Who supports Roe vs. Wade?

[Cyclone62]

Ok, so that was my final word on THAT subject, but not that subject:wink0st:. Recent studies have pointed out that (some of this was posted earlier by others) that the death penalty prevents murders. So I can easily defend against the taking of innocent lives on both counts. In fact, I think it would be a handy tool for pedophiles, as the bleeding hearts on the left love to point out that many of them were sexually abused as children themselves. That is all sad of course, but many, many sexually abused children do not go on to do the same themselves. So if sex offenders create future sex offenders, then I say light them up.

I've heard the argument that the Death Penalty curbs crime, but I actually haven't seen any statistics to support that. If I missed them in this thread already, please point out the post number so I can check it out. If it hasn't, I'd appreciate at least a semi-unbiased report about it (IE: Not talking about how there were more murders in 200BC than 2000AD.).

My main point was when does the sanctity of life end? If life is so sacred, why should the death penalty be allowed? What if they were allowed to live, they'd go out and try and prevent what they did? Saying life is sacred at one point, and that the murder by the state is justified in another, is hypocritical at best.

 

[chadm]

My main point was when does the sanctity of life end? If life is so sacred, why should the death penalty be allowed? What if they were allowed to live, they'd go out and try and prevent what they did? Saying life is sacred at one point, and that the murder by the state is justified in another, is hypocritical at best.

How about the reasoning that one life has a choice to follow the laws and one doesn't?

 

[Cyclonepride]

I've heard the argument that the Death Penalty curbs crime, but I actually haven't seen any statistics to support that. If I missed them in this thread already, please point out the post number so I can check it out. If it hasn't, I'd appreciate at least a semi-unbiased report about it (IE: Not talking about how there were more murders in 200BC than 2000AD.).

My main point was when does the sanctity of life end? If life is so sacred, why should the death penalty be allowed? What if they were allowed to live, they'd go out and try and prevent what they did? Saying life is sacred at one point, and that the murder by the state is justified in another, is hypocritical at best.

That would be post #73 from Alaska guy, and it does not contain a link, but there should enough information there to google it, and find it. It is a recently released study, interestingly enough, involving someone who is against the death penalty.

I would say the odds against a death penalty recipient going on to contribute to society are about as great as the chance that you are going to change my mind. However, I will admit that preventing abortion is more important in my mind than the death penalty.

 

[alaskaguy]

I've heard the argument that the Death Penalty curbs crime, but I actually haven't seen any statistics to support that. If I missed them in this thread already, please point out the post number so I can check it out. If it hasn't, I'd appreciate at least a semi-unbiased report about it (IE: Not talking about how there were more murders in 200BC than 2000AD.).

My main point was when does the sanctity of life end? If life is so sacred, why should the death penalty be allowed? What if they were allowed to live, they'd go out and try and prevent what they did? Saying life is sacred at one point, and that the murder by the state is justified in another, is hypocritical at best.

Go to post #73

 

[JVAR]

Again, this proves my earlier point of people rationalizing that an unborn baby is not a life so that people can kill it. I am a conservative whom is not near as dogmatic on other issues, but on this one call what it is. When is a baby not a baby? From the date of conception, life is programed to live, develop, and survive. So a baby comes out of whom and then it's a baby? But a few seconds before that it wasn't? That just doesn't make sense to me. I am the father of three living kids and one that sadly didn't make it the full 9 months, and never did I once say when I looked at the ultrasound, "Wow, that is a cute mass of cells." Terminating a life is terminating a life, whether it is on death row or in a abortion clinic.

 

[Cyclone62]

How about the reasoning that one life has a choice to follow the laws and one doesn't?

But if life itself is sacred, why should we end any life by artificial means? What if convict X sees the err of their ways? Should they still be murdered? I stole a pack of gum when I was six, should I still, 14 years later, carry that sentence?

If life is sacred, regardless of what one has or has not done, they should not be killed. Just because they committed a crime doesn't make their life any less sacred. If it does, then life itself wouldn't be sacred, and death by natural or artificial means shouldn't matter at all.

 

[JVAR]

I meant to say womb and not "whom." I will get off my soap box and go to bed. Interesting debate.

 

[Cyclone62]

Terminating a life is terminating a life, whether it is on death row or in a abortion clinic.

The sad thing is that both of those are socially acceptable.

 

[Kyle]

After a marathon session of reading all 10 pages of this I'll throw my two cents in. I have studied Roe and its progeny at least a little bit and think the original decision was on very shaky constitutional ground. I don't think it will be overturned in the near future though. It is predicted that Roberts would likely take a Kennedy-esq. position if confronted with the issue head on. I do think we will see continued erosion of the right though in a manner similar to the recent partial-birth decision.

The constitutional issue is very distinct from the moral arguments about abortion which have been the primary focus of this thread. I think people like to try very hard to come up with a bright-line test when the issue really involves a lot of gray area. I don't ascribe any significance to a fertilized egg. It is a single cell. Similarly, I don't ascribe much significance to a small resulting mass of cells. The event of brain activity is significant to me as are the nature of such activity. Viability and birth are also significant. For me, the gray area starts around the time of the first brain activity and ends around the time when that activity becomes uniquely human. I therefore feel comfortable with abortions early during pregnancy, and believe that making them safe and legal is good public policy.

On to the tangents. Clinton had a good saying when he first ran for president, namely that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Along these lines, one of the simplest things we could do to reduce the number of abortions would be to make contraception readily available and affordable. I would be all for the government providing it for free, and I think it would save money in the long run by lowering the demand for social services. As you can probably tell, this is one area where I am particularly frustrated by the far right.

