I believe that anyone who deliberately or even inadvertently kills someone else during the commission of any crime should die (including me). By depriving someone else of their right to live because of a reckless disregard for others in the commission of a crime, it seems quite natural to me that the guilty party should also be deprived of their right to live, not out of sense of revenge (though that may justifiably be a motivating factor for some), but more in the interest of justice being served on behalf of the victim and the victims family, the protection of the public from further criminal acts being committed by that person, and as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to commit crimes where the lives of others may be jeopardized.
I can accept this opinion even though i disagree, i can see that if someone close to me was murdered i would want the murderer to die so even though im against state sponsored murder i will concede that perhaps it offers some form of justice to the ones who are left behind, of course then you have to think about the family of the convicted murderer, is it just tough shit for them? shouldnt they be able to have the government officials responsible killed for killing their family member?
I believe abortion is one of the more revolting aspects of the modern world and shows how worthless human life has become.
i think the same way about the death penalty..
gammagoblin “It is a little bit like murder indeed, but there is a little chance the fetus even knows it exists and from what I understand is that if it reaches a age abortion is illegal because from there on it really is alive.
That might be a plausible approach if it could be accurately determined at what point after conception we are talking about a human being (self aware or not). Since that can not be conclusively shown, logic (my logic anyway) dictates erring on the side of caution rather than assuming that because the fetus is at this or that stage of development, or that it may or may not be self aware, it’s socially acceptable to kill it. To my way of thinking, erring on the side of caution means that for all intents and purposes at the moment of conception we are talking about a human being.
the moment of conception?
how exactly do you feel about masturbation emile? or ovulation for that matter?
because it takes time for the sperm and the ovum to generate a nervous system, once it has that i think you can call it a living thing, until then, to me, its just a sperm and an egg stuck together
Considering the consequences of having a baby and how ones life would change forever before creating it instead of afterward would eliminate being faced with the moral dilemma of having to choose whether to raise a child or kill one that arises when a child is already on the way due to an inability to control instinctive mammalian urges to copulate.
Its true that considering the consequences of having a baby before hand makes sooo much sense! but you have to factor in the obvious fact that there are ALOT of irresponsible people out there, including but not limited to sexually active teenagers and people who are, to be frank, stupid
lets be honest, its not a good thing but there are alot of people out there who are driven by their genitals before their brains
Oh yeah that’s a good idea, abortion as a means of population control. Instead of using common sense and not having more children in the first place, let’s just keep copulating and kill the children. We could even expand on that to include a “grace period” of ten years after the birth of the child for the parents to change their mind. If they should decide it’s just too much trouble raising a child they were too stupid to plan for, they could just take it to the “doctor” and have a “postnatal abortion”.
common sense is a misleading title for basic sense, its not really all that common
do you really want all the stupid people procreating? as if the human race isnt intellectually stunted as it is imagine the effects on our evolution if only smart people think first about having kids before having unprotected sex and the stupid/majority just did it, without abortion the human race as a whole will suffer
and your example of a "grace period" of ten years is utterly ridiculous, surely you dont think this is even a remote possibility?
im hoping this is just you filling your self appointed title of psychonauts absurdist, its not much of a point to argue
People are killing millions of animals because they have to eat. If they’re killing too many animals it’s because there are too many people.
People are destroying the forests because they need more land for agriculture and building materials. If they are destroying too much of the forest it’s because there are too many people.
too many people? there are only going to be MORE people without abortion...
I dont quite agree with gammagoblin on the point you're replying to here but i have to say, surely vegans are proof enough that humans dont need meat to survive
if we were to cut the meat industry in half we would still have way more than enough, its just that instead of learning different ways of eating/things to eat people WANT meat, its not a need (im guilty here but like i said, i dont really agree with the comment you're replying to)
Saying that you think that these things should be banned if abortion is banned is not thinking. If that's your idea of thinking though, I’d say that in certain cases maybe abortion wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all.
Thats a bit uncalled for, settle down man
