Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[SkepticThinker]

It is eminently demonstrable that when a murderer is executed, that person can never kill again. It is likewise demonstrable that not capturing and holding a serial killer usually leads to recidivist killings. If every murderer died instantly upon their first killing, the crime rate would be lowered for murder.

Executions are demonstrably less costly than 9 years or more on the Row.

What you said was this, "Executing them (obeying God, reducing the crime rate) and lowering taxes (when God is obeyed, wealth flows)."

Yep, when a murderer is murdered, they can't murder again. And the murderer of the murderer has engaged in an act of hypocrisy.

When a person is locked up in prison, they can't go around murdering in the general population anymore, so that takes care of the problem too.
The part I was referring to when I pointed out that you ignored facts of reality, is that it's actually cheaper to house an inmate for life than it is to execute them, as the other poster demonstrated to you. You just brushed it off here and said it isn't true. Simply shrugging and saying "nuh uh" isn't a counterargument.

The other part of your sentence that you've asserted without demonstration is the latter part where you talk about lowering taxes (?) and your assertion that "when God is obeyed, wealth flows." That's just a bald assertion. Also, why do you think executing people has anything to do with lowering taxes?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not taking the chance of killing a living person. For example, people were comfortable (if one can use that word) aborting a baby at X weeks, until preemies in NICUs were viable at X-Y weeks.

What are you talking about? I have always granted, for the sake of agument, that abortion is killing living person. My argument has always been that this alone does not justify making it illegal.

It is not justified to force an adult to make a choice where they risk their lives (unless that is a career commitment like first responder or soldier). It IS justified to disallow adults from killing children.

Again, this is not addressing the core of the argument you need to make. If I can deny organs to a dying child, a person should be permitted to deny the use of their womb to an unborn child. You have yet to justify the distinction.

I am FOR the choice of abortion for ectopic pregnancies and other situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. I am against "I just don't feel up to it" equals kill it or "Who knows if I can afford this baby" equals can't do adoption.

So you are against the right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Valjean]

Of the 613 Bible laws in the Penteteuch, over 200 have direct health benefit and most of the others, obvious indirect benefit.

If every murderer died instantly after their first or only killing, most people--logical people--would feel safer in terms of deterrent and actual murder numbers for mass killings.

Murder, as a crime, has a low recidivism rate. It's usually either impulsive or targeted at a specific individual for a specific offense.
Armed robbery, burglary or drunk driving, on the other hand, are frequently habitual.
Maybe society would be better served by executing the habitual criminals?

 

[Valjean]

Executions are demonstrably less costly than 9 years or more on the Row.

I'm not so sure. It was my understanding that, in the US, the total cost of a trial and life imprisonment was less than the cost of two complex trials (automatic retrial), imprisonment and an execution.

I know. It seems counter-intuitive to me, too, but those are the figures I read, from people who have the numbers.

 

[Valjean]

A murder who is executed will NEVER murder another person. Deterrence is another matter--although in countries where executions are prompt, there are definitely lower crime rates.

They also tend to be police states....

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Nobody wishes to harm an unborn child, or even a fœtus.

The sole intent of abortion is to do harm to an unborn child. It serves no other purpose.

Therefore - if you defend abortion - you wish to do harm to unborn children.

Abortion is a way of preventing a woman and child living lives of poverty and misery, it gives a woman a chance in life.

Abstinence - or at least proper use of birth control - until one is ready to have a child works even better - not even mentioning adoption.

None of these methods require killing an unborn child.

Unborn child? Is a fœtus a child?

Looks like you are about to play a round of word gymnastics to justify executing the unborn.

What qualities of human life confer moral consideration?

I don't think someone who feels the need to ask that question is the one who should make that decision.

You have already conceded that it is human and that it is alive - enough said.

You are using the same arguments that slave-owners and those who commit genocide have used.

Does a fœtus exhibit these?

They are living human beings - so yes.

Punish? How can one punish a thing unaware of it's punishment?

Execution is a punishment that can be meted out without the awareness of the one being punished.

What would the punishment be intended to achieve?

The death of the inconvenient human life.

Punishing an unconscious thing is like 'punishing' a rock.

No - punishing a rock would be like punishing a rock.

Executing an unconscious goat would kill the goat. Same goes for executing a conscious goat.

Executing an unconscious human being would kill the human being. Same goes for executing a conscious human being.

The state of consciousness of the one being executed literally does not matter - because the end result is always their death.

Are you seriously arguing that my killing you while you are unconscious - as punishment for your existence being inconvenient to me - should be viewed as nothing more than me "punishing a rock"?

You seem to be attributing malevolence to abortion supporters.

Mainly to those who perform the abortions - but supporters aren't far behind.

Stop fooling yourself There is none. Support for abortion is done for benevolent reasons.

Slave owners said the same. They put black people in chains for their own good.

Didn't Hitler talk about the need to kill the Jews to save the Aryan race or something?

Doing horrible things for "benevolent reasons" is just doing horrible things - while trying to justify the absurdity of what you have done with yourself.

I'm all for personal responsibility. For example, if a soldier kills civilians, his captain cannot take the sin upon himself, only one person was believed able to do that -- and he was crucified long ago.

Not sure that really applies - command structure and the placing of blame and responsibility have their place in military and war - not in society at large.

The soldier is detested of God and condemned to Hell. His sin is upon himself.

That is a possibility.

But abortion? Whom does one sin against?

Your own children - yourself - and God.

A fœtus has no claim to moral consideration. It is not a person.

That's just word gymnastics to justify all the horrible things you mean to do.

You'd fit in well with slave-owners and Nazis.

Not seeing your point -- clarify?

Your use of the word "person" rather than "woman" was an attack in this war of words and ideas.

Same goes for your use of the word "person" and "fetus" - rather than "human" and "child".

You swap out words often enough and people stop noticing - and soon enough they are brainwashed.

Notice how people are afraid to claim that a trans-anything is not an actual member of the biological sex they claim to be?

This is how "men can menstrate/give birth too" got started. And it is absurd.

Isn't a "leftist agenda" identical to the values expounded by Christ? The Beatitudes sound a lot like Hippie values from the '60s.

No - they are not.

Obviously, but again, I'm not following. What's your point?

It wasn't obvious to you - because you said "person" and not "woman".

Only a biological female - a woman - can give birth - none of the infinite number of imagined genders can do it.

Only one.

Noöne's claiming it has, but, again, I'm not getting your point.

If no one is making that claim - then say it.

Say that only biological females - women - can get pregnant and give birth.

This you'll have to explain. The brownshirts were authoritarian, right-wing thugs. Are you accusing someone of hateful violence?

