BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 08:42 AM

"John Hardly, capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible, & do not necessarily have all the evidence. Check it out"
This doesn't change the point I am making. In fact, I even said "You may disagree with the usefulness of capital punishment, or even find it immoral -- but you really shouldn't have trouble understanding how one might make a distinction". You obviously understand my distinction. You are merely adding another issue that still doesn't alter the logic of my point -- that capital punishment can make a mistake.

"And if I said "*Amputation* should be safe, available and RARE," would you call that "having it both ways?" Amputation is indeed a bad thing, but sometimes it's the best you can do".

So you are saying that an abotion is an amputation? See, the whole point of the pro-life movement is that we don't see it that way. We see TWO lives in a pregnancy.

Are you saying it should be rare because it is an operation? Or are you saying it should be rare because you also understand that a pregnancy represent two people?

"If pro-life advocates put their actions where their mouth is they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages. Hardly any do."
Lots do and lots do. But even if they did not adopt a single unwanted, undesirable child, it might make them less honrable -- but not philosophically wrong. And I have personally attended three funerals for miscarriages.

"And they'd vote for a low national speed limit, and vote against capital punishment."
I covered the capital punishment thing -- it's a distinction of innocent vs guilty. Besides, many pro-lifers actually are anti capital punishment. I have my own problems with it from a practical point of view -- I don't think we are capable of fielding a clear-thinking jury these days, and that makes me squeamish about capital punishmnet -- but it doesn't alter the philosphical and logical underpinnings of pro-life. It's actually a red herring. If you understand the distinction between innocent and guilty (and I think I pointed out that you do), comparison of abortion to capital punishment is merely a red herring.

The speed limit thing -- I can understand the connection but logically you would have to accept the premise that lower speed limits save lives. I've seen stats that counter that notion.

"John Hardly's judgment seems clouded by emotion. He also seems one of the most ignorant men I've ever come across" "... even someone as brain-dead as yourself, John Hardly"
How very sweet of you to say! (I had to look back to see if my posts contained any personal attacks. Didn't find one.) Should I be unemotional?

"Since when do all women get pregnant as a result of voluntary recreational activity? You mentioned rape just a few   posts earlier; surely even someone as brain-dead as yourself, John Hardly, can be   made to understand   that pregnancy can be a result of rape? Should such a pregnancy   be carried to term? What about when a girl is forcibly raped   by her own father   or brother?   It happens. Should   these products of incest AND rape   be carried to term?   What about women raped during in vasion during wartime? Ever been raped, John? I didn't   think so."
You are jumping to a conclusion that, again, doesn't alter the logic of any point I've made. You are merely adding one more thing into the mix -- rape. You never asked me if I thought there should be any exceptions to a pro-life position. Of course I do. And most pro-lifers do as well. And I think my exceptions are still philosophically consistent. In cases of the life of the mother at risk -- historically no government has ever been against the concept of self-defense. In the case of rape , the choice for the life altering--and risky business of pregnancy was not the woman's, therefore it is understandable that she should have the choice of whether or not to shoulder the risk (element of self-defense).

Again, it shouldn't matter if I had been raped or not for me to be able to determine that rape is wrong. It shouldn't matter if I had been a slave or not to know if slavery is wrong. I shouldn't have had to be robbed to know that robbery is wrong......I could go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 12:11 AM

well said, Clint.   Very   true that innocent people are   sometimes executed by the state.

John Hardly's judgment seems clouded by emotion. He also seems one of the most ignorant men I've ever come across.

Since when do all women get pregnant as a result of voluntary recreational activity? You mentioned rape just a few   posts earlier; surely even someone as brain-dead as yourself, John Hardly, can be   made to understand   that pregnancy can be a result of rape? Should such a pregnancy   be carried to term? What about when a girl is forcibly raped   by her own father   or brother?   It happens. Should   these products of incest AND rape   be carried to term?   What about women raped during in vasion during wartime? Ever been raped, John? I didn't   think so.

It might also interest you to know that women do actually become pregnant regardless of whether they use   birth control. My own   sister conceived her first child while she was on the Pill in fact. Birth control is still in the Stone Age; interestingly enough, variations on Viagra continue to dominate   pharmaceutical researchers' experiments, and it's more available to low-income patients than birth control.

When you're ready (or your pro-life female relatives are ready) to adopt all these inconvenient little babies, we can talk. Until then, your opinion on this matter is worth little.   You're    just another one of those pathetic middle-aged old men waving signs and hating women in front of the clinic.   Some of them stop at signs; others move on to guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:54 PM

John Hardly, capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible, & do not necessarily have all the evidence. Check it out.

And if I said "*Amputation* should be safe, available and RARE," would you call that "having it both ways?" Amputation is indeed a bad thing, but sometimes it's the best you can do.

If pro-life advocates put their actions where their mouth is they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages. Hardly any do.

And they'd vote for a low national speed limit, and vote against capital punishment.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:57 PM

John Hardly, you seem to be ignoring the fact   that vialbility of a   fetus refers to   whether a "baby" can live on its own outside the mother's womb. That's where the line is   drawn on whether the procedure is offered and at what stage. At eight weeks, that fetus is not viable. At thirteens weeks, it is not viable. At twenty weeks, well, maybe it is. See the difference?

