Abortion

[columbus]

Sorry, my wording was bad. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal. Edited and fixed.

What Zimmerman did wasn't illegal. But it was still wrong.

I am not one to let the government tell me what is right or wrong.
Tom

 

[Sha'irullah]

No, but they are genetically human. So genetics isn't the key point. Agreed?

Genetics is the keypoint as the life you are killing is a human lifeform that contains potential like any other child.

If they are not breathing, they die. Now, there may be a respirator helping them breath, but such would not work for a fetus.

A fetus is a life dependent upon the mother so your point is nonsensical.

An embryo does not have the potential to become a human being *by itself*. It requires the body of a woman in order to be able to grow and develop.

And again, *potential* isn't the same as reality.

So the fact a little girl will one day become a woman does not mean you should act teach that girl how to be a proper person?

Because North Korea has no launched a nuke does not mean they will never launch a nuke?

So any notion of the future is pointless and can never happen and should never be taken into regard of one's actions?

I must seriously ponder if you are intoxicated right now because your standard for your argument literally would render you a couch potato if you had no sense of a causeul future.

What? Do you deny that the woman who is getting the abortion doesn't want that fetus inside of her?

The same way I do not want to deal with my neighbors so probably yes in many cases. But it does not give me the right to kill my neighbors or claim they are non human.

The fetus most certainly *is* taking over the woman's body. It is feeding off of her, it is growing inside of her. It is suppressing her immune system.

So kill all children for taking up resources?

I did not think you would go full Stalin in such a literal manner.

Just because you wish to kill others does not make it right, you need to seriously get help and find peace in your life.

If the woman wants that fetus out of her body, she has an absolute right to make sure that happens.

Of course the same way I have a right to kill my children for being a burden to me. Afterall their potential to be adults does not matter . It is not like they will ever get jobs or anything.

Will nilly abortion? Really? Let's face it, using abortion as a means of birth control is stupid. It is much, much less costly and destructive to simply use BC. it is when BC fails that abortion becomes a crucial choice to have.

What are you talking about? Nobody not even you talked about using abortion as birth control. I am arguing for birth control and contraception as the primary means to prevent abortion.

That made no sense at all that I can determine. And it certainly didn't address the point: a potential isn't a reality. The fetus is NOT YET a person. So no moral consideration is owed.

Again, I addressed this before and with your same logic there exist no reality outside of your external mind that should concern you.

Yes, huan fetuses have human DNA and some can go on to develop into adults. As pointed out above, these are irrelevant. What is relevant is the current status, not the future status.

What is relevant is that they are living breathing things that do not wish to die. They are a byproduct of your own body.

No, my logic is good. It is based on different values than yours. That doe it bad logic.

No, there is a logical step to argue for abortion but it is limited in scope. You arguments make all sorts of broad action morally justified and very haunting ones at that.

*POTENTIAL* That one word is what makes it not murder.

*sarcasm*

I guess I am gonna go kill my children since they have no potential to develop full brains that allow for moral reciprocation . I mean you said it is right to do?

*sarcasm*

 

[Curious George]

Genetics is the keypoint as the life you are killing is a human lifeform that contains potential like any other child.


A fetus is a life dependent upon the mother so your point is nonsensical.


So the fact a little girl will one day become a woman does not mean you should act teach that girl how to be a proper person?

Because North Korea has no launched a nuke does not mean they will never launch a nuke?

So any notion of the future is pointless and can never happen and should never be taken into regard of one's actions?

I must seriously ponder if you are intoxicated right now because your standard for your argument literally would render you a couch potato if you had no sense of a causeul future.



The same way I do not want to deal with my neighbors so probably yes in many cases. But it does not give me the right to kill my neighbors or claim they are non human.




So kill all children for taking up resources?

I did not think you would go full Stalin in such a literal manner.

Just because you wish to kill others does not make it right, you need to seriously get help and find peace in your life.



Of course the same way I have a right to kill my children for being a burden to me. Afterall their potential to be adults does not matter . It is not like they will ever get jobs or anything.



What are you talking about? Nobody not even you talked about using abortion as birth control. I am arguing for birth control and contraception as the primary means to prevent abortion.



Again, I addressed this before and with your same logic there exist no reality outside of your external mind that should concern you.



What is relevant is that they are living breathing things that do not wish to die. They are a byproduct of your own body.



