Am I justified in doing to him what he did to the girl? Am I justified in systematically murdering him? The obvious answer for me is...NO. We may feel justified, but as I've stated numerous times, morality isn't about "feelings."

"No, I said no prison is escape proof, and it isn't. Also, these psychopaths are amazing con artists who can sucker someone into helping them escape. My support the death penalty is to protect society from murderous predators."
Well your argument here is easily reversable. Sure death isn't escape proof, but once you kill someone, it would be hard to exonerate him or her if they are later found innocent. A man was somewhat recently exonerated in Florida; under Texas laws he would have already been killed.

"As for your godsister, nothing makes my blood pressure rise more than the injury and death inflicted by drunk drivers. What's especially infuriating is that most are repeat offenders."
AGREED.

"What do these people have to do to get them off the streets? I've seen too much of it. Our society is entirely too lenient, but thankfully we have such organizations as MADD and people working for stricter laws. Again, my deepest sympathy to you and your family on your loss."
Thank you Mary. I know that many people have experienced the same. I think our system needs some MAJOR reform, and that includes death penalty reform IMO.

"The majority of states have switched their capital punishment to leathal injection. Which, IMO is far to lenient for some of the crimes that sickos in this world commit."
It's disputable how much of the lethal injection is hard on the human body, because there are obviously no survivors to say. I think that all murder is bad, so IMO lethal injection is just as bad as the electric chair. However often lethal injection involves medical personnel which I STRONGLY disagree with. I did a paper on this, part of it was cited above.

"I know in Alabama, we still have the electirc chair, but prisoners have the "option" on which form of death they recieve."
If I may lighten the mood, maybe we should give them death in any way they choose, even if it means chased off a cliff by naked women roller derbies.

"The Supreme Court has not ruled on if the electric chair violates the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), nor have the ruled if Capital Punishment itself violates the 8th Amendment."
That is true but it is leaning towards the latter. We are one of the only developed countries to still have it in practice. Given recent legislature we may finally be catching up.

"I completely understand the big city/crime."
I live in St. Louis. I've seen and heard a comparable amount of stories, too. I still don't see it as an argument FOR the death penalty. (let's talk about "feelings" some more? I don't think criminals should harden our hearts just as they have hardened theirs).
Most states who don't have the death penalty generally have less crimes than those who do. There is no evidence it is a deterrent, and your arguments pretty much support that.

"Bundy, on the other hand, had already escaped twice to kill again. Clearly, locking him up was not enough to protect innocent people from his drive to kill."
If someone has escaped and was extremely dangerous like Bundy, I would be uneasy but supportive of such a decision, because he really is a danger to society that has not been protected.

This should be handled like a special case though, and not a basis for an argument. There is no way one can justify killing just because someone once escaped from prison, rather than the logical, "well, we need to upstep security. Let's brainstorm on some new ways."

If there is no other way to protect society, then yes. That is the only time I support the death penalty. Most anti-death penalty folk like myself support this general stance. But this should be VERY exhaustive, too. I would only support it if other things like solitary confinement, etc did not work. So Christina, I agree with you there within reason. We must all know our exhaustive limits. It is true like JPII said, that it is allowable in a case where society can otherwise not be protected but those cases are "rare, if not nonexistent."

"the crime sited most-often here is murder. I think this punishment applies also to treason"
And rape.

"Sorry to be overly pragmatic here. The death penalty is really more expensive than incarceration because of the legal fees associated with exhausting the appeals process. Life without parole is cheaper."
Absolutely another reason, among many others, why it is not a practical "punishment" or "defense" (or whatever they try to reword it as.)

"I think an innovative way to reduce the cost of incarceration would be to outsource it to another country. We could send the prisoners and a few administrators to another country and warehouse the prisoners at a tenth the cost to do it here. If they escape, the locals will know them because they won't know the language and customs etc."
That may be extremely difficult to do. We already do that with detainees from the war. They do the torture so we don't have to! Of course it's not terribly publicized here, so any torture or nonregulation there will still look like it's getting the job done, I guess. Human rights that are outlined through the UN and the Constitution would be VERY hard to enforce, which would be the main problem. I would not be supportive of this idea. I think through basic reform we can help cut down costs significantly.