No. a baby cannot survive outside the mother's womb. I understand that someone else can provide the care. But, it is my understanding that the Roe v Wade ruling doesn't provide even for the thin distinction you offer -- and the pro-choice mommys are fighting tooth and nail for partial birth abortion anyway. Seems even if we were to use your definition of "viability" we would still be snuffin' the inconvenient li'l shits anyway.

"I have not only noted that many who are "pro-life" are also in favor of capital punishment; but that the overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" are MEN. That includes the Mudcat. My, my, how interestng. Men's opinions on this do not carry the   same weight that women's do. If you don't like that, too freakin' bad. Men who actually respect women understand where I am   coming from on this; but then, they are also pro-choice."

I don't know where you get your stats but I don't accept that more men are pro-lifers. I personally know at least as many pro-life women. My mother was and my sister is and activist in the movement. That's a tired old rube and again, as with slavery or genocide one need not be directly affected to pass logical judgement. I respect women. There is nothing about being pro-life that hinders or limits that.

"My point is that people do not use the same definition for what could be said   to be the same   thing. Why is abortion   as "murder" acceptable, when   capital punishment is not?   And vice versa? I am in favor of reproductive rights (women should   choose if they want to carry a pregnancy to term) and NOT in favor of capital punishment"

Abortion involves the taking of an innocent life. Capital punishment, when done with due process is the taking of a guilty life. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. You may disagree with the usefulness of capital punishment, or even find it immoral -- but you really shouldn't have trouble understanding how one might make a distinction.

And "Reproductive Rights"..... if EVER there was a misfired euphamism it is this one. It's so bad it should be embarrasing to use. There is NOBODY on the pro-LIFE side of the equation who purports to limit one's RIGHTS to reproduce. The pro-choice side doesn't try to limit ones RIGHTS to reproduce either -- but if anyone is suggesting it, it would certainly be from THIS side of the debate.

"NO ONE thinks abortion is a "good" thing; but it should remain a legal and accessible option"

This is that "getting to have it both ways" part of the debate that really gets me. Like when Clinton said that abortion should be safe, available and RARE. But that statement passes the same judgement that Mr Hill does -- it says that what the pregnant woman is doing is BAD. But, and this is the nasty part -- though conceding that it is BAD -- it chooses not only to do nothing about this bad thing -- it actually wants to keep this BAD thing as an option.

It would be far more intellectually honest to admit that you see nothing wrong with the option than to condemn the act out of one side of your mouth -- and promote it out of the other.

You should be able to say with conviction -- "I don't want abortion to be any more rare than the availability for every pregnant woman who wants one". It should not be RARE until its functional usefulness has run its course, and every poor, defective, unwanted, or racially undesirable fetus is gotten safely rid of. For that matter until every goddamn yuppie woman no longer has to make the choice between a new kitchen or the third SUV in the driveway and this unwanted product of volutary recreational activity. It's her body goddamnit!

Who are you to pass the judgement that abortion is not a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:19 PM

My point is that people do not use the same definition for what could be said   to be the same   thing. Why is abortion   as "murder" acceptable, when   capital punishment is not?   And vice versa? I am in favor of reproductive rights (women should   choose if they want to carry a pregnancy to term) and NOT in favor of capital punishment.

NO ONE thinks abortion is a "good" thing; but it should remain a legal and accessible option.

John Hardly, you seem to be ignoring the fact   that vialbility of a   fetus refers to   whether a "baby" can live on its own outside the mother's womb. That's where the line is   drawn on whether the procedure is offered and at what stage. At eight weeks, that fetus is not viable. At thirteens weeks, it is not viable. At twenty weeks, well, maybe it is. See the difference?

I have not only noted that many who are "pro-life" are also in favor of capital punishment; but that the overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" are MEN. That includes the Mudcat. My, my, how interestng. Men's opinions on this do not carry the   same weight that women's do. If you don't like that, too freakin' bad. Men who actually respect women understand where I am   coming from on this; but then, they are also pro-choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 08:44 PM

Again, McGrath, please argue the point in question. What Peg did was say "people who believe______ also believe ______".
The second space is often reserved for something vile and unrelated. This is a dishonest and mean-spirited argument technique and nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM

Using words picked out to make it harder to communicate across barriers of disagreement does not help. Doing that is just a cop out, a way of confirming that the people we disagree with aren't reachable.

An instance of the kind of thing I touched on in this post I made in a recent thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:20 PM

Peg:

"Funny   how   most people against abortion are also against homosexuality. Funny how most people in favor of reproductive rights are also against capital punishment. Well, not funny,   really; no one's laughing."

The laughing is at you. If you cannot argue one point on its merits you should stop arguing. Instead, you link the subject to other subjects. Tarred by association?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:06 PM

1855 AD -- anyone who has never been a slave should just shut the hell up about slavery.

1935 AD -- anyone who has never been gassed should shut the hell up about genocide.

Babies aren't viable on their own. "Snuffing" works for me. You choose your euphamisms, I'll choose mine.