No, there is a logical step to argue for abortion but it is limited in scope. You arguments make all sorts of broad action morally justified and very haunting ones at that.




*sarcasm*

I guess I am gonna go kill my children since they have no potential to develop full brains that allow for moral reciprocation . I mean you said it is right to do?

*sarcasm*

What if I told you the only reason that you do not have the right to kill anything is because it has only because such a right has been limited. The only way that such a right can be limited is if the government interest in keeping alive, whatever you do kill or want to kill, outweighs the rights of yours that a limitation not to kill would impose. If your interest outweighs the government interest then you retain the right to kill.

So while it does somewhat matter where life begins, it is not necessarily of the upmost importance. At some point the a government has no right to interfere with what you do or do not kill. We seem to disagree where that point is.

So please articulate what governmental interests are in preventing an abortion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

he difference between pro-life and anti-abortion groups are the basis of ethical standards in shape of legality. Pro-lifers do not wish to abolish abortion in all forms in most cases and simply make a moral ground for conceivement of children while anti abortionist oppose abortion on both legal and moral grounds wishing for its abolishment altogether regardless of moral postulates.

You're splitting hairs over this one. It's why the AP style guide specifically uses "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" so the debate doesn't revolve around semantics rather than the actual position.
And, yes, it is utter and total hypocrisy to call yourself "pro-life" when you support the death penalty and non-defensive wars.

Sexuality is best left to parents although I see concerns even in that . . . my own stepmother kept her mouth shut I should add but she is very deranged.

Very few parents do discuss such things with their children. And if sex ed is best left to the parents, why not history, science, social studies, and math?

Planned Parenthood is not anti-abortion, it performs abortions and even if not many it still does.

Planned Parenthood is doing more than any other group out there to reduce the number of abortions that happen. Like them or not, their goal is to prevent the want of abortion from even arising in the first place by offering education and contraception to the community.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What if I told you the only reason that you do not have the right to kill anything is because it has only because such a right has been limited. The only way that such a right can be limited is if the government interest in keeping alive, whatever you do kill or want to kill, outweighs the rights of yours that a limitation not to kill would impose. If your interest outweighs the government interest then you retain the right to kill.

You are now talking about consequentialism at its basic level and more specifically Mohist consequentialism. Sure this is a viable model for ethics in the most practical sense and also provides exception as to why I do accept abortion on certain ground but I have already taken this into considering hence I am not anti-abortion.

So while it does somewhat matter where life begins, it is not necessarily of the upmost importance. At some point the a government has no right to interfere with what you do or do not kill. We seem to disagree where that point is.

I fully agree with you which is why I completely desire the government to not fund elective abortions as it remove the authority of life and death out of government hands which would be as bad as an inflicting religion.

Yes if a child birth endangers a mother an abortion is completely acceptable as a fetus is of less value than the mother. Yes it is even permissible if a mother is psychologically scarred due to circumstances like rape, prior mental impairments, or sexual imcompetent an abortion is fine and even desirable to me.

But a fully competent adult making an elective abortion is an adult that should know the consequences of sex and be the sole authority of their decisions. Forgoing sexual biology is no harder than foregoing our other natural instincts and needs like polygamy, violence and ecologically safe environments.

So please articulate what governmental interests are in preventing an abortion?

I do not understand the context of this question. I do not believe in having a government prevent abortions in any direct action. The question is moot

 

[Sha'irullah]

You're splitting hairs over this one. It's why the AP style guide specifically uses "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" so the debate doesn't revolve around semantics rather than the actual position.

Hmmm I did not notice this, I will have to go back and see. Also lovely seeing your purple text again

And, yes, it is utter and total hypocrisy to call yourself "pro-life" when you support the death penalty and non-defensive wars.

I am in very limited support for death penalty and I believe in strict reduction of military spending. I only believe in defensive wars to begin with which is why I am against most foreign conflicts America has ever had.

The only reason I am pro death penalty is due to the lack of trust another person could have if he or she has unjustly taken away another life. I view it as a matter of ensuring future life to live unheeded by violence.

Very few parents do discuss such things with their children. And if sex ed is best left to the parents, why not history, science, social studies, and math?

Talking to a very self learned person although that is not universally applicable to everybody. I am still sketchy on matters like this obviously as I see many problems looming int he distance and even present.

