It shows ignorance to believe that retribution can be achieved by brutality for brutality.

I and others are waiting patiently for some humans to outgrow their neandrathalic tendencies.

you do not "outgrow" them, you stop them at the genetic level...if you allow people with bad genes to breed, then they breed more people with bad genes... seems pretty simple, don't it?

No that is an ignorant right wing ideology. I believe all humans are capable of outgrowing the neandrathalic tendencies that promote the death penalty.

your entitled to your opinion... even tho it has been proven wrong so many times... but it's nice to know that you can't (or won't) understand about defective genes

I said neandrathalic tendencies that promote the death penalty, I didn't say anything about defective dna.

so you think people with defective genes should be allowed to breed freely? did you ever wonder why there are no retarded animals around? survival of the fittest. animals with defective genes get eaten by other animals, they are not allowed to live... nature dictates that law.

I will allow nature to take care of that if it is how you say.

I am saying that neandrathalic tendencies in humans promote the death penalty. Their brains are stuck in the past.

i disagree... i think it should happen quicker and more often...i personally think that is why we are having the problems that humans are facing now, because we allow to many people to live. right now, there are thousands of men in jail that just want to kill, and have even said if they get out, they will others again because it's all they want to do. these people should be allowed to live?

I don't know much about american prisons, but from what I hear, the chances of spreading genes in a way that has a chance to reproduct are next to nil in American slammers, too!? Besides, I still hope that being human means I am a little itsy bitsy better than being animal... that's one of the reasons we as a race chose to make laws.

The idea of defective genes being responsible for criminal activities has been done away with a long time ago, along with creationism, in the most parts of the world, too...

And, finally: I would hate to think of someone actually breeding the human race... what if his thoughts on what a human should be would change at any given time?

it's called conjectural visits...

and i don't completely disagree with you, who is to say who (or what) is defective genes... but some people just need to be put down...for the good of the people around them

Again I wasn't discussing defective dna or the environmental influences that create criminals at all.

I was discussing the failed brain thought process that is stuck that makes people believe the death penalty solves anything.

It is a neandrathalic ideology that should have died with the dinosaurs.

yea, i have read that about 5 times now, and it is still not any closer to making any sense...maybe you should move to canada, they are very liberal and have no death penalties... and i'm guessing not Neanderthalic either...

Actually all the death penalty supporters who are holding this country back from being the best it could be should move their neandrathalic ***** out and let those of us who know better make it into an even better place to live.

Abortion? or the other death penalty?

It seems no matter the reason, right, wrong, or no reason at all, they are both just as dead and by the hand of man.

I find it confusing to believe one is ok and the other is not.

Conservative, Liberal, both philosophies seem to be half wrong in this debate.

What WOULD Jesus do? I can only guess! Everything I have been taught leads me to believe that he would not tolerate either being killed.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Or was it, "Thou shalt not kill except in the case of!"

I am a democrat and vote accordingly. Unfortunately that means that I vote for a platform that allows abortions to continue, and that is my choice, and probably will one day be my cross to bear.

Let me suggest that each of us look at the issues of both abortion and capital punishment as the killing of humans by humans. Now without using political affiliation as a reason to decide, if each of us decide by the suggested criteria of killing = killing, where do you stand?

Are you as dug in about your stand on it as a minute ago?

I find it difficult to stand firm on what I would consider hypocritical ground, and find it just as difficult to understand how anyone could agree on one and not the other as unyieldingly as has been posted here.

As for me I will probably wrestle with this conflict for the rest of my life.

he also said to follow the laws of the land, too... if you do not follow the laws, you get punished.

anytime your going to follow a mythical figure, your going to be confused about things anyway. if you don't want the death penalty, then find a way to keep the thugs from killing people in the first place... then no one will ever die by the death penalty.

Perhaps you are correct! I probably should have left religion out of the equation.

So with the assumption that killing is killing, what is your stand?

I agree with you, I oppose premeditated taking of life of human beings by human beings

the difference in how the issues of abortion and death penalty are viewed lies in what is subjectively considered 'human life'

I think those who support abortions can do so because they dont humanize life until it is 'in the world', leaving anything growing in the belly a mere object at the mercy of its owner...