Fun with sex isn't the issue -- never has been. Responsibility with sex is the issue -- always has been. I absolutely defend a woman's right to choose not to have sex -- even to the point of capital punishment for rape (philosophically -- though practically it couldn't be done).

at least you didn't say "abortion should be safe, available and RARE"

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:35 PM

True enough, and sorting out that kind of thing is very much the sort of change I'm talking about. There's been a lot of change in recent years in those kind of attitudes, long overdue and no doubt incomplete, but very welcome for all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peg
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:34 PM

Ahem...abortion is legal. Murder is not.   There is   apparently   a great deal of misunderstanding of our terms here. Viability of a fetus is what draws   the line between   abortion and "snuffing."

Many years ago, this was not an issue of   morality. It   is now because it has also become an issue of control   of women's bodies,   not to mention religious fanatics   who   live in   terror of   other people having more   fun   (read: sex)   than they   are   having.

Funny   how   most people against abortion are also against homosexuality. Funny how most people in favor of reproductive rights are also against capital punishment. Well, not funny,   really; no one's laughing.

Anyone who has not had to face an unwanted pregnancy (their own or a partner's or   friend's or child's) should   just shut the hell up about abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:24 PM

McG, the irony will not have escaped you that one of the greatest pressures leading pregnant mothers to endure the trauma of termination has been the fear of vilification by arrogant clerics in the Catholic church. Not to mention the fear, until very recent times, of incarceration in catholic institutions, and the brutal treatment to which they were often subjected therein.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 12:22 PM

"There is a muslim proverb, that says if you take one life, you kill the whole of humanity."

I believe that's a Jewish proverb as well. Not surprising - both are the same religion at root after all. And so is Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:32 AM

I definitely think that contributes to it as well.
So, then, our government's allowance of women to "choose" snuffing contributes to the occurance or commission of murder generally?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:25 AM

I definitely think that contributes to it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:52 AM

I'd see Paul Hill's resort to murder as a reflection of the fact he was living in a country where reprisal killing of killers is a respected and authorised aspect of the law and the culture.

Yeah, THAT"S gotta be true. No way an American could be intelligent enough to be able to evaluate and discern a difference in intent or rationale.

Of course, snuffing unborn in no way informs our valuation of human life, though capital punishment does.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:31 AM

Capital punishment, and its corrupting effect is what I'm referring, Ebbie. The idea that taking a life for a life is a good thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harlowpoet
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:53 AM

Ebbie

I am absolutely sure that taking life is wrong. I get fed up with these so called ethical dilemmas, such as should we destroy this life or not. There are people maimed and murdered all over the world in countries, such as Palestine, Iraq and Vietnam, where world leaders struggled with their ethical dilemmas, and decided that bombing populations is OK.

There is no ethical or moral dilemma involved in murdering someone (and that includes babies). You don't do it.

There is a muslim proverb, that says if you take one life, you kill the whole of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 10:35 PM

"..respected and authorised aspect of the law and the culture" How so, McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:39 PM

A lot of people appear to be absolutely sure of the correctness of their views when it comes to abortion.

The pity about all this is that too often people opposed to abortion fail to recognise that the only real way to prevent babies getting aborted must involve getting rid of the things in society that push women into "choosing" that as a solution to their situation.

True, there are women for whom abortion it is a genuine free choice, but most of the time it's an imposed choice, because of poverty and all kinds of other pressures and distortions. And whether people are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" they should be united in seeing that as a disgrace.

I'd see Paul Hill's resort to murder as a reflection of the fact he was living in a country where reprisal killing of killers is a respected and authorised aspect of the law and the culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:10 PM

Without supporting either the death penalty, abortion, or Paul Hills actions, I would say that he would not have commited what he did, if the doctor had not been aborting live babies. harlowpoet, if Hill had not done this particular murder it does not in any way signify that he would not have committed a different murder or other heinous act in time. Anyone who is so sure of the correctness of his views is vulnerable to going over the top. That is what scares me most in all peopledom: Being absolutely sure. Questions are far more important, imo.

A good man's not always right
Nor the bad man always wrong
Things are not always black and white
As I'd thought my whole life long
Instead of haste I've learned patience
And deep gratitude for questions
The answers can wait, that at last, I have found

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 02:11 PM

Seems like excessive outrage and anger over a murderer simply because he expresses a view that snuffing the unborn is morally wrong. If he was any other murderer, most here would suggest we don empathy shoes and walk a mile so we might have a sense of the economic or social inequities that forced him into a life as a murderer. Instead, because he has the nerve to pass moral judgement on abortion, those who would otherwise dismiss captital punishment are suddenly contemplative -- and happy that at least this once they didn't have their way on that issue.

But what wasted anger -- after all, pragmatically speaking, his act was the equivalent of trying to stop the agricultural output of the USA by killing two farmers. The harvest of unborn is going to be statistically equal before and after Hill' foolish act. Hill's act won't diminish the snuffing one bit. Pro-choice wins both ways -- undimished snuffing and a villain to point to (and paint the pro-life side as).

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: harlowpoet
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:27 AM

Without supporting either the death penalty, abortion, or Paul Hills actions, I would say that he would not have commited what he did, if the doctor had not been aborting live babies. We are talking babies,who if born premature, the medical authorities would be going all out to save. Yet because they are unwanted, they are disposed of discreetly, as if they never occurred. What a wonderful society this is.