That's so funny - right-wing - the liberals sure love to try to paint the Nazis as "right-wing" - but that is a completely relative metric.

The Nazis were only considered "right-wing" by the Soviets - and they would be considered very left if placed in the US political spectrum today - they were socialists.

And the brownshirts did not only commit acts of violence - but intimidation and driving propaganda.

You may be a subtle brownshirt - what with your meager word play - but a brownshirt nonetheless.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I remember you - the one in that other post who argued in defense of the lives of convicted murderers.

And here you are arguing the justification of executing unborn children. That's really flipping things upside down.

Isaiah 5 comes to mind "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

The end times are coming, my friend - and don't forget your poncho - because you are in the splash zone.

1) Nobody is arguing in favour of "harming unborn children". We are arguing in favour of a person's right to bodily autonomy.

A silly thing for someone who cares not a whit for the bodily autonomy of the unborn child to say.

The moment of conception generated a new and unique DNA sequence - independent from the mother.

Why don't you care about the bodily autonomy of the innocent that cannot defend itself?

2) We do not "shame those who value human life". We also value human life.

Sure - the whole "People who want to outlaw abortion want women to die!" - was so not a cry of shame. (Note: Sarcasm)

And no - you value human convenience over human life if you support on-demand abortion.

What we have is a largely philosophical difference regarding the import of bodily autonomy vs. right to life, the significance and personhood of a foetus, and/or the morality of aborting a foetus vs. forcing people by law to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.

You don't care about the bodily autonomy of the unborn.

A "fetus" is a "small child" or "little one" or "offspring" (many ways to translate that word) and any metric you would use to determine "personhood" could be used to disqualify already born human beings from being "persons".

The law already condemns anyone who kills another because their existence is inconvenient.

Both sides value life, we just disagree on specifics.

Nope - you value convenience over life. The wants of the large are more important than the needs of the small.

3) Nobody wants to "punish the innocent". This is honestly the most bizarre statement you can make with regards to abortion. No person has an abortion to "punish" the unborn child.

Execution is a form of punishment. Their only "crime" being that their existence was inconvenient.

That is literally no different to saying that refusing to donate your organ to a dying person is "punishing" them.

How?

A pregnant human female still has only ten fingers and ten toes - not twenty.

The unborn child inside of her is not her - those aren't her extra fingers and toes and brain stem - they belong to the other human being inside of her.

It's just plain silly, and not a reasonable characterization.

Tell me about it. What you said was way dumb.

4) Pregnancy and childbirth are not simply an "inconvenience", and you must have tremendous contempt for your own mother if that's all you think it was.

No - my mother was responsible with her body and considers herself accountable for her actions.

If I drove into you with my car and injured you to an extent that you found it more difficult to move for several weeks, had to live with extensive scarring, and missed out on several weeks of work, I doubt you'd describe the damage I'd caused as a mere "inconvenience".

Unless you are talking about rape - this analogy is terrible.

If a woman gives her consent to engage in an irresponsible reproductive act - the blame is on her if she becomes pregnant.

And it was not an "accident" - she didn't "slip" into sexual congress - it definitely takes two to tango.

Women have responded to men acting like pigs with, "Let's be pigs too" - and that does not justify executing the unborn.

And pregnancy and childbirth carry significantly more consequences than this - even if the one carrying the child doesn't even decide to raise it, or even if the foetus becomes non-viable late on in the pregnancy and has to be aborted anyway.

Not really - not today - and it would be an underlying condition that would most likely do any damage.

Which is why no one should be having sex until they are married and ready to have children - after seeing the doctor and knowing that they are healthy.

Driving a car also comes with risk - how do you believe we should tackle that? By banning cars or driving more responsibly?

Or maybe we could eliminate all the little "distractions" in those little baby seats in the back - crying and squealing all the time - no distractions means safer driving right?

That sounds like a plan you would get behind.

Pregnancy and childbirth can have a multitude of physical, biological and psychological effects on people, especially on people who do not feel able or ready (for whatever reason) to carry and give birth to (much less raise) a child.

All risks mitigated by having a loving and supportive husband before having sex and starting your family.

I understand that other people can be stressful - but that doesn't justify killing anyone.

I have witnessed the effects of post-partum depression on a person, and I have seen someone kill themselves because of it.

Is this the part where we both submit our anecdotal evidence and see which wins?

Being depressed also does not justify you killing someone.

Describing all of this as "inconvenience" displays not only a detachment from reality, but a total disregard and contempt for people.

No - this is a strawman.

The idea of "convenience" is completely subjective - one woman may be ecstatic that she is pregnant - while another is less thrilled.

It all depends on where they are in life. If they are prepared.

I never said that all pregnancies are "inconveniences" - but that your argument that killing an unborn child is justified if its existence is considered to be an "inconvenience" is absurd.

For example - if a man stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach with the intent of killing her unborn child - whether or not the woman actually wanted the child is irrelevant - it is murder.

Women do not get to arbitrarily choose which human life is considered valuable.

If you want to debate this subject honestly, deal with the moral reality.

Willfully killing babies is always wrong. Period. It does not matter what their stage of development or location is.

It is wrong. It is evil.

Don't defer to ridiculous strawmen and emotive rhetoric.

I have drawn my line in the sand - conception - that is no strawman or emotive rhetoric.

While you are all scrambling around with your word games and nonsense - I will stand at my line.

Now, state your case as to why you believe it is moral for the state to force people to remain pregnant and give birth against their will, and why you think it is okay to force people to use their own organs to support the lives of others who use them without consent.

As soon as you state your case that it is moral for the State to execute a human being when they have committed no crime and at the arbitrary whim of a woman.

Also - unless you are talking about rape again - all the women in every single one of these cases gave consent to engage in the reproductive act.

Your claim that these unborn children lack consent to be in their mother's womb would be like me arguing that the bullet did not have my consent to exit the barrel of my gun when I pulled the trigger.

And despite my protests - I would need to take responsibility for that accidental discharge of my firearm - regardless if my consent was given to the bullet.

Because - as you may or may not know - bullets are incapable of asking for consent - just like unborn children.

It's a very brutal world you live in where you feel you can judge a human being negatively - and summarily execute them - for being unable to do something they are physically incapable of doing.

Your argument that the unborn should have consent in order to stay in the womb is like putting my gun to someone's head and telling them they need to fly or I shoot.

It's sadistic and cruel.

Just wait for the day when medical science and technology allows us to grow human babies in tubes.

Boy - will your face be red - or do you think we would still be allowed to break those tubes and kill the babies within if we wanted?

Medical science and technology does not determine the worth of a human being.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I remember you - the one in that other post who argued in defense of the lives of convicted murderers.