But academic subjects are not moral subjects, sexuality on the other hand is as it leads to a life of responsibility and touches on subjects of personal intimacy. My own girlfriend was completely sexually ignorant despite having gone through sexual education and having some of the most dirtiest humored parents possible. Her mother loves making foul penis jokes .

She still had no idea on the fundamentals of sex still yet can learn geometric abstracts and all sorts of 3D nonsense in art. I had to teach her everything and for over 3 years she has remembered it. I recall going through sex ed in 5th grade and I assume she went through the same but I personally believe that either it is lacking or it is taught to an audience too young. I cannot pinpoint the problem and I also never went through high school so you will have to inform me on this stuff as well.

Planned Parenthood is doing more than any other group out there to reduce the number of abortions that happen. Like them or not, their goal is to prevent the want of abortion from even arising in the first place by offering education and contraception to the community.

I am aware but Planned Parenthood providing abortions is not why I oppose them though. It actually has nothing to do with why I oppose them.

I oppose only a small portion of Planned Parenthood in that I do not believe in the need of the government to have such invested interest in human sexuality. I just believe it deserves a reduction in public funding and that is about it .

 

[Curious George]

You are now talking about consequentialism at its basic level and more specifically Mohist consequentialism. Sure this is a viable model for ethics in the most practical sense and also provides exception as to why I do accept abortion on certain ground but I have already taken this into considering hence I am not anti-abortion.


I fully agree with you which is why I completely desire the government to not fund elective abortions as it remove the authority of life and death out of government hands which would be as bad as an inflicting religion.

Yes if a child birth endangers a mother an abortion is completely acceptable as a fetus is of less value than the mother. Yes it is even permissible if a mother is psychologically scarred due to circumstances like rape, prior mental impairments, or sexual imcompetent an abortion is fine and even desirable to me.

But a fully competent adult making an elective abortion is an adult that should know the consequences of sex and be the sole authority of their decisions. Forgoing sexual biology is no harder than foregoing our other natural instincts and needs like polygamy, violence and ecologically safe environments.


I do not understand the context of this question. I do not believe in having a government prevent abortions in any direct action. The question is moot

Perfect we are in agreement that no law should be imposed that prohibits abortion.

Can you please explain how the government's funding, both directly and indirectly if you see a distinction, medical assistance to include abortion is problematic if we agree that the government has no authority to prevent abortion?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Some times a fetus is born after 9 months and it is perfectly formed and looks completely normal. But it does not start to breathe. Doctors may slap it or shock it or inject drugs but nothing works. The fetus was never a living person. You cannot say a baby died because a baby never lived. The fetus was a potential person, not an actual person. You cannot kill something that was never a person.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I view it as a matter of ensuring future life to live unheeded by violence.

The death penalty has not been demonstrated to deter violence. And it runs the risk of putting an innocent person to death for a crime they did not commit. Sure, the wrong person can go to jail or prison, but incarceration can be ended and undone. Death is permanent.

and having some of the most dirtiest humored parents possible. Her mother loves making foul penis jokes .

That isn't a substitute for sex ed, and part of the reason why we so desperately need it because people learn from such inaccurate sources rather than learning facts.

I oppose only a small portion of Planned Parenthood in that I do not believe in the need of the government to have such invested interest in human sexuality.

Considering sex deals with things such as health, disease, and population, it seems to me the state has a very strong reason to have such an interest in it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And even on that one subject, they generally oppose policies that reduce abortion. They oppose age appropriate sex Ed. They oppose cranking up funding for anti-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood.

...and basically any measure that would persuade pregnant women not to abort by making motherhood a better option. If a strategy doesn’t involve punishing women for their “sinful” behaviour, the so-called pro-life movement isn’t interested.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If by human you're referring to our species, then, yes, even a zygote is human. But humanness per se does not command moral consideration.
Is she capable of pain, or fear, or happiness? A person doesn't need competence or intelligence to command moral consideration

A fetus develops a brain along with other premature neurological features, it is at this point the capability to be human starts. That is all that is need to employ consideration for this life form regardless of how insignificant you think it is. What about this fetus makes you believe that it cannot feel pain or hold poorly developed neurological functions if they are ALREADY FORMING.

Again, it is not a blob of flesh.

Personhood involves self-interest, sentience, &c, not potential. Membership in a future category does not confer the rights and responsibilities of that category on one's current situation.
Neither species, capacity for reciprocation, nor awareness of proffered moral behavior is relevant,

And sentience is merely a byproduct of a brain I am sure, a fetus develops one. So my question would then be how much of a brain is needed for it to be of consideration? Cause with your same argument I could apply it to walking, talking children.