I think those who support death penalty do so because they view the life of a killer as less valuable than other life and distinguishing that life as a 'service' to the more worthy lives who havent killed

i believe that an eye for an eye is a good philosophy. since i don't believe in karma, that is the better way. everyone knows the laws and how they are punishable, so if there was no murders, there would be no death penalty. If your going to illegally take someone elses life, then you should pay the penalty.

I cant speak for anyone else, I can only speak for myself.

Life is precious. How precious any given life is ultimately comes down to personal values, and societal interaction. Life is precious, life shouldn't be destroyed without a serious weighing of the circumstances.

However to say that life should never be taken leads to other possible horrors, some of which are far worse for everyone involved. Many just wars have left millions dead to save untold loss of life and liberty. In fact it is doubtful many of us would be here having this conversation if noble men had never stood up to tyrants with deadly force.

I also believe in the personalization of life. My life is more precious to me than anything else. Some parents shift, and the lives of there children become the most precious things to them. Some people find that concepts can be more precious than there own lives. Who am I to tell people what to value?

That is at the heart of my beliefs. That I should not judge the values of another as they effect only themselves.

Rights require a contract between the individual, and the society and they form the basis of our social interactions with each other. They set on rails the extent of just actions we can perform without infringing on another person's rights.

Society is harmed when a persons rights are infringed without recourse, it removes the trust that makes societies function. Placing value in these things makes me carefully consider what is right for society and what is wrong.

I do not know what is right or wrong regarding the death penalty. I know our justice system is flawed, I know witness testimony is often incorrect even when well intentioned and I know innocent people are imprisoned and placed on death row. When I dig deep on the death penalty I stand on the side of letting loose murder's to better insure that innocents are not unjustly punished. I would need a very high standard of evidence indeed to feel death could be a just punishment.

My stance on Abortion is also about rights, and responsibility. The role of a parent is the most responsibly taxing role we take on. (it takes far more responsibility than any other roll we typically take on). The rights of an individual in our society are determined with how we interact with society, and our ability to take on responsibility and be responsible for our actions.

A mentally stable mature adult with a child is expected to have an enormous ability to be responsible for his/her actions. I am at a place in my life where if I were to be a father I would have no hesitation about my ability to carry those responsibilities, both to my children, and my obligation to society.

Labeling:characterizing: Things are what they are capable of . . . what do I mean by this. A coffee pot is a coffee pot for its ability to facilitate the creation and storage of coffee. An adult human is an adult human because it has all kinds of functions, and has lived a certain duration. These characteristics are what make a human adult.
A fetus that has not yet even developed a brain is not a child. Human children are what they are because they have certain characteristics, and abilities. They do not have the judgement of an adult, and thus do not have the societal abilities there rights provide them until they do develop that judgement.

A fetus without a brain has a net 0 societal interaction. Untold numbers of fetuses have naturally aborted since humanity has been mature and responsible enough to form societies. They have an emotional impact in the lives of those who considered there potential, what could have been, what will never be. Moving, poignant, not to be disregarded but by the most callous.

However, when you place a life into a situation where you have no ability to be a responsible adult, it is well documented to not end with a good outcome for everyone involved, nor society as a whole. I think often times birth control, and abortion are actually the most responsible decision a person can make. Even if this where not true, the removal of the reproductive right to make this decision has a negative impact on society. Whenever a right is restricted or removed responsibility is reduced, the expectation is shifted.

Where you lack a right you lack the legal recourse to take charge and effect an outcome. Society does not recognize your abilities, and restricts your freedom. What is replaced? The state will replace your reproductive rights with a mandate. That mandate can change, laws change all the time. China uses its state mandated reproductive rights to enforce birth limitations, and forced euthanasia.

TYVM, id rather leave it to the individual and raise the expectation of responsible actions, THANKS.

=====================

TLDR

Rights make society go, restricting rights reduces the expectations of responsible actions. High standards for evidence and personal responsibility are good things.

I agree.
A friend of mine was just convicted of murdering his wife.
He stabbed her some 20 odd times with a fish fillet knife.
Let's get all our Liberal friends to protest his incarceration and possible death penalty.

Here is the headline;

http://www.alpineavalanche.com/news/article_ec269cf8-6ea6-11e1-b4a3-001871e3ce6c.html

Send all your protest letters to;
Pioneer@fspioneer.com