And here you are arguing the justification of executing unborn children. That's really flipping things upside down.

Isaiah 5 comes to mind "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

The end times are coming, my friend - and don't forget your poncho - because you are in the splash zone.

Love you too, man.

A silly thing for someone who cares not a whit for the bodily autonomy of the unborn child to say.

The moment of conception generated a new and unique DNA sequence - independent from the mother.

Why don't you care about the bodily autonomy of the innocent that cannot defend itself?

Because an unborn baby does not have bodily autonomy - it is entirely depedendent on continued use of the pregnant person's body and organs to live. And no, that is not the same as a newborn being dependent on their parent. A newborn can be looked after by ANY individual.

This is no different to arguing that refusing to donate organs to a dying person is a refusal of their bodily autonomy. It is not.

Also, if you believe life and autonomy begin at the moment of conception, shouldn't you also be protesting fertility clinics? By your reasoning, they are responsible for millions upon millions of deaths per year - far more than abortion clinics.

Sure - the whole "People who want to outlaw abortion want women to die!" - was so not a cry of shame. (Note: Sarcasm)

Please deal with the arguments made in front of you.

And no - you value human convenience over human life if you support on-demand abortion.

See my argument about "convenience" below.

You don't care about the bodily autonomy of the unborn.

Because they don't have bodily autonomy.

A "fetus" is a "small child" or "little one" or "offspring" (many ways to translate that word) and any metric you would use to determine "personhood" could be used to disqualify already born human beings from being "persons".

The law already condemns anyone who kills another because their existence is inconvenient.

Except in cases of abortion, where it is justified in order to allow the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

Nope - you value convenience over life. The wants of the large are more important than the needs of the small.

Again, stop making strawmen. Deal with the arguments in front of you.

Execution is a form of punishment. Their only "crime" being that their existence was inconvenient.

Except it's not an execution. Is removing somebody from life support execution?

How?

A pregnant human female still has only ten fingers and ten toes - not twenty.

The unborn child inside of her is not her - those aren't her extra fingers and toes and brain stem - they belong to the other human being inside of her.

No human being is entitled to the use of another human beings organs, therefore the pregnant person has the right to abort them. I feelt I have been very clear in stating that this is my position, and that the life of the unborn doesn't really sway me.

No - my mother was responsible with her body and considers herself accountable for her actions.

Responsibility and accountability are irrelevant here. If a thief gets into your house because you left the window open, they are not entitled to the use of your property, and the police would not refuse to help you on the grounds that you were rresponsible. Likewise with preventable diseases. The right to help from a situation you don't want to be in is not nullified by you causing yourself to be in that state.

Unless you are talking about rape - this analogy is terrible.

If a woman gives her consent to engage in an irresponsible reproductive act - the blame is on her if she becomes pregnant.

Why does that mean it is morally okay to force them to remain pregnant and give birth against their will?

And it was not an "accident" - she didn't "slip" into sexual congress - it definitely takes two to tango.

Irrelevant. People have sex for reasons other than procreation, birth control is not 100% effective, some people are careless. That doesn't make it right to force them to go through pregnancy and childbirth.

Women have responded to men acting like pigs with, "Let's be pigs too" - and that does not justify executing the unborn.

This says a lot about you.

Not really - not today - and it would be an underlying condition that would most likely do any damage.

So you don't know anything about the effects of pregnancy?

Which is why no one should be having sex until they are married and ready to have children - after seeing the doctor and knowing that they are healthy.

Marriage is not a magical safeguard against the negative effects of pregnancy.

Driving a car also comes with risk - how do you believe we should tackle that? By banning cars or driving more responsibly?

I'll tell you one thing that doesn't help: if somebody gets in a crash because they were driving recklessly, we don't refuse to cut them out of the wreckage.

Or maybe we could eliminate all the little "distractions" in those little baby seats in the back - crying and squealing all the time - no distractions means safer driving right?

That sounds like a plan you would get behind.

You need to listen less to the voices in yoir head.

All risks mitigated by having a loving and supportive husband before having sex and starting your family.

Actually, no. These effects can actually negatively effect marriages, too.

I understand that other people can be stressful - but that doesn't justify killing anyone.

It justifies killing unborn children in the name of bodily autonomy.

Is this the part where we both submit our anecdotal evidence and see which wins?

Being depressed also does not justify you killing someone.

The point is that you are ignorant of the effects of pregnancy.

No - this is a strawman.

The idea of "convenience" is completely subjective - one woman may be ecstatic that she is pregnant - while another is less thrilled.

It all depends on where they are in life. If they are prepared.

I never said that all pregnancies are "inconveniences" - but that your argument that killing an unborn child is justified if its existence is considered to be an "inconvenience" is absurd.

I find it so ironic that you would evoke the strawman fallacy and then make a strawman yourself.

For example - if a man stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach with the intent of killing her unborn child - whether or not the woman actually wanted the child is irrelevant - it is murder.

Sure. Because the choice is up the pregnanct person, not anybody else. It is THEIR bodily autonomy that is being used.

Women do not get to arbitrarily choose which human life is considered valuable.

It isn't arbitrary. It's pretty clear there's a difference between a born and an unborn baby.

Willfully killing babies is always wrong. Period. It does not matter what their stage of development or location is.

It is wrong. It is evil.

Such simplistic moral thinking will not help you in this debate. It is also wrong to force people to go through pregnancy and childbirth against their will.

So, whose rights win out?

I have drawn my line in the sand - conception - that is no strawman or emotive rhetoric.

Then that line is just as arbitrary as any other.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

While you are all scrambling around with your word games and nonsense - I will stand at my line.

I don't feel I have engaged in any word games. From the start, I have been very clear in my argument than abortion is the act of killing an unborn child, but also that this alone does not justify making abortion illegal.

As soon as you state your case that it is moral for the State to execute a human being when they have committed no crime and at the arbitrary whim of a woman.

Wow, there is a lot of wrong to unpack there.

Firstly, "the state" is not executing anyone. They are not forcing people to have abortions against their will, so "the state" has no say in the matter beyond allowing abortion to be legal.

Secondly, not all killings are executions. You need to work on detangling these concepts in your mind.

Thirdly, it is not "the arbitrary whim" of a pregnant person. It is the perfectly reasonable decision of a human to not remain pregnant and give birth.

Do you see the difference between your characterization and mine? Mine is fairly clear and avoids using inaccurate, emotive rhetoric. Yours is almost entirely made of emotion, with no allowance for reality.

Which really sums up your entire position, really.

Also - unless you are talking about rape again - all the women in every single one of these cases gave consent to engage in the reproductive act.