Sorry, but no-one comes out of this one smelling of roses

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 10:41 PM

I think we're communicating better now, Raedwulf. :-)

Keep in mind that my snarky remarks (which you orginally objected to) were directed at Clinton Hammond! Clinton and I have a thing going where although we like each other (at least, I like and respect him), we disagree fundamentally on all kinds of philosophical matters, and insult each other with absolute abandon at any excuse. It's sort of an "in joke" at this point, between me, Clinton, and Raptor. Clinton is one of my most worthy opponents on Mudcat, along with Wolfgang, Troll, and one or two others...depending on what's being discussed (politics, religion, science, UFO's, William Shatner, etc...)

Obviously, word of my classic feud with Clinton has not reached everyone on this forum...so I have to watch what I say, I guess, lest in offending Clinton, I offend many!

The primary reason I am opposed to capital punishment is that I have strong spiritual beliefs (NOT religious beliefs...I belong to no specific religion or church), and those spiritual beliefs tend to make me very opposed to premeditated, calculated killing of helpless people by an individual, a government, or an authority. My beliefs don't cause me to be opposed to killing in self-defence or in defense of others "in the heat of the moment", so to speak, when there may be no other recourse...I'm just opposed to killing people who have been captured, subdued, imprisoned, etc. I'm likewise opposed to torturing them. I don't consider either activity justifiable. I think it's vengeance, not practicality, and I am well convinced by now that vengeance is a useless indulgence...although it's definitely an impulse that is very strong in most people...and it makes for wonderfully gripping stories (ever read Louis L'Amour?).

I'm a real cynic too...but maybe not about the same things as you. I'm cynical about governments, churches, laws, traditions, class structures, educational systems, stuff like that...the world's authority structures, in other words. I'm not cynical about spiritual matters, moral matters, or love (in the larger than just romantic sense of the word).

So of course, my views are subjective. I wouldn't even consider working money into the equation of whether or not someone should be killed by society...and I cannot imagine that a person could truly be intrinsically worthless....although...they could most certainly be in a temporarily worthless state of mind (for whatever reason).

The best way I can explain it is: I cannot ultimately judge the worth of any other human being, I can only judge his acts. I may imprison him for antisocial acts (and the danger he may commit more such), but not because he is intrinsically worth less than another human being. I frankly don't know what he's worth, and neither does anyone else...nor can they know it.

I believe the worth of any human soul is a mystery that is simply beyond our calculations. So, like you say, I'm subjective in my opinions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:35 PM

Fionn - I think it was something along the lines of "we kill people that *might* be innocent", but I may be wrong. It's 12:30 over here & I'm nished as a pewt, so I am *not* a reliable witnes to anything wot might happen in the next few minutes...

*sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssnnnnnrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt*

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:56 PM

Bobert:

If you can persuade the authorities to take another crack at the system, I would be interested in seeing the results. I'm dubious, I confess, as to the result, but I'll hope for the best!

The modern world & it's people are less simple than of old but... Look up Captain Maconochie, & the system that he introduced to Norfolk Island. This is in context with "The Fatal Shore" (Robert Hughes) & Transportation again. Part of the reason that Maconochie never got a fair crack of the whip was that he was too inclined toward reward, rather than punishment. This neither agreed with the theory that he presented in advance of his appointment, nor sat well with his superiors afterwards, but it surely makes for interesting reading now?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:41 PM

"What does that prove?"

Fraid I've lost track of what "that" is, Raedwulf, and of who asked the question. But anyone who thinks CP helps save people from being murdered is not looking at the evidence.

Most developed countries don't resort to CP; no developed countries apart from (some of) the US executes people for crimes they carried out when aged 17 or less. Yet most (I would say all, but haven't time to check right now) developed countries also have lower murder rates than the US, lower levels of violent and gun-related crime and lower levels of crime by minors.

From this I rashly conclude that CP serves no deterrant purpose. OK, maybe it does give friends and relatives of the victims a short-lived, gratuitous buzz, but that's little to show for a punishment that kills the innocent and degrades us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:39 PM

Hi, Raedwulf...I'm back from the canoe trip. Money is "not in endless supply"? Actually, money IS in endless supply,

No Hawk, it isn't. It just looks like it. More to the point, the people that "make" the new money aren't spending it on philanthropy… Allow me to redefine the term perhaps slightly better – there is only so much wealth in the world. In Germany of the depressed '30s, they used 10,000,000 Mark notes as wallpaper – lots of money, precious little wealth.

We can argue endlessly about how the economic system works (or, frankly, doesn't), but the fact still remains that there is only a finite amount of resources in the world, & only a finite amount of wealth. Would you sit on your front porch setting fire to $50 bills? Because this is the net effect of maintaining in prison criminals you hope will never be released! Would it not be better for any country, any society, if this money were spent in the ghettoes (of New York, LA, London, Manchester, wherever) ensuring that a few less people wind up in this evolutionary cul-de-sac?

{snip} It's an endless money tree for those who already have most of the money anyway...and most of the money ISN'T REAL!!!

Yes, & that little diatribe (which I don't necessarily disagree with) had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion!