Georgie 11:34PM

Some of these predators are Satan himself

I completely understand the big city/crime. I live in Birmingham that is currently ranked as the 6th most dangerous city to live in. We had (I think) almost 120 homocides last year, and we've already had one this year. We're off to a GREAT start!!

Midnite, I used to go to Birmingham regularly - we had a long-term job at US Pipe & Foundry. This was in the 1990s, and gunshots could regularly be heard in the vicinity of the hotel. Heck, one night it was machine gun fire. "Hmm.... Maybe I'll just stay in tonight and order a pizza...."

PIP,

Botched executions? Sorry, but I'm more sympathetic to sliced up victims. These convicts for the most part die far more humanely than their victims did and as I said they had a choice, their victims didn't.

Doing to him what he did to that girl? The state would make sure his rights were protected and he was executed as humanely as possible. Not exactly the same concern he showed his victim.
If he were to ever escape, just hope you're not in his path.

I am all for the most stringent guidelines before execution, including DNA testing. I couldn't be happier that innocent people were freed because DNA and I'm thankful its here.

Jill: Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, does this mean that those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion are grossly inconsistent, considering the innocence and guilt of the parties involved?

No, of course not. A given individual could say that they value all human life positively, and perhaps Huckabee could be picked at for that, but it's entirely understandable that some people are against abortion and for the death penalty.

Likewise, opposing the death penalty doesn't necessarily mean somebody has to be against abortion. Even before getting to the abortion issue, there may be reasons for being against capital punishment, i.e. feeling it's not effective, costs more than life imprisonment in the U.S., etc.

Doug

Okay, so how excited am I????? In less than two hours I will be celebrating the birthday of our dear fellow blogger Rae at the pancake house next to my church!!!!!!!! I can't wait...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY RAE!!!! YOU'RE THE BEST!!!!!

Wish her a very, happy birthday for me, ok mk?

Please tell me you're taking pictures!!! You're so lucky!!! Happy birthday, rae!!

Oooooh! Pictures! I never even thought of that...yes, getting the camera right now! Thanks Bethany!

No problem, MK! Always bring a camera! haha

Her voice on the phone was as sweet and gentle as an angels...I wasn't really surprised tho. She is so sweet.

I went to the "Mass for Life" in Skokie yesterday. The Cardinal (Cardinal George) presided and there were 11 concelebrants. It was so cool. It was like looking at the apostles at the last supper. 11 men all standing around our Lord at the table...each with different personalites, looks, backgrounds, vices, virtues...and the music was Gregorian Chant...

Heavenly!

If a man were to break into your house with deadly intent and you were to shoot him dead, you would (conceivably) not be charged with a crime because any reasonable person could see that you were defending yourself.

But if you somehow trapped the intruder in your garage, and then just went out there and shot him dead when he wasn't an imminent threat to you anymore, you absolutely would and should be charged with a crime. That's what the death penalty is.

PIP,

In the last part of my 7:25am post I was referring to the woman in our community who was murdered, where you were referring to the little girl in your post that I was resonding to. My misreading of your post.
I just wanted to clarify that.

Death penalty is unnecessary from imho. However the two, abortion and death penalty, can not be put on the same level. Abortion is cruel exploitation and discrimination. Death Penalty is retribution for crime. Although I am personally against death penalty, I can see how a pro-life person can reconcile her or his stance on death penalty.

However I do find difficult to defend some one who is pro-abortion but against death penalty. Some how when it comes to penalizing a criminal we do resort to our morals. However when it comes to defend the most innocent ones among us, our judgment and morals are quickly become murky. This country protects Blad Eagle and its eggs better than human beings.

Death penalty is unnecessary from imho

Should have been:
Death penalty is unnecessary form of punishment imho

Jen R,

Murderous predators are an imminent threat so long as they are still breathing. You may be safer with them in prison, but you certainly won't be if one escapes or some moronic do-gooders get them out.
They also pose a threat to the lives of other convicts, guards, and other prison personnel.