On to another aside that no one has mentioned yet, in vitro fertilization. No one ever raises any objections to this, but if your argument is that life begins at conception then you must also be opposed to this procedure. It typically involves the fertilization of many eggs and the implantation of a few of them. At least the Catholic Church is consistent on this one.

 

[Cyclone62]

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003
nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies
have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and
14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional
homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by
professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For
every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be
prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

For each bullet, I have a question.

Why are the discrepencies so big? Three, five, fourteen, and then eighteen? How do they come to this conclusion?

Are the 150 additional murders from repeat offenders?

How does this study arrive at this conclusion?

Not trying to be a butt, but I personally need to see this stuff, and have these types of questions answered before I arrive at my own conclusion.

 

[JVAR]

Sorry, it is not a baby until it is viable outside the womb. A few cells clumped together does not mean it is a baby.

One more thought on this and pardon me for the simplistic thinking, but this debate often gets too intellectual and away from the reality of the procedure. If it was not life or a live baby, then why do doctors kill it when they pull it out. Or in the partial birth abortion method, it's brains are sucked out and then delivered dead. Probably so they don't have to look at the baby alive and in the face before it is killed. If it can be killed in the womb it would be easier for the person performing the procedure. That is probably why liberals fight to keep this procedure legal.

 

[Cyclone62]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that only first term abortions were legal. I'm fairly sure that partial birth and second term abortions are illegal already.

 

[alaskaguy]

For each bullet, I have a question.

Why are the discrepencies so big? Three, five, fourteen, and then eighteen? How do they come to this conclusion?

Are the 150 additional murders from repeat offenders?

How does this study arrive at this conclusion?

Not trying to be a butt, but I personally need to see this stuff, and have these types of questions answered before I arrive at my own conclusion.

Those are good questions Cyclone62.

The 150 additional murders are explained by the standard economic model of crime, where a rational offender would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime. In short, incentives, negative or positive, matter.

The conclusions were derived by by teasing out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

I agree that it is somewhat disconcerting that the various studies report large variances.

You might refer to the following website which references seven recent studies on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In addition, the following website provides contact information for the studies:

The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

 

[cyputz]

Case one: Young lady is raped and does not believe in abortion. She goes on to raise a mixed racial baby and is ostricized (sp?) by many for not having an abortion, and by many others for being easy (for those who do not know the situation). Beautiful lady, and her daughter is now three, with her mothers looks, fathers color. But a solid single parent family trying to beat the odds.

Case two: Young lady curently has two kids. No father to the kids around. Yet she has just went through her 5th, yes 5th abortion. Shocker, she is now 23.

My case on the law. It's a womens right to determine, but in case number two, the law should step in and sew the girls legs shut from the knees up.

So many people want to battle moral, righteous issues. If you want to make a difference, step up and get involved where your beliefs are.

 

[Cyclone62]

Alright, after reading thorugh that page, I'm not convinced that the death penalty deters one more than life in prison does. It argues about the fight for survival, the fight of life, etc. What I really want to know is if the death penalty really deters crime more than a life sentence does.

Iowa doesn't have the death penalty, yet we still have a low murder rate. Why is that?

 

[ISUKyro]

Iowa doesn't have the death penalty, yet we still have a low murder rate. Why is that?

No one lives there :laugh8kb:
J/K

I remember reading a ton about this when I was in statistics at ISU. My group tried to make similar arguments about how the death penalty really doesn't stop or lower crimes punishable by the death penalty. I'll have to dig through some of my old stuff in the closest and see if I still have any of the paper work.
I remember that we came up with stuff that definitely showed that the death penalty does not make a difference, I just can't remember where we got all or info. now :sad9cd:
If I find it I'll try and let ya know - sorry this was a bit off topic for the thread.

 

[rahtotheames]

The problem with abortion is that we wont have anybody to man our bombers against China in WW3

 

[rahtotheames]

For one, I do not like it when any government tells an individual what they can and can not do with their own body.

yeah! who's the government to tell me that i can't go out and light up a preschool

 

[Johnny Tremain]

You might refer to the following website which references seven recent studies on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In addition, the following website provides contact information for the studies:

The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

Dudley Sharp is an ardent death penalty advocate and a prolific commentator. He is an expert but not infallible.

If you examines the seven studies cited, you will find each in some way has been criticized by someone for the factual basis and/or methodology used. Some have been contested in their findings.

Paul Zimmerman, another death penalty advocate, in his study reports that there is monetrary benefit to society in the deterent value of imposing the death penalty and society receives a specific economic benefit in the value of life saved. Furthermore, there is great economic benefit to society in imposing the death penalty rather than incarceration. Not everyone agrees.

Believe here what you will at your peril.

As an aside, this link provides some interesting statistics: USDOJ BS Bulletin: Capital Punishment 2003 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp03.pdf

 

[alaskaguy]

Alright, after reading thorugh that page, I'm not convinced that the death penalty deters one more than life in prison does. It argues about the fight for survival, the fight of life, etc. What I really want to know is if the death penalty really deters crime more than a life sentence does.

Iowa doesn't have the death penalty, yet we still have a low murder rate. Why is that?

Based on the preponderance of research on this topic I believe that the death penalty is far more of a deterrent than is a life sentence. One of several academic studies that comes to this conclusion can be located on the web at http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=alea


Iowa is primarily a rural state which may explain the reason for its low murder rate. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around.