Now, I'm not really suggesting that individuals on this forum value money over life,

Good.

I'm just making a provocative statement

Just a bit! *g*

in order to maybe get someone to look into the deeper implications of a decision to execute people "because it's cheaper than keeping them in jail". It seems like an almost unbelievably crass statement to make in favour of the death penalty to me.

That may be because, faced with such a statement, you will not look beneath the surface. I am not a knee jerk opinion. I have spent as much time establishing in my mind my p-o-v, as you have in yours. I do not base my arguments in morality, because morality is highly subjective and, therefore, highly suspect. Ethics are scarcely less so. Economics? No, I'm no money-grubbing mercenary either.

I prefer to be rational. I cannot find a reason for the maintenance of the "unworthy". Especially given the amount of 'luxury' they seem to expect as their right! The possibility of error (which is, so far, the only rational argument that I find acceptable) is, IMHO, by & large considerably outweighed by the probability of concrete conviction in the modern world.


It's downright embarrassing that anyone would say it. Are people really that worried about the piddly amount of tax they pay each year (individually, I mean)

No, I'm not. What bothers me is the amount of tax that society as a whole expends on the worthless that would ({cynic}I hope, rather than expect{/cynic}) be more usefully spent elsewhere.

Look, everyone pays taxes toward a lot of stuff that they don't personally agree with. You do. I do. It's inevitable. That's how the system works. It's the price one pays for living in an organized society that is doing many good things too.

Yep.

But to suggest that people should be executed to save you or some other person $5 a year or something like that (probably less) is just crass and shameful. It indicates shallow, knee-jerk thinking, as far as I'm concerned, rather than a real appreciation of what's actually happening on death row.

There again, what your reaction indicates to me is a "crass and shameful… shallow, knee-jerk" failure to appreciate what your 'lily-livered liberalism?' costs society. I'm not saying I'm right. However, your arguments, as presented so far, involve too much emotion, both defensive & offensive, for me to accept. In this, Hawk, you argue as though your beliefs decide your proof. This is suspect.

Show me that your beliefs are based upon your proofs!! I probably still won't agree ;), because I'm certain that my position is based upon my best rational foundation. Would you change your p-o-v? No, didn't think so! ;) But I demand proof, not opinion. I have a great deal of respect for the best of the anti-CP side. Most of them, though, (like most of the pro-CPers) couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag… And did I warn you I'm before, after, & beyond anything else, a cynic… ;)

But here's another interesting notion: What may be the best thing to do in one social situation may be the worst to do in another, so like I said, laying down infallible rules of right and wrong (a la Ten Commandments) is virtually impossible. What we humans actually do is constantly make the rules up as we go along, and revise them whenever conditions change or whenever we change. Everybody does it. Some claim not too. Their claims are dubious, to say the least.

Agreed! Especially to the latter half!!!

For the time being, given present conditions in North America, I would rather not see prisoners being executed. I don't think it serves any useful practical or moral purpose.

And, again, at the moment I also would rather not see prisoners being executed. The US State/Federal system of justice seems to me (an outsider), a far too subjective & inconsistent system of justice. I have read of cases, & wondered why it has taken 20-odd years to execute. I have read of cases & wondered why, after the passing of 20-odd years, the authorities still do not recognise the presence of doubt.

At the risk of being incredibly boring, I will say again "What does that prove? That your system is f***ed, nothing more, nothing less. Sort your system out..."

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:28 PM

"I will only say that I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

I'd call that fundamental Christianity. Along with "Love your enemy, do good to those who hurt you".

Most of the people called "fundamentalists" seem to be obsessed with things that are in no way fundamental to their alleged religion, and in many ways totally inimical to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 03:52 PM

Fionn - How many times do I have to repeat this before you get it? "What does that prove? That your system is f***ed, nothing more, nothing less. Sort your system out..."

It proves nothing about CP.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: McMusic
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 02:47 AM

Fionn,
The only difference between this man and the 9-11-01 hijackers is that they killed more people than he. Other than that, I have no answer to the problem of killing killers for killing killers for killing killers.... The disagreement can go on forever.
I will only say that I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--and that the fundamentalists on all sides (Moslem, Christian, Jew) are destroying this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Tam the Bam (Nutter)
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 02:05 PM

He who is without sin cast the first stone. I know that I still do things that God isn't pleased about I try not to do them however I just can't for now however I will one day.
Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Tam the Bam (Nutter)
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 02:02 PM

It's crazy people like Paul Hill that makes ashamed for being a Born Again Christian.
I know the man was a monster and he wasn't sorry about the killings, but as a Christian I love him.
I also agree with Little Hawk.
Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 12:03 PM

Don, you have just eloquently explained why I have been in favour of socialism all my life.

However, when people are brought up to view "socialism" as a dirty word, and made to think that it is somehow synonymous with dictatorship (which it certainly is not) then one can hardly expect them to think straight about it, can one?

Meanwhile, America lurches on in the grip of its own mythology... imagining itself to be the greatest society on Earth.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 10:45 PM

Fionn, I really resonate with what you're saying. Whenever I bring up the Northern European and Scandinavian countries and make the claim that they are quite probably the most civilized countries in the world, far more civilized than most—including the United States—and explain why I think so, the argument I almost invariably get back is "But they're socialistic!"