Rae,

Happy Birthday!! I second MK, you are the best!

Doug, 7:32am

We're on the same page again?! What is this world coming to?!

I am not a fan of the death penalty, however at this point the constitution does support the argument for the death penalty, and so it is left for the inhabitants of each state. However, you cant pass a federal law outlawing the death penalty, at least not unless there is a constitutional argument (8th amendment aside) that I am missing. The constitution does specifically mention the right of the state to take your life, property, etc after all rights have been provided to you (trial, miranda rights, etc).

But on another note, I dont see either as contradictory, at least not in and of themselves. The reasons from individual for individual may bring up hypocrisy, but not the stances in and of themselves.

Happy Birthday Rae-Rae....

Rae, happy birthday! I hope you have a good one.

WOW! MK and Rae are going to meet? We are really forming friendships on this blog.

Rookie question:

What does "IMO" mean?

This country protects Blad Eagle and its eggs better than human beings.

Posted by: Vlad at January 6, 2008 10:37 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I realize that it's a typo, but is Vlad and his Blad Eagle really funny?

About as funny as you. Why do you always try SO hard to be funny?

Please leave that to Leno and Conan. Oh, and Ellen. Laura, you ain't funny, so please knock it off.

hooves,
IMO=In my opinion

IMHO=in my humble opinion

hooves,
I cheat...sometimes I use this:

http://slang.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=IMO&Find=find&string=exact

Thanks for the info. I didn't know either.

Murderous predators are an imminent threat so long as they are still breathing.

No, they are a potential threat as long as they're still breathing. I realize George Bush sowed a lot of confusion regarding this distinction back in 2002-2003, but we can do better than that. :)

The potential threat is a good argument for intelligent security measures, not for killing someone whom you have strapped to a chair or gurney, completely at your mercy.

Sorry, these acronyms a just very bad habit resulting from too much "online activities"....

Laura, I find it very hard to be funny on this particular subject. Ironic yes, funny no.

When protecting animals is a higher priority than protecting human life- there is something very wrong with our society. If you find this funny, it's alright with me. However my statement was not aimed at amusing you. Just wanted clarify.

Vlad, she's just a weirdo.

Ok, think this system is eating up my words

"Just wanted to clarify"

Dan:

The constitution does specifically mention the right of the state to take your life, property, etc after all rights have been provided to you (trial, miranda rights, etc).

Not exactly, IMO. It just says that the state can't take your life without due process. That restriction wouldn't be contradicted by saying that state can't take your life at all, just added to.

Ok, think this system is eating up my words

"Just wanted to clarify"

Posted by: Vlad at January 6, 2008 12:36 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I type the same patterns, too.
My last name starts with an "H," and more than once I've typed "Laura Haura."
My friends think it's funny...

"Botched executions? Sorry, but I'm more sympathetic to sliced up victims. These convicts for the most part die far more humanely than their victims did and as I said they had a choice, their victims didn't."
I understand your anger at their actions, as I am angry myself. But if you could watch at a botched execution without a sense of horror or sadness, I feel very sorry for you.

"Doing to him what he did to that girl? The state would make sure his rights were protected and he was executed as humanely as possible. Not exactly the same concern he showed his victim."
You seem to have missed my point. Again.

"I am all for the most stringent guidelines before execution, including DNA testing. I couldn't be happier that innocent people were freed because DNA and I'm thankful its here."
same here, I am glad the Innocence Project exists. But as you said before, it is not foolproof. They tried to use DNA on your guy and he was still guilty. Imagine if the guy was innocent. Under Bush's regime he would already have been killed.

Christina, I am not sure whether you are a Bush supporter or not, but what do you think of his signing off on the execution of Karla Faye Tucker after her plea of a change to life sentence, and alleged ridicule of her plea.

Jen R,
Yay! Someone on my side.

Oh and Happy Birthday Rae!

Laura,

I realize that it's a typo, but is Vlad and his Blad Eagle really funny?

Right up there with now and their elk...