Yet as stated before a fetus is already in development
though. Morality isn't a contract.
How are you defining "human," Sha'irullah?
Again, your conflation of foetus and baby is your own peculiar belief.

Baby is not exactly a scientific word, it is colloquially used at very scientifically inaccurate periods which is why no woman says she is "pregnant with a fetus." We always conceive potential which is why we plan for our very futures knowing it will affect us.

So what's your point? Mentally challenged people can suffer and hurt, they can fear, they value their lives. That's why they're usually accorded moral consideration.
Again, you're according the moral consideration of a future status to an entity that doesn't currently have that status. You don't salute a ten year old just 'cause he plans to become an army officer.

Again another inaccurate point as a salutation is a result of what somebody has become. You would still nurture and ensure that child has the capability to fulfill his/her dream the same way a father would take pride in his child's aspirations and endorse them. Only horrible parents oppose a child's success and want them to live a life of poverty.

The sme would apply for a fetus becoming a child, such potential would be nurtured and encouraged till that point is reached.

What does awareness of rights or of moral status have to do with anything?

The fact you shifted your standard as a cow cannot be morally reciprocal like other humans yet a fetus is no different than a cow. The cow lives yet the fetus dies, you are treating the two circumstances unfairly.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. I do believe it can be morally justified to restrain someone if he poses a threat to other people.

But that alone is based off potential. A sense of future action which you just said lacks consideration.

Either I'm being very unclear or you're being very obtuse. When did I ever say the mentally challenged had no claim to moral consideration?

I am using your standards in other contexts, I thought it was pretty obvious.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The death penalty has not been demonstrated to deter violence. And it runs the risk of putting an innocent person to death for a crime they did not commit. Sure, the wrong person can go to jail or prison, but incarceration can be ended and undone. Death is permanent.

Incarceration is expensive and torturous. The mere principle is why I support it and not because it deters violence, as anybody depraved enough to kill is without consideration to his own well being.

Also the data to say that a person is wrongly convicted of death occurs en masse does not exist. There are cases yes but that is a result of police department putting pressure on individuals due to operational practices that are deplorable. Departments prefer an outcome whether it be right or wrong in over it being fair and concise.

America requires a lot less policing and very moderate policing procedures that do not make every drug, traffic violation, and rude conduct a matter of the state.

That isn't a substitute for sex ed, and part of the reason why we so desperately need it because people learn from such inaccurate sources rather than learning facts.

I never said it was, I am just stating that nothing in sexual education or being surrounded by very sexually humored people ever dinged a single dint in her awareness of sex. This girl did not even know of male testicles, sperm, reproduction, condoms, birth control, abortion, or even what a penis is for.

As fresh as a newborn babe and I assume sexual education collectively goes over all these things in some fashion as basic knowledge is required to even understand this. I have male friends who lack almost complete knowledge regarding anything sexual and it baffles me how they do not know how to protect themselves during sex, these are all people who went through the entire school system.

I do want sex education to exist but I also want to know why I am experiencing such sexually incompetent people in my youth in great abundance everywhere I go. My dirty humor is going on deaf ears as nobody understands the punchline but sexually competent people and that is very few.

Considering sex deals with things such as health, disease, and population, it seems to me the state has a very strong reason to have such an interest in it.

And I agree although I am completely undecided to what extent it should because federal powers tend to wiggle their way into things and spread mediocrity as a norm. Government has lead people into literally not understanding how to pour their own gasoline or hold rudimentary knowledge on adult matters.

If state government can turn adults into infantile dupes than I can only fear federal even more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Incarceration is expensive and torturous.

It's more expensive to pursue the death penalty. And incarceration needs to be made more humane, such as ending the practice of isolated confinement.

anybody depraved enough to kill is without consideration to his own well being.

The military? Self defense? Accident? There is no way to substantiate this claim.

Also the data to say that a person is wrongly convicted of death occurs en masse does not exist.

I didn't claim it does. But, rather, even just one life is one too many, and makes the risk too great.

This girl did not even know of male testicles, sperm, reproduction, condoms, birth control, abortion, or even what a penis is for.

If she really had sex ed, it was some pretty crappy and shoddy sex ed that doesn't deserve to be called sex ed. Such a statement is actually enough to make me wonder if she even took freshman biology.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Perfect we are in agreement that no law should be imposed that prohibits abortion.