Irrelevant. Just because you give consent to ride in a car doesn't mean you should be forced to get yourself out of the wreckage of a car crash.

Your claim that these unborn children lack consent to be in their mother's womb would be like me arguing that the bullet did not have my consent to exit the barrel of my gun when I pulled the trigger.

Yet another in a long line of crazily inaccurate comparisons that make leaps of moon logic. See the car crash analogy above, and the thief analogy above that.

And despite my protests - I would need to take responsibility for that accidental discharge of my firearm - regardless if my consent was given to the bullet.

Because - as you may or may not know - bullets are incapable of asking for consent - just like unborn children.

Which is why we have no problem removing bullets from people without the consent of the bullet - just like when we remove unborn babies from wombs.

It's a very brutal world you live in where you feel you can judge a human being negatively - and summarily execute them - for being unable to do something they are physically incapable of doing.

I don't judge them at all. It isn't their fault they were conceived. But that doesn't mean they have a right to be there.

Your argument that the unborn should have consent in order to stay in the womb is like putting my gun to someone's head and telling them they need to fly or I shoot.

Yet another strawman!

My argument was not that they SHOULD have consent in order to stay, but that the LACK of consent means a pregnant person has the right to remove them.

It's sadistic and cruel.

Yep. That's me.

Just wait for the day when medical science and technology allows us to grow human babies in tubes.

Boy - will your face be red - or do you think we would still be allowed to break those tubes and kill the babies within if we wanted?

Wow. Yet more voices in your head chattering.

I feel I have been very clear about this issue being about BODILY AUTONOMY and the rights of PREGNANT PEOPLE. Boy, it sure woul be odd of you to bring up a scenario where neither of those things apply and make claims about how I would still think it was okay to kill unborn children in that scenario, wouldn't it?

I mean, it would almost be as if you haven't understood a single argument I've made!

Good thing we don't live in that world. We live in your totally real, not-at-all imagined world.

 

[Valjean]

The sole intent of abortion is to do harm to an unborn child. It serves no other purpose.

Therefore - if you defend abortion - you wish to do harm to unborn children.

No. The intent is benevolent. And stop calling insensible fœtuses 'children'.

Abstinence - or at least proper use of birth control - until one is ready to have a child works even better - not even mentioning adoption.

No, abstinence doesn't work at all, as you well know. Young people simply don't stay abstinent. There have been numerous studies finding that abstinence programs yield high pregnancy and STD rates.

None of these methods require killing an unborn child.
Looks like you are about to play a round of word gymnastics to justify executing the unborn.

Yes, I am, and I see your usage of "child" and "execute" as strawmen.

I don't think someone who feels the need to ask that question is the one who should make that decision.

So you're dodging the question. Maybe you haven't thought through the issue.

You have already conceded that it is human and that it is alive - enough said.

But it's not species or humanness that confer a claim to moral consideration. This is not a simple, black and white issue. There are philosophical abstractions that apply.

You are using the same arguments that slave-owners and those who commit genocide have used.

You're obviously unfamiliar with my arguments, you're being presumptuous.
I'm arguing that all sentient, self aware organisms have a right to moral consideration. I'm arguing against exploitation and might-makes-right morality. I'm arguing that unnecessarily hurting, harming or contributing to the suffering of beings capable of suffering is wrong.
How do you see this as comparable to pro-slavery or tribalist arguments?

They are living human beings - so yes.

Are you saying all living beings exhibit self awareness, anticipation of futurity and are capable of suffering?
Again, I think this is a knee-jerk reaction you haven't thought out. Eating a strawberry is killing a living being, but I don't think you're a photosynthesist.

Execution is a punishment that can be meted out without the awareness of the one being punished.

How are you defining "punishment?" It seems to me that punishment presupposes awareness of same, and has a purpose -- presumably corrective. How does this apply to a fœtus, or even an unborn baby?

So a Isn't a "leftist agenda" identical to the values expounded by Christ? The Beatitudes sound a lot like Hippie values

No - punishing a rock would be like punishing a rock.

Prophet, you're not really thinking about this. Your responses look like knee-jerk reactions to a contrary point of view.

The state of consciousness of the one being executed literally does not matter - because the end result is always their death.

So what does matter? Their species?
And stop using "executed," it's a value-laden word that doesn't apply in this situation.

Are you seriously arguing that my killing you while you are unconscious - as punishment for your existence being inconvenient to me - should be viewed as nothing more than me "punishing a rock"?

I'm seriously saying that destroying a non-sentient thing, with no characteristics that would confer a claim to moral consideration, is like destroying any other non-sentient thing with no moral claim. There is moral equivalence.

Slave owners said the same. They put black people in chains for their own good.

Again, my argument is going right over your head. Slave owners were exploiters of beings with a right not to be exploited. They put slaves in chains for the slave owner's own good.

Didn't Hitler talk about the need to kill the Jews to save the Aryan race or something?

How is this in any way pertinent? Again, my argument is going in one ear and out the other. You're missing my points completely.

Not sure that really applies - command structure and the placing of blame and responsibility have their place in military and war - not in society at large.

Morality applies universally. It does not change if you declare yourself a military. It does not change at borders. It does not change with ethnicity, nationality or religion.

You'd fit in well with slave-owners and Nazis.

This just illustrates how you've completely misconstrued me and my moral arguments.

You don't know me.
I'm an unreconstructed Hippie radical. I'm a radical pacifist and follower of Gandhi. I don't wear leather or consume any animal products. I haven't eaten meat in 50 years. I'm an environmental and human rights activist. I've been tear gassed in anti-war, anti-imperialist demonstrations from Vietnam to Iraq. I'm very tuned in to -- and concerned with -- human rights abuse and history.
Nazis? I've always been anti-Nazi; anti-Fascist. I'm against all symbols of nationalism. I don't pledge the flag or stand for the national anthem.
And I'll bet I Know more about Nazism and Nazi history, crimes, motivations and psychology than you do. I have three full bookshelves of political history and analysis of this period, not three meters from where I sit -- and I'm not even in my library, I'm sitting in bed.
Please stop jumping to conclusions.

Your use of the word "person" rather than "woman" was an attack in this war of words and ideas.
Same goes for your use of the word "person" and "fetus" - rather than "human" and "child".
You swap out words often enough and people stop noticing - and soon enough they are brainwashed.

I use the term for a reason. It's personhood, not species, that confers a claim to moral consideration. You seem to be using species as the determinant, but you haven't explained why.
A cancerous tumor is "human," but I'll bet you wouldn't object to its 'execution' -- because it does not have the characteristics that confer moral consideration. How is my argument any different?