PIP,
totally hypothetical here...question: if the condemned were to be given a more swift punishment, and more were to be given it yearly, and severe crimes were to go extremely down to a point that they were almost rare in this country....would you be in favor of the death penalty then?

Personally I am against the death penalty for the reasons that Jen R stated. However, I just received this video in an email, and then came here, and sometimes I wish I weren't against the death penalty. But I guess there is a difference between someone deserving the death penalty, and actually implementing it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWow42TCwzg

Flipside AB,

What if people were put in jail and NOT let out...so that crime went down, would you be against it?

I mean if the system sans death penalty actually worked the way it was meant to?

I'm against the death penalty because I saw an execution via electric chair on "Faces of Death"...they showed it, close-up, from beginning to end. It still haunts me to this day!

mk,
not following your question...

Jen R, 12:32PM

Would you have considered Ted Bundy a potential threat? As long as that man breathed he would kill and one only put their own and the lives of others in jeopardy by assuming otherwise. The only thing a murderous predator needs is another opportunity and if there isn't one outside the prison there is one in it.
A word of advice, always assume he will kill again, not that he just has the potential. That by the way comes from an ex convict I knew.
Intelligent security measures? No prison is escape proof. No one was supposed to escape Alcatraz, but did.
Someone strapped to a gurney or chair at the mercy of the state? I'm more concerned about the young woman in our community who was tied up, tortured, raped, and murdered, and the two teenage boys who were executed while begging for their lives, their killer finished off their hamburgers after blowing their heads off.

" if the condemned were to be given a more swift punishment, and more were to be given it yearly, and severe crimes were to go extremely down to a point that they were almost rare in this country....would you be in favor of the death penalty then?"

No. It's a respect for life issue. The end doesn't justify the means.

If you cut off people's hands for stealing, and it was a quick painless procedure, and stealing went down considerably, would you be in favor of cutting off people's hands?

Since embryos don't feel pain, would you be opposed to embryonic stem cell research if it lead to the cure of diabetes?

Mary:

Someone strapped to a gurney or chair at the mercy of the I'm more concerned about the young woman in our community who was tied up, tortured, raped, and murdered, and the two teenage boys who were executed while begging for their lives, their killer finished off their hamburgers after blowing their heads off.

I hear this from pro-death advocates all the time. You don't seem to think it's possible to be concerned for the victims of crime without wanting the state to kill on their behalf. Just like many pro-choicers don't think it's possible to be concerned for pregnant women without wanting to let their unborn children be killed. I don't think either is true.

mk:

But I guess there is a difference between someone deserving the death penalty, and actually implementing it...

Yes, exactly. I'm not making the claim that some people don't deserve to die. Some people probably do. I'm saying that doesn't make the act of killing them acceptable.

PIP 12:58PM

Would watching an execution change my mind? I don't know. Would watching a woman raped and sliced up change yours? Would being the police officer responding the the shooting of the two teenage boys I mentioned and discovering your murdered son, as the police officer did in this case, change yours? Maybe that's why the police officers I have known support it. They're the ones picking up the dead bodies.

About that DNA evidence that freed that inbred I told you about. The DNA proved him innocent of that particular rape. He did have a history of animal cruelty(a very ominous sign), flashing, burglary, and forcing a woman off the road and pointing a rifle at her. He released her only when he saw her infant daughter in the car. Maybe she escaped the fate of the later victim.
While in prison he spoke of killing and dismembering his wife, as well as a fantasy torture chamber.
Some serious red flags here but apparently that didn't dissaude some do-gooders from proving the guy innocent of the rape. Anyway he's back in prison, and a young woman has been raped, tortured, and murdered.

Jen R,

I'm very concerned about the victims of crime, I just don't want to see more of them. I don't want to see another young family(2 young parents, a 2 year old child, and a 15 year old niece) gunned down by escaped murderers as happened in Arizona.
I wouldn't want to hear of Ted Bundy escaping prison while serving a life sentence and murdering more women. That's what happened when he escaped once before.
I don't want you to become a statistic Jen R, if some murderer escapes prison because someone was conned by him into helping him escape.
I wouldn't want to see Charlie Starkweather, who was thankfully executed, escaping prison after 30 years and going on another murdering spree, one of his victims was a 2 year old child.