Now, I've never probed into the nature of their political systems and the finer points of how they do what they do, but when a country has free high quality health care for everybody; an excellent educational system; virtually no poverty because of a social safety net that really works; is virtually crime free compared to, say, the United States; has laws that mandate long vacations and limit the amount of time one can be required to work in a day (and still maintains its position in the world economy); honors it's elderly and takes excellent care of them; values its history, culture, and folklore; has, in general, a healthy, happy, productive population; and has been at peace with its neighbors for generations—it strikes me that they must be doing something right. We should study them and see how they do it.

When I say this, what I hear back is "but they're socialistic!" and "but their taxes are so high" and "but they're not a democracy, they have a king!" (maybe true about the king, but not true about not being a democracy), and in general the arguments go "butting" around like a flock of nervous goats.

Where are these people's values? Look at the results. If it means socialism, then so be it! However they do it, we need some of that here.

If circumstances can be brought about where somebody doesn't have to sleep in their second hand Ford Windstar van because, even though they are employed, they can't afford rent, it somehow doesn't concern me a great deal if those same circumstances mean that the CEO of a local company has to give his son a Miata for his high school graduation present instead of the Lamborghini he wants.

But the way things are going, that'll be a cold day in hell. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:19 PM

Hi, Raedwulf...I'm back from the canoe trip. Money is "not in endless supply"? Actually, money IS in endless supply, but not to you and me or the public in general or the municipalities! It's in endless supply to the people who spuriously manufacture it whenever they want to (the banks). They do so by merely creating it out of thin air every time they make a loan to some major player on the business or financial scene. All of a sudden "Bingo!" there are millions more dollars in play that just magically appeared from nowhere, allowing already very rich people to become richer and do business and the banks to collect interest and become richer! What a pprofitable system, eh? It's an endless money tree for those who already have most of the money anyway...and most of the money ISN'T REAL!!!

The amount of real currency actually printed or minted by governments is a very small fraction of that created by banks through the use of loans, credit arrangements, and other such pyramid schemes. It is also the engine behind inflation.

This doesn't have much to do with the relative merits of paying or not paying for incarcerating prisoners, but I think it's an interesting aside on a social order which does in fact value money over all else, and most certainly over life, since your life or mine will indeed be forfeit if billions of dollars are at stake and we are in the way. Count on it.

Now, I'm not really suggesting that individuals on this forum value money over life, I'm just making a provocative statement in order to maybe get someone to look into the deeper implications of a decision to execute people "because it's cheaper than keeping them in jail". It seems like an almost unbelievably crass statement to make in favour of the death penalty to me. It's downright embarrassing that anyone would say it. Are people really that worried about the piddly amount of tax they pay each year (individually, I mean) to incarcerate prisoners? I would think the amount of money going to the building of nuclear weapons would outstrip it by far, and what could we possibly need more nukes for? Look, everyone pays taxes toward a lot of stuff that they don't personally agree with. You do. I do. It's inevitable. That's how the system works. It's the price one pays for living in an organized society that is doing many good things too. But to suggest that people should be executed to save you or some other person $5 a year or something like that (probably less) is just crass and shameful. It indicates shallow, knee-jerk thinking, as far as I'm concerned, rather than a real appreciation of what's actually happening on death row.

But here's another interesting notion: What may be the best thing to do in one social situation may be the worst to do in another, so like I said, laying down infallible rules of right and wrong (a la Ten Commandments) is virtually impossible. What we humans actually do is constantly make the rules up as we go along, and revise them whenever conditions change or whenever we change. Everybody does it. Some claim not too. Their claims are dubious, to say the least.

For the time being, given present conditions in North America, I would rather not see prisoners being executed. I don't think it serves any useful practical or moral purpose.

Naturally, there are other people who think it does.

In some places the law supports their view, in some places it supports mine. That will no doubt be subject to further change as well as time goes by.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 08:37 PM

Troll, you challenged someone to find a better way for the state to protect its citizens, or words to that effect.

If you are seriously interested, you could start by having a look at some of the north European and Scandinavian countries.They have a mere fraction of the murders you have in the states, and much lower proportions of their populations in prison. Yet they don't have the deterrant of capital punishment. They don't have to kill people to stay safe. How on earth do they do it???

They do it by regulating their economies to ensure that the gap between rich and poor is narrower than in western Europe, particularly Britain, and a far cry from the obscene extremes of the US. As well as helping them feel safer, this also means more social mobility than in Britain, and massively more than in the so-called "land of opportunity." (Sick joke.) In other words, many people in Norway, Sweden etc, manage to get themselves out of poverty, whereas millions of the US poor haven't a chance in hell. They stay poor because they made the mistake of being born that way. (Plenty tax breaks for the rich though.)

You could be campaigning to get something done about all this, Troll. America doesn't have to be the way it is. It's just that some of you seem to like it that way.

Raedwolf, that's quite a bright idea, executing only those death row prisoners who are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But hasn't good old American justice found every death row inmate guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 07:09 PM

Any Canadian posting to this forum is familiar with the fact that in the last decade or so, Canada has released at least 3 men who had been convicted of murder. Improved DNA tests proved their innocence.
It's a good thing we don't have capital punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 03:40 PM

I don't want to abolish the death penalty for the benefit of Mr Hill. He is --was-- a piece of shit, as we say in North Idaho.