Notice how people are afraid to claim that a trans-anything is not an actual member of the biological sex they claim to be?
This is how "men can menstrate/give birth too" got started. And it is absurd.

Huh?

I said: "Isn't a "leftist agenda" identical to the values expounded by Christ? The Beatitudes sound a lot like Hippie values from the '60s" You said:

No - they are not.

How not? Read Jesus' sermon on the mount. Are these not Hippie values -- all this love, peace and brotherhood stuff?

That's so funny - right-wing - the liberals sure love to try to paint the Nazis as "right-wing" - but that is a completely relative metric.
The Nazis were only considered "right-wing" by the Soviets - and they would be considered very left if placed in the US political spectrum today - they were socialists.
And the brownshirts did not only commit acts of violence - but intimidation and driving propaganda.
You may be a subtle brownshirt - what with your meager word play - but a brownshirt nonetheless.

This is absurd, revisionist history. You need to do some reading.
As a radical pacifist, I'm pretty much the opposite of a brownshirt.

You seem to be painting anyone with political views or opinions on abortion different from yours as some kind of Fascist monsters, without really hearing or understanding their viewpoints -- or understanding the Fascism/Nazism you accuse them of. You're free with your ad homs, but you wont engage in any serious discussion.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Love you too, man.

Don't go near my kids.

Because an unborn baby does not have bodily autonomy - it is entirely depedendent on continued use of the pregnant person's body and organs to live.

Is there an agreed upon definition for the term "bodily autonomy"?

I haven't seen one that mentions one's dependence on another somehow voiding their right to life or bodily autonomy.

And no, that is not the same as a newborn being dependent on their parent. A newborn can be looked after by ANY individual.

A newborn's "bodily autonomy" does not derive from anything but the fact that it has its own body and right to life.

Whether or not a newborn or fetus are dependent upon anyone is irrelevant - they have a right to life - they have a right to "bodily autonomy" - because they are living human beings.

This is no different to arguing that refusing to donate organs to a dying person is a refusal of their bodily autonomy. It is not.

A human being in the womb is not an organ - because it is not a part of the mother - it is a new and unique DNA sequence - a completely different human being.

Also, if you believe life and autonomy begin at the moment of conception, shouldn't you also be protesting fertility clinics? By your reasoning, they are responsible for millions upon millions of deaths per year - far more than abortion clinics.

Unless I don't understand your argument here - are you claiming that miscarriages should be categorized as abortions?

Please deal with the arguments made in front of you.

Hah!

You claimed that pro-abortion advocates don't shame those who value human life - so I offered up an example of how you guys do - and now you tell me to just forget about how you were wrong.

Hah!

Because they don't have bodily autonomy.

If "bodily autonomy" is a "right to life" or "self-governance" over one's body - I don't see how the unborn don't have it.

Except in cases of abortion, where it is justified in order to allow the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

Which makes no sense. If you value "bodily autonomy" as you claim then you would also value the "bodily autonomy" of the unborn.

You are not being consistent. It is not "bodily autonomy" you value - but the convenience of the woman.

And I'm sure slave-owners used the same type of arguments - in one moment claiming that all men are created equal and should be free - then in the next violating the bodily autonomy of the people they considered "less developed" who would harm society if free.

You see - our rights should only extend as far as they begin to infringe on someone else's rights.

We cannot use our freedom of speech to drown out someone else's freedom to speak.

We all only have a right to life as long as we are not trying to rob others of theirs.

I know you want to paint of pregnancy as a murder attempt by the unborn - but that is not reality - so a woman's right to bodily autonomy does not supersede the right of the unborn.

A pregnancy and delivery has a very very small chance of doing harm to the mother while an abortion always terminates the life of the unborn.

The condition of pregnancy is always temporary - while the effect of death are always permanent.

Again, stop making strawmen. Deal with the arguments in front of you.

That I am - it is the heart of the issue.

You argue that only the "bodily autonomy" of the mother matters - not the "bodily autonomy" of the human being inside of her.

Even though the condition of pregnancy is temporary and the effect of death is always permanent.

You value her convenience over the life of the unborn.

Except it's not an execution.

Of course it is - they are lawfully terminated - unless you are classifying the aborted as causalities of war.

You have acknowledged that the unborn are living human beings - and the sentence of death is being carried out on them - but not according to a judge or jury - but their own mother.

And - exempting threat to her own life - which is rare - she came to that decision based on what is convenient to her.

Is removing somebody from life support execution?

It could be depending on the circumstance.

An important factor would be to know the expressed wishes of the person if such an event should occur and if the doctors claim they cannot be revived.

So - if no one knows the express will of the person and the doctors guarantee that they will wake in like...oh I don't know...nine months or so - would it be an execution to pull their plug?

Not knowing their expressed will - yet knowing that they will wake.

No human being is entitled to the use of another human beings organs, therefore the pregnant person has the right to abort them.

Last I checked - no human being has the right to terminate another either - unless the other tries to take their life away.

I know you try to argue that every pregnant woman's life is in danger - but we live in reality - so why do you believe that the mother's right to be an inhospitable host supersedes the unborn child's right to life?

Because you value convenience over human life.

I feelt I have been very clear in stating that this is my position, and that the life of the unborn doesn't really sway me.

Strange - you keep denying that you value convenience over human life - but now you come out and say it so clearly.

Anyways - I have no intention of "swaying" you - because there is no hope in changing the mind of an irrational ideologue - I just want to keep you talking.

The more you talk - the more apparent the inconsistencies and biases of your arguments become.

Like what you just did above - admitting that you do not consider the life of the unborn - a human life - to have any value in the face of a woman's convenience.

Responsibility and accountability are irrelevant here. If a thief gets into your house because you left the window open, they are not entitled to the use of your property, and the police would not refuse to help you on the grounds that you were rresponsible. Likewise with preventable diseases. The right to help from a situation you don't want to be in is not nullified by you causing yourself to be in that state.

Unless you are talking about rape - this analogy doesn't hold weight.

The vast overwhelming majority of pregnancies in the Untied States are caused by women consensually performing the reproductive act without the use of birth control.

So this whole "thief" entering into her home while she is unaware makes no sense.

Also - what does the role of "the police" have in this analogy of yours?

Are you arguing that the only "help" anyone can give a pregnant woman is an abortion?

And no one has the "right to be helped" from any situation in their lives.

And they especially don't have the right to demand a particular type of help.

If you are trying to explain to your insurance company why they should pay for your television that was stolen - they are not going to help you if you explain that you willingly let the "thief" into your home and gave him/her your television as a gift.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Why does that mean it is morally okay to force them to remain pregnant and give birth against their will?