We were always in agreement it seems as people tend to think my opinions are akin to fundamentalist Christians

Can you please explain how the government's funding, both directly and indirectly if you see a distinction, medical assistance to include abortion is problematic if we agree that the government has no authority to prevent abortion?

Simple, as abortion is often an unjustified killing of a lifeform I do not believe the federal government should arbitrarily control such matters. The same goes for wars, death penalty or killing of any other life form which is why I do not believe tax dollars should be used to subsidize the cattle industry.

I believe it should be fair all around and both state and federal should come to agreements on expenditures for things like war since constitutionally we only have a notion of a minimal federal army. I do not believe in the federal government controlling any process of death that could become taxing and unjustifiable morally or practically.

. . . back to abortion:

With that being stated abortions should only be federally or state funded if my previous criteria of mental damage, or biological damage are of concern. Other than that the government powers that be should not infantilize any said person into thinking their own actions are solvable when basic protections should have been used.

Again, unlimited copulation is not a right nor is it a biological necessity to thrive. Teens have been jacking it for years without making anybody pregnant quite frankly. I do not view sex as a matter of having fun as even in nature sex is a risky venture that has ways of it not leading to childbirth.

Should contraception be available for free, yes in some extent it should especially toward youth. But that is still arguable for some of my social and political ilk which I may emotionally agree with.

 

[Curious George]

We were always in agreement it seems as people tend to think my opinions are akin to fundamentalist Christians

Don't worry, I don't think that.

Simple, as abortion is often an unjustified killing of a lifeform I do not believe the federal government should arbitrarily control such matters.

This is what I don't understand. I cannot see how discriminating against this specific type of medical operation is not more controlling than not.

Perhaps you can connect the dots to show me why you believe that say paying for an abortion for X, when they are paying for all medical services for X, is "arbitrarily controlling" anything.

Should contraception be available for free, yes in some extent it should especially toward youth. But that is still arguable for some of my social and political ilk which I may emotionally agree with.

While this is tangential, it does potentially deal with indirect funding. Do you believe that it is equally as arbitrarily controlling when the government funds this which then enables a program like planned parenthood to use government funding for these measures and donations for abortive measures? The argument is that the government is still funding abortions and that the rest is just shifting of numbers in the books.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's more expensive to pursue the death penalty. And incarceration needs to be made more humane, such as ending the practice of isolated confinement.

There is a reason for it being expensive and none of them are necessary, I keep hearing this statistic brought up and it baffles me why people do not understand that the amount of money powered into deathrow is ludicrous along with the appeals.

And yes I believe incarceration need to be more humane as it promotes a humane society.

The military? Self defense? Accident? There is no way to substantiate this claim.

How on earth did you leap all the way over to this subject? Considering that I only believe in a defensive military I could not call military action murder if it is defensive. By this response you do not even believe in self defense if that is the case.

I didn't claim it does. But, rather, even just one life is one too many, and makes the risk too great.

Tell that to Californians drivers who kill people with cars at ludicrously high rates. I hear this statement all the time and only the most stupidest person would believe it as it is so easily out of context of reality. Even for a child this is asinine.

I can take this same line of thought and ban cars, pools, sports, construction labor, mining, guns, athletics, alcohol, marijuana, and clean energy.

Seriously, just because it is sad does not make it bad. I am of the type that I hate cars for being environmentally unfriendly and the fact they promote laziness and what I dub "concrete living." If you want consistency, ban all cars for their well proven and high mortality rates which far exceed the total US death penalty toll for the last couple of decades tenfold.

If she really had sex ed, it was some pretty crappy and shoddy sex ed that doesn't deserve to be called sex ed. Such a statement is actually enough to make me wonder if she even took freshman biology.

I know she took biology and I also know she sucked at it. She is does not claim to be scientifically literate and enjoys her artwork which is mostly classical inspired, she is quite the Nicolas Poussin .

But point being is that I am unsure if she even understood it, thought it was a joke, paid no attention or just glossed it over because she is incredibly obsessed over dates and nitpicks over details.

But I then see this same trend for a lot of males whom I would assume of all people would hold strong sexual interest. I also live in California I should add.

I am not making an argument out of this I am just curious about what could have happened because I assume male kids would definitely show interest in this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How on earth did you leap all the way over to this subject? Considering that I only believe in a defensive military I could not call military action murder if it is defensive. By this response you do not even believe in self defense if that is the case.