I want to abolish the death penalty for the benefit of the man who is wrongfully or mistakenly convicted.

Many cases are not as clear-cut as Hill's.
We all know that innocent men are sometimes convicted and executed.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 03:20 PM

"It is, as has been pointed out here several times, much more expensive than a life sentence; it lowers society to the level of the killers; and it deprives us of the chance to have them possibly live to regret their actions and show remorse."

                1) as has been pointed out, endless appeals for 10 to 15 years cost money... execution should be a few thos.,            
                     not the 33 thos per year it costs to house, feed, and provide medical care for each federal prisoner

                2) "murder" by an individual and "execution by statute" are not the same and everyone knows that                  
                  
                3) who cares what the murderer thinks...regret their actions? feel remorse??? again, who cares

My opinion is that Mr. Hill, at the very least, had the huevos to stand behind what he did. No regrets. No remorse.

Mr. Hill's beliefs were so far from those of this society that society had to remove him. Permanently works just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 10:46 AM

Programs to reduce recidivism cost money. But even if their succes is somewhat less than 100% they return many dollars for each dollar spent in prevention of future enforcement/imprisonment events. And for starters, a whole buncha resources for such programs could be freed up if we would just stop legislating personal behavior where society has no business meddling, like sex and drug activity in which no minors or unwilling participants are involved and no property is damaged.

And as much as I think some of the criminals prominently mentioned here are not part of civilized society, I still think executing criminals should not be done. It is, as has been pointed out here several times, much more expensive than a life sentence; it lowers society to the level of the killers; and it deprives us of the chance to have them possibly live to regret their actions and show remorse.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:45 AM

Sorry about that. Not sure what happened.

Anyway:
"The answer to someone else's remark, BTW, is that if I, innocent, were sentenced to death, I would argue my innocence to the grave. I do not believe that I would argue for the abolition of CP simply because it would save my life! "

That's interesting, becuse I *would* argue for the abolition of CP simply because it would save your life. I believe it's wrong to kill the innocent, even if it enables one to kill the guilty.

"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" seems obviously stupid and brutal to me. If it seems wise to you I don't know what to say.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 12:40 AM

Yo Bobert!

My wife Barbara worked for years with an organization called "Peace Between People." Among other things, PBP conducted Alternatives to Violence workshops both in the community and in the prisons. Barbara was one of the Alternatives to Violence facilitators, and she and a number of other facilitators (all volunteers—they didn't get paid to do this) spent a lot of time over the years in the state prisons and reformatories doing these workshops. I can't give you any statistics, but both Barbara and I know a whole batch of guys who really turned their lives around and are now out, making a living for themselves, keeping their noses clean, and living as regular contributing members of society. Interesting when you consider that some of the prison official were dubious of the whole thing, and had an attitude of "I think it's a waste of time, but its your time, so be our guests." There were, of course, two or three who went through the workshops who didn't make it, but in the main, this kind of rehabilitation effort is very effective and really pays off.

Unfortunately, this kind of program depends on groups such as Peace Between People and other "bleeding-heart liberals and do-gooders" or they just don't happen. More than one prisoner made the statement that "it really makes a difference to know that somebody really cares what happens to us." If this kind of thing was as a regular part of the prison system's rehabilitation program (if any), it could make a huge difference. But—selling something like "alternatives to violence" to a system that considers violence to be an essential part of its overall methods isn't an easy thing to do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 11:17 PM

Yo Readwulf:

Practice makes perfect. The time is right for another try at a private/public patnership but it has to be done with a few changes. First, inmates arre to be treated as regular folks. Second, there has to be a lot of emphasis put on counseling. Third, it must be sold to society as a way of reducing recivitist rates. Fourth, the particpants should be thought of as just that and not crimals or inmates... This is a biggie and is going to have to take some good Pr work....

But this system is very humane and do-able, and economical, and pro-human and, and....

And I'm speaking not completely as an outsider in that I was a jail house teacher in Richmond, Va. fir a few years and have seen first hand what we are doing to folks in jails across America....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 10:49 PM

Let me rephrase a statement:

WHEN does it become acceptable (moral) (ethical) for society (or The State, if you'd rather) to do something which it is forbidden for me as an individual member of society to do? Again, from where does society derive the authority to forbid me to do something which society allows itself to do?

My old ethics professor defined ethics as "the necessary ought." My old morals teacher defined morals as "culturally and religiously defined ways of thought and behavior." Both were Catholic priests, and both seperated ethics from morals. Neither could effectively answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 10:02 PM

I never claimed that morality (or ethics, if you will) was completely objective. What I was arguing against was the idea that morality is completely subjective. That can, and often does, lead to a great deal of social and political strife. And it leads to all kinds of abuse of good sense and general confusion when a society can't make up it's mind what kind of standards it really follows. One example I cited above is when one president's lie results in scandal and impeachment and another president's lie has thus far been just peachy-keen with a lot of the same people who were up in arms about the first president's fib. It's not just a double-standard, which everyone decries, it seems to be situational. And purely subjective. Hell of a sloppy way to run a society.