AB Laura,

Sorry, misread your post, then convoluted mine to the point of "huh"?

Mary,

none of your posts really further an argument. You seem to want to prove that these people deserve to die. Again, I don't doubt they do, in fact they deserve to get what they did, but the fact is it just isn't right to do so.

Any version of killing is wrong, whether it is an unborn child, a born human, or a criminal. I don't wish to watch any of these, either, including a state-mandated murder.

Jill did I ever get an answer from you?

I'm against the death penalty because I saw an execution via electric chair on "Faces of Death"...they showed it, close-up, from beginning to end. It still haunts me to this day!

Posted by: AB Laura at January 6, 2008 1:46 PM ----------- AB, I saw that too.

Did you see the guy in the gas chamber?

I must admit, I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I think that sitting in prison would be far worse. If I were on death row, I would request execution. We had one such case in my state. A man did not wish to use his appeals. His nickname was "The Volunteer." He WANTED to be executed. His wish was granted.

PIP,

I agree with you 100%. Sorry Mary. I'm usually right there with you.

I think they deserve it and worse. I believe they will get worse in another life. I don't believe they can be rehabilitated. I don't think they can be saved. But I feel like it lowers us as human beings to execute them.

If there was NO other way to keep society safe, I would think differently, but if we just had a better legal system, and criminals that got locked up stayed locked up, we wouldn't need to execute them...

MK, how was your day meeting Rae?

It's just like living in a PVS. I don't EVER want to be kept alive that way. Sorry guys. I just can't agree. We all have to eventually accept death. I don't want my suffering prolonged.

I met a guy whose son was killed in a motorcycle accident. Doctors told him "There's nothing more we can do." The man asked the hospital to remove life support. I feel that he had every right.

However, I do remain against abortion.

Heather,
Wasn't that the sickest thing EVER!!! My brother rented the video when I was about 14, and all of his friends were watching it. So, to be "cool", I stayed & watched it with them. I didn't see the guy in the gas chamber....after the electric chair, I got physically ill & didn't want to watch anymore. However, I can still picture in mind EVERYTHING from the beginning of that sick movie 'til the electric chair. I heard they came up with "Faces of Death" II, III and maybe even IV???? ---I could never....

AB, I have seen them all. I did find that execution to be brutal. That guy was terrified.

PIP,
Thanks for your response...makes sense to me. You definately don't waver for a second with things you firmly believe in! I'm with the belief that only God should give or take a life.

Hey, I'm still waiting on a response from Jill, too!....I wonder if I'll get one?

However, they have removed them from the video stores. You can purchase them on the net.

Heather,
Kudos to you & your stomach!!! Maybe I could watch them now that I have a different aspect on death, but I sure couldn't when I was 15!!!!

AB, Go figure. I can watch "Faces of Death" but I'm scared to death of spiders.

AB, cast iron stomach. I don't know if that's anything to be proud of:-/

**Faces of Death - Spider Attacks**

could you imagine????

AAAAHHHHH! *runs screaming*

cast iron stomach...Yes, you are blessed to have one!!! Think of all of the wonderful careers that require one!!!!

If I had one, I would love to be a coroner. I would find it fascinating to help families find out the truth about their loved one's passing...I just don't have the stomach!

I'm a nurse.

cast iron stomach required!

I also worked in a funeral home once. I did view an embalming. It wasn't too bad.

yuck! I heard what they do to women...ewwwwwwwwwww

...that's when I chose cremation!

What? The cotton? The embalming I watched was an elderly male. I only got to watch one.

I think I'm going for that as well.

No, the foam stuff up the you know what....It's what I heard...don't know if it's true, though!

oops *should say was performed on an elderly male.* He died of cancer.

that's sad
:(

AB, probably so. What amazes me is the respect that is shown to the corpse of a 99 year old man. Aborted babies are tossed in the tr