The word used was kill, not murder. Most consider the two words to be separate and distinctively different. Military actions generally aren't considered murder, but they tend to involve killing.

Tell that to Californians drivers who kill people with cars at ludicrously high rates.

I do think we need to be much more strict about driving laws, license renewal, and who may or may not drive. And there is a difference between an accident among private citizens and the state granting itself the right to sanction the killing of a citizen and it sentencing someone who is innocent to die. One happens by random chance, the other by deliberate choice.

There is a reason for it being expensive and none of them are necessary, I keep hearing this statistic brought up and it baffles me why people do not understand that the amount of money powered into deathrow is ludicrous along with the appeals.

The appeals and other measures are necessary because without it would mean many more innocent people who were wrongfully convicted would have been wrongfully put to death. Though we've come along ways in developing a more ideal legal system, it is far from perfect, and this lack of perfection is why we need the appeals and and other processes and steps involved when the death penalty is sought.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Don't worry, I don't think that.



This is what I don't understand. I cannot see how discriminating against this specific type of medical operation is not more controlling than not.

How can you not see that? The government is washing its hands clean of an action, it is a lack of control. You believe that the government should exist to wiggle its ways into your life and tell you how stupid you are and treat you like an infant?

New Jersey and Oregon passed laws so you cannot pump your own gas and people sincerely believe if you pump gas you will smell like gasoline and that it requires a degree to pump gas. They did this to create jobs for underskilled workers and instead create idiots tenfold to jobs.

People scared to pump gas because they think it is a technical skill that requires a college education . . . .

This is the idiocy I am trying to prevent. People so incompetent that they do not understand applying a condom and using birth control toppled with the fact they treat pregnancy like a casual affair. Smart women do not gallivant around spreading their legs to any male they find amusing.

Again, I believe in freedom from oppression but also the cultivation of self discipline and responsibility.

Perhaps you can connect the dots to show me why you believe that say paying for an abortion for X, when they are paying for all medical services for X, is "arbitrarily controlling" anything.

Now you are confusing me because this has nothing to do with what I said. I do not believe the government should arbitrarily control who dies and lives, I am not talking about what the government regulates although that is still a topic worth discussing.

Not all medical services require the termination of another person's life so obviously I do not want the government telling anybody they cannot commit suicide or that they should kill a baby/fetus.

While this is tangential, it does potentially deal with indirect funding. Do you believe that it is equally as arbitrarily controlling when the government funds this which then enables a program like planned parenthood to use government funding for these measures and donations for abortive measures? The argument is that the government is still funding abortions and that the rest is just shifting of numbers in the books.

Not sure what you mean by this also as it seems out of order. If you mean is it right if the government funds Planned Parenthood then I would say yes although PP should keep a separate expenditure for elective abortions which could only be done through private donations or paid service.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The word used was kill, not murder. Most consider the two words to be separate and distinctively different. Military actions generally aren't considered murder, but they tend to involve killing.

Ahh sorry about that, I miswrote then.

I do think we need to be much more strict about driving laws, license renewal, and who may or may not drive. And there is a difference between an accident among private citizens and the state granting itself the right to sanction the killing of a citizen and it sentencing someone who is innocent to die. One happens by random chance, the other by deliberate choice.

But if your standard is the preservation of life then cars and other such things cannot be ignored as we do not need to have clean energy or pools. Even so why dismiss the usage of cars for purpose of murder which is still very high henceforth vehicular homicide is a notable police issue. This is also not counting the murders done by knife or other means which you earlier stated counts if only one innocent person is murdered.

The appeals and other measures are necessary because without it would mean many more innocent people who were wrongfully convicted would have been wrongfully put to death. Though we've come along ways in developing a more ideal legal system, it is far from perfect, and this lack of perfection is why we need the appeals and and other processes and steps involved when the death penalty is sought.

Again, assuming it is a prevalent issue.

 

[columbus]

If you mean is it right if the government funds Planned Parenthood then I would say yes although PP should keep a separate expenditure for elective abortions which could only be done through private donations or paid service.

That is how it's done now. It's illegal to use government funding to provide abortion.
The huge majority of PP funding comes from private sources, fees and grants. What the extra money from the government facilities is providing low or no cost services to low income people. Services like preventative care, pap smears and breast cancer screening.
Tom