Because the alternative involves killing another human being.

Now I know you don't value human life as much as a woman's convenience - you have said so repeatedly - but I think most people would disagree with you.

Irrelevant. People have sex for reasons other than procreation, birth control is not 100% effective, some people are careless.

No one ever said that people have sex only for procreation - but it is the only means of procreation - and no one should be surprised if the outcome is procreation.

Birth control is almost 100% effective and the vast majority of those seeking abortions were being careless with their powers to create new human life.

And you value the convenience of the careless over the human life they have created.

That doesn't make it right to force them to go through pregnancy and childbirth.

Them being careless doesn't make it right to destroy the life of their unborn child either.

You are at an impasse - but you side with the careless because you value their convenience more than the life of the innocent human being.

You believe that her right to carelessness and convenience trump human life.

This says a lot about you.

It says that I am informed.

So you don't know anything about the effects of pregnancy?

I'm not a doctor - but I do know that less than half of one percent of pregnancies in the U.S. could lead to the death of the mother - and that death would most likely be caused by an underlying problem she either didn't know about or didn't disclose.

Most of the effects of pregnancy can be mitigated if the woman is prepared to have a child and is proactive about it.

The risks of pregnancy - as mild as most of them are - strengthen my argument that no one should be having sex until they are married and ready to start having a family.

Those men and women are prepared for the risks and they value human life.

I mean - there is no threat to the "bodily autonomy" of any woman that doesn't get pregnant right?

And since every woman - barring victims of rape - choose when they perform the reproductive act - that means that they have all control over when they can get pregnant, assume those risks, and not kill any unborn children.

Marriage is not a magical safeguard against the negative effects of pregnancy.

No one said that it was - and you intentionally left out me talking about the woman going to the doctor beforehand to make sure that she was healthy enough for a pregnancy.

That says a lot about you.

I'll tell you one thing that doesn't help: if somebody gets in a crash because they were driving recklessly, we don't refuse to cut them out of the wreckage.

Even though I think it is disgusting that you refer to a pregnancy - which is a joyous celebration of life - as a "wreck" - let's use this analogy.

Let's say a woman does drive recklessly and crashes - but in the case of pregnancy - she is not alone in the car - her unconscious child is strapped in next to her.

Rescue workers arrive and explain to the woman that everything is under control but they need to wait for the proper towing vehicle to arrive to help them flip the car over so they can get both her and her child out safely.

She complains that she is uncomfortable and that she is in pain. The rescue workers ask her to be patient and assure her that her and her child will be just fine.

She demands that they cut her out of the car that very instant - to which the rescue workers reply that the only way they can do that is if they cut through where her unconscious child is sitting.

She demands that they do it anyway - because she is uncomfortable - and they tell her that doing so will kill her child - and they assure her that if she is patient they will be able to save both her and her child.

She claims that she is not willing to wait and that she is okay with her child dying and argues that since her child is unconscious anyway - they wouldn't feel it - and then she demands that they cut her out now because of her current discomfort.

And you have been claiming that you believe the rescue workers should do as she says.

That even though it was her recklessness that got both her and her child into that situation - the rescue workers should answer her irresponsibility with even more irresponsibility - and kill her child even though the child cannot be blamed for anything that happened.

You need to listen less to the voices in yoir head.

That "voice" is called your conscience - and you should listen to it more.

Actually, no. These effects can actually negatively effect marriages, too.

Not if the husband is truly loving and supportive - which is what I said.

Her choosing the right mate would be the greatest strength and support for her during her pregnancy. No matter what.

It justifies killing unborn children in the name of bodily autonomy.

No - it doesn't.

If you take your "bodily autonomy" argument to it's logical conclusion - you can justify killing all kinds of people.

We just went through a pandemic - in order to protect my "bodily autonomy" - I have the right to kill anyone who gets within six feet of me - because they could get me sick.

And even though I would most likely be okay after being down and out for a while if I were to get COVID - there is a very slight chance that COVID could kill me - so I am justified in shooting anyone that coughs.

And if we look at this situation through your argument for abortion - I could even invite a person into my home - decide to get within six feet of them - and be justified in killing them - to protect my "bodily autonomy".

Even though I orchestrated the entire thing!

No - that is not reality. That is premeditated murder.

We all have barriers and safeguards. As long as people are wearing their masks and practicing social distancing - we should feel secure in our "bodily autonomy".

And if we should get sick even when we are practicing these safety measures - we don't kill people.

Because that's wrong.

The point is that you are ignorant of the effects of pregnancy.

The vast majority of pregnancies end with both a healthy mother and baby.

Why do people try to use the extreme to try and change the rule?

I find it so ironic that you would evoke the strawman fallacy and then make a strawman yourself.

You just don't realize that your whole "bodily autonomy" argument is a strawman.

Sure. Because the choice is up the pregnanct person, not anybody else. It is THEIR bodily autonomy that is being used.

HAH! No - there is no "choice" of whether or not that is a murder - it is a murder.

How the mother feels about her unborn child is irrelevant.

Whether the unborn child is wanted or not is irrelevant.

If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion - any and all "undesirables" could be killed on sight.

It isn't arbitrary. It's pretty clear there's a difference between a born and an unborn baby.

Something being "different" does not make it less valuable. Or less human. Or less living.

To a parent who loves their children and wants them in their life - they will cry for that unborn child who is lost.

You are using the same arguments as slave-owners and the Nazis.

"They are different from me - that means I can put them in chains."

"They are different from me - that means I can put them in a gas chamber."

It is completely arbitrary. If the mother wants the unborn baby - it is murder - if she doesn't - it isn't?

Completely arbitrary.

Such simplistic moral thinking will not help you in this debate.

As I said - this isn't a debate - it is an exposé.

It is also wrong to force people to go through pregnancy and childbirth against their will.

It is wrong to execute a human being who has committed no crime.

At this impasse - you side with the convenience of the woman - whose discomfort would inevitably come to an end - while condemning the unborn to death - when they have done nothing wrong.

So, whose rights win out?

The sanctity of human life trumps all.

Then that line is just as arbitrary as any other.

Nope - it is the only consistent line.

I'll address your other post soon.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't feel I have engaged in any word games.

Sure you have - all abortion enthusiasts do.

I mean - the word "abortion" is the ultimate "word game" - because we are talking about murdering unborn children - but you call it by a different word - to make it sound like something else - like aborting a process or procedure before it can be completed.

You try to make it sound all so white-washed and sterile - because you know it's a filthy business.

Your response that started this new discussion between us (Post #312) has many examples of "word games" and "mental gymnastics".