Nevertheless:—

I fail to see how a society gains by killing someone it regards as beyond the pale. In times past, societies used to execute people for holding the "wrong" beliefs, or even just being accused of holding the wrong beliefs. See the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. Granted, a cold-blooded, unrepentant murderer would seem to be a prime candidate for the gallows or the gurney and needle, but society actually stands to lose by this, if not in moral, then certainly in practical ways.

First, for the really concrete-bound, there is the matter of the cost of execution when compared to the cost of life-long incarceration. Appeals are almost invariable granted in a capital crime—if the defendant has a good attorney (often depending on the depth of the defendant's pocketbook)—and this frequently winds up costing the taxpayer millions of dollars, and it puts a further strain on an already overburdened court system. (And they are grossly overburdened. Although not a criminal case, I've had some recent experience with the court system, and I know just how backed up the courts are and how long it takes to get even a simple ruling: something that should have taken a couple of weeks at most, but took six gawdam years!! But that's another story). In terms of cost, it is far more economical to hold someone in prison for life than it is to execute them, so the old wheeze about "why should the taxpayers have to pay to keep this monster in prison" just doesn't hold water.

Second, there is the appalling number of cases of people—especially poor people and ethnic minorities—sent to death row, who, if some curious person or agency with the time and the interest (it does happen, but nowhere near often enough) cares to re-examine a case, it turns out that the convicted person is completely innocent, and in their rush to close the case, the prosecution has taken the easy route, convicted some poor sod who hasn't got the resources to mount a decent defense, and left the real murderer still running free. How many innocent people have been executed? More that you would care to think about. And that, no matter how you slice it, is immoral! And no—one is too many!

On balance, capital punishment is not only immoral (arguable, perhaps), it is impractical (objectively provable).

Why should the taxpayer have to spend so much money executing this b*st**d when it's cheaper just to throw him in a six-by-eight cell somewhere and let him rot?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 12:55 PM

Don:

Yes, ethical sounds a lot better than moral. However there are schools of ethics, & different breeds of philsophy too! How do you square Socrates vs. Plato for instance?

The rights of the individual against the rights of the group/society? The two often conflict. How do you strike a balance? Despite your remarks, I do not believe that it is as objective as you would like to suggest.

If it's wrong for me as an individual member of society to kill someone, it is equally wrong for the society as a whole to do so.

Only by your strain of morality, ethics, philosophy, whatever you want to call it, Don. I, for one do NOT agree. I do not see that any society derives any benefit (tangible or otherwise) from holding the likes of Ian Brady or Myra Hindley in prison until they die. I would suggest that, even incarcerated, they continue to have an effect equivalent to a cancer (only negative) upon the body of human society.

If I, an individual, go out & cold-bloodedly shoot an individual, I am guilty of murder. If society cold-bloodedly & rationally decides that individuals have placed themselves too far beyond the laws & mores of society, that is not the same case. Thou shalt not kill (inaccurate) vs. Thou shalt not murder (accurate) again.

If the decisions of society are automatically wrong when they are not the same as the choice of the individual, then any & all attempt at government is wrong, because all government must inevitably rule against the rights of the individual at some point. "Wrong for me = wrong for society" is as false a piece of argument as you could wish to make!

The answer to someone else's remark, BTW, is that if I, innocent, were sentenced to death, I would argue my innocence to the grave. I do not believe that I would argue for the abolition of CP simply because it would save my life!

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 12:10 PM

Bobert:

It's an interesting proposition. Curiously, I've literally just finished reading "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes (which I've seen mentioned either here or somewhere else within the last week), about Transportation to Australia. Assigned labour was an integral part of the early growth of the colony. Judging by what I read, it was neither success nor failure.

Your idea has been tried before. From what I know, I would say that the evidence is equivocal. There are immediate problems with trying to reintroduce it.

1) Convict labour is always reluctant & inefficient.

2) Some of the convicts will embrace the notion of expiation through labour. Unfortunately, many will not, & will sabotage the labour, where they can, out of sheer spite.

3) The biggest obstacle is probably the modern notion of human rights.

4) In Europe & the UK at least, the Unions will squeal about the way that you're taking bread out of the mouth of the honest labourer, etcetera... {rollseyes}

5) Would you (especially in light of 1 & 2 above) "buy" any convict labour, with the potential problems that might attend? And, given the modern negative world, would undoubtedly be far more widely publicised than the successes...

It's a plausible idea, but can you tell me how the practical difficulties will be overcome or neutralised?

Subject: RE: BS: Farewell to an anti-abortionist
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 11:15 PM

Yo Raedwulf:

What are your thoughts on the propostion that I laid out earlier with a private/public partnership that would turn prisons into manufacturing centers where the labor of inmates would compensate the victims of crimes, or their families.

Little Hawk:

I know hat you mean about stone. The P-Vine and I were in western Carolina recentl;y and we wanted to take a few of the mountain stone back for our gardens but we had a difficult ime in finding stone that would negatively impact the area around where we found them. It was difficult but we found several that we felt could come to live with us while not leaving their friends in a lurch. You get what I'm saying but I doubt if many other here do. Hopefully, I'm wrong....

Bobert