You claimed that instead of arguing in favor of harming unborn children - which was my claim - you claimed that you were arguing for a person's right to bodily autonomy.

The "mental gymnastics" in this example is that your argument concerning "bodily autonomy" includes "harming unborn children" - therefore contradicting yourself.

It would be no different than saying, "Nobody is arguing in favour of "taking your guns away". We are arguing in favour of the government forcibly "buying back" all your guns."

You mentioned "bodily autonomy vs. right to life" - as if they are not fundamentally the same thing - since you cannot claim to have bodily autonomy without a right to life just as you cannot claim to have a right to life without bodily autonomy.

You also mentioned "the significance and personhood of a foetus" - which makes no sense since all human beings are significant and are persons - I haven't met someone who wasn't both.

The word "fetus" is another "word game" - you guys use it to try and make the claim that it isn't a baby or that it is not human - just another attempt by you guys to blur the lines.

So - "the morality of aborting a foetus" - actually means "morality of murdering a baby".

And "forcing people by law to remain pregnant and give birth against their will" - which I could respond to by using your own circular logic.

"Nobody is arguing in favour of "forcing people by law to remain pregnant and give birth against their will". We are arguing in favour of not killing babies."

That isn't even to mention how you can think that the execution of an innocent human being is anything but a punishment - their only crime being that they are an inconvenience.

Oh - and then you went on your tirade about "pregnancy and childbirth are not simply an "inconvenience"" - which was hilarious - but another example of you using "mental gymnastics".

I'm sure you have used others - but that's enough to mention for now.

From the start, I have been very clear in my argument than abortion is the act of killing an unborn child, but also that this alone does not justify making abortion illegal.

Not a "fetus" - but an unborn child - you and yours have been playing the "word games" so long that you have desensitized yourselves.

You don't even feel the need to use the phony words to justify yourselves anymore.

Anyways - I never claimed that I wanted to make abortion illegal - that would be a ridiculous and unreasonable position to take.

That would be like claiming that a homeowner could never - under any circumstance - shoot a supposed intruder they have discovered in their home.

All the facts and circumstances need to be examined to determined if the homeowner was acting in self-defense or if they committed a murder.

For example - if they invited the "intruder" into their home and gave them a bed to sleep in and then later in the night the home-owner entered the room of the "intruder" and killed them while they slept - that would most likely be considered murder.

If someone were to break into the home-owners house - on the other hand - and gave the home-owner reason to believe that the intruder meant to inflict harm upon him/her or their family - then the home-owner killing the intruder may be deemed justified.

So - in cases of proven rape or the life of the mother has been proven to be in jeopardy - then an abortion may be warranted.

I mean - we have all kinds of rules about what a private property owner can do if an endangers species takes residence on their land - to protect the species or at least mitigate damage to them - why don't we have any protections for the unborn members of our species?

Firstly, "the state" is not executing anyone. They are not forcing people to have abortions against their will, so "the state" has no say in the matter beyond allowing abortion to be legal.

You mean - like when slave-owners were allowed to kill their disobedient slaves - to make an example of them and to punish the malefactor?

True - it was legal at the time and the State "allowed" it to happen - but it was a blight on American history.

You are using the same arguments as slave-owners. You believe that our unborn children are our "property" that we can do whatever we want with.

Thank you for proving my point. Told you I'd expose you if you kept talking.

Secondly, not all killings are executions. You need to work on detangling these concepts in your mind.

Oh - so what "State allowed" killings are you talking about?

And yes - I know you want to argue that pregnancy is a life threatening condition - but this is reality - and there are requirements one needs to prove before claiming self-defense.

I don't think any unborn child can fulfill any of those requirements.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Thirdly, it is not "the arbitrary whim" of a pregnant person. It is the perfectly reasonable decision of a human to not remain pregnant and give birth.

A person living or dying based solely on how one person feels makes the decision arbitrary. No question.

"Abortion" is like knocking a guy out, kidnapping him, strapping him to yourself, then you rock-climbing with him dangling behind you.

He is completely unaware of what is happening and he has been placed in this situation by you through no fault of his own.

He wakes up - dangling off a cliff - asks you what is happening - and you say something like you just wanted to have some fun climbing the cliffs.

You claim that you are tired of carrying his weight though - so you reach for your knife and begin to cut his line.

Of course he begs you not to - but you tell yourself that its not his arms that are tired - you were the one carrying him the whole time - and he has no right to determine what you do with your own arms - right?

You admit to him - as you continue to cut his line - that you are over 99.99% capable of scaling the cliff with him still attached and you'd both be safe - or you could at least hold out until other people could arrive to save him - but you'd rather not assume the risk - besides - he is heavy - a real inconvenience.

He reminds you that the "risk" to you is infinitesimal compared to the risk to himself - since his chance of survival is zero and your chance of not only surviving but being completely fine is almost 100% - and you agree with him as you sever his line and watch him plummet.

A completely avoidable tragedy paved with bad decisions and selfishness.

Do you see the difference between your characterization and mine?

Yes.

Mine is fairly clear and avoids using inaccurate, emotive rhetoric. Yours is almost entirely made of emotion, with no allowance for reality.

What? This is hilarious because the exact opposite is true.

We both recognize that a human being is being killed - but you are the one claiming that it is okay because of "feelings".

I accept the reality that it is a human life - while you pay lip service to that idea - but justify destroying that human life because you consider it "less than".

Isaiah had you pegged, me friend. Woe unto you.

Which really sums up your entire position, really.

I think your position in this discussion is giving me an aneurism - from sheer stupidity - do I have the right to kill you to protect my "bodily autonomy"?

Irrelevant. Just because you give consent to ride in a car doesn't mean you should be forced to get yourself out of the wreckage of a car crash.

Doesn't give you the right to kill the other people in the car in your attempts to escape the wreckage of your life though.

You keep presenting scenarios of "thieves" and "accidents" - when the vast majority of these pregnancies were had by unprotected consensual sexual liaisons.

More of your attempts at "word games" and "mental gymnastics".

At least be honest in your "scenario spinning" - the vast majority of these women were not caught unawares.

They planted a seed in their garden - nourished it - and then pulled out the plant for having the audacity to grow "without their consent".

The seed didn't plant itself there.

Shameful.

Yet another in a long line of crazily inaccurate comparisons that make leaps of moon logic. See the car crash analogy above, and the thief analogy above that.

Hah! Neither of those analogies make any sense in this context - exempting cases of rape of course.

You see - I would have loaded my own gun - chambered a round - pointed it - and pulled the trigger.

I understand how guns work. I know that pointing my loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger could lead to their death.

So - if I pull that trigger - the bullet does not need my consent - to come flying out the barrel of my gun.

Even if it didn't have my consent - me loading it - pointing it at someone - and pulling the trigger - kinda makes that point moot.

It is a series of bad - although well-informed - decisions.

Allowing on-demand abortions is reckless and devalues human life.

Just like letting me off scot-free for shooting and killing someone would be reckless and would devalue human life.

Which is why we have no problem removing bullets from people without the consent of the bullet - just like when we remove unborn babies from wombs.

You understand that the bullet is not the baby in my analogy - don't you?

My analogy was trying to point out the absurdity that you are portraying - that women in the United States don't understand how their actions can lead to reactions.

The action of the bullet leaving the barrel would be like the ovum being fertilized and attaching to the uterine lining.

The bullet itself is not the baby.

I don't judge them at all. It isn't their fault they were conceived. But that doesn't mean they have a right to be there.

You see some human beings as "different" or "less than" - and you believe that gives you the right to treat them as property or kill them.

The slave-owner would say, "I don't judge them at all. It isn't their fault they were black. But that doesn't mean they have a right to be free."

The Nazi would say, "I don't judge them at all. It isn't their fault they were Jewish. But that doesn't mean they have a right to be alive."

You are using the same arguments as those who performed the most heinous crimes throughout the history of Mankind.

That should tell you something about "abortion".

Yet another strawman!

My argument was not that they SHOULD have consent in order to stay, but that the LACK of consent means a pregnant person has the right to remove them.

The unborn are a "they" - remember that.

And this goes back to my gun or garden analogy - how can you argue that they don't have the woman's consent to be there when the woman has done everything in her power to put them there?

Yep. That's me.

Yeah - it is - and that's horrifying.

I feel I have been very clear about this issue being about BODILY AUTONOMY and the rights of PREGNANT PEOPLE.

You mean "pregnant women" - right? Or better yet "expectant mothers".

And why do the unborn have no bodily autonomy or right to live in your world?

Boy, it sure woul be odd of you to bring up a scenario where neither of those things apply and make claims about how I would still think it was okay to kill unborn children in that scenario, wouldn't it?

You claimed that, "It's pretty clear there's a difference between a born and an unborn baby" and that the unborn "don't have right to be there".

So - your arguments have been about "level of development" (i.e. time) and "location" (seven inches through the birth canal).

Because they are underdeveloped - they are "different" and because they are seven inches away from freedom - they "don't have a right to life".

That is how you place value on human beings - whether they are "different" and where they are located.

Therefore - as medicine and technology advances - the unborn could - potentially - develop faster and outside of the womb.

You are basically valuing human life based on our level of medicine and technology - which changes every day.

That is not even mentioning how you believe that a woman wanting or not wanting her unborn baby would determine whether killing that baby in the womb constitutes murder.

Such "word games" and "mental gymnastics" blurring the lines - I'll stand at my solid line of conception thank you.

I mean, it would almost be as if you haven't understood a single argument I've made!

You keeping claiming that you are coming only from this position of "bodily autonomy" - but as I got you talking more and more - you revealed all kinds of other irrational biases and inconsistencies that you share with history's greatest villains and dictators.

Your argument about "bodily autonomy" is a strawman.

Good thing we don't live in that world. We live in your totally real, not-at-all imagined world.

Thank you for your cooperation!

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No. The intent is benevolent.

Even if this were true - it is not - it would be irrelevant.

As I have said - slave-owners used many arguments to justify what they were doing - they even claimed that the Bible supported them and that black people were less-evolved - therefore it was a good thing for them to be subjugated.

None of that mattered - they were wrong and what they did was evil.

You know - people used to sacrifice their children to their gods for benevolent reasons too.

You believe that that practice was a good one just because they had "good intentions"?

What juvenile thinking.

And stop calling insensible fœtuses 'children'.

There are many ways to translate that word - but among them are "small child" and "little one".

And have you ever seen a picture of a fetus? They look like teeny human babies.

At the moment of conception a new and unique human DNA sequence is created - the child of the mother and father.

That means it is not a part of the mother. It is not an organ. It is not a lump of tissue. It is a separate and distinct human being - a child.

No, abstinence doesn't work at all, as you well know.

No - I don't know that.

I can say with 100% certainty that if a woman practiced abstinence her entire life she would never get pregnant - barring the possibilities of rape and her artificially inseminating herself of course.

Abstinence is 100% effective.

Yes - people can and do fail - but abstinence works.

You claiming that abstinence doesn't work - because people fail - is so lazy.

It's like blaming marriage for divorce rates.

Young people simply don't stay abstinent.

Pfft. I did - and I was dating that hottie for five years before we tied the knot.

I believe this is due to the sexualization of literally everything in our society today. It's gross - and one of the main reasons I don't have cable.

Not having sex is actually very easy. Like incredibly easy. It's like deciding not to run a mile. It's definitely easier than actually running the mile - isn't it?

There have been numerous studies finding that abstinence programs yield high pregnancy and STD rates.

Again - irrelevant.

Reminding me that people and their programs can fail is not an argument that abstinence fails.

If a person remains abstinent - barring some extreme circumstance like rape, being given a dirty needle, getting it from a toilet seat or artificially inseminating oneself - they eliminate all risk of getting pregnant or getting an STD.

Yes, I am, and I see your usage of "child" and "execute" as strawmen.

I could use "baby" and "murder" instead if you like.

I understand how you like to play "word games" and "mental gymnastics" to justify the absurdity of your position with yourself.

I'm not going to do that.

So you're dodging the question. Maybe you haven't thought through the issue.

I thought the implication was obvious...

Ok - I believe that you feeling the need to ask that question means that you not are qualified to make that determination.

Your willingness to "split hairs" over which human being's should receive moral consideration or not is disgusting.

That way of thinking has led to many atrocities throughout the history of Mankind.

But it's not species or humanness that confer a claim to moral consideration.

According to...?

This is not a simple, black and white issue. There are philosophical abstractions that apply.

No - there are not. It is wrong to kill babies.

Anyone debating "philosophical abstractions" are those trying to justify the absurdity of their position.

You're obviously unfamiliar with my arguments, you're being presumptuous.

So - the arguments you have been sharing up until this point have not been yours?

I'm arguing that all sentient, self aware organisms have a right to moral consideration.

So - if a human being loses the ability to perceive or feel things - we can kill that person?

And human beings do not become "self aware" until sometime after their first year of life - around eighteen months.

Any line you draw - except at conception - is going to cut off people who have already been born.

I'm arguing against exploitation and might-makes-right morality.

No - that is what I am arguing.

You are exploiting the not-yet-born and claiming that they do not have a right to life because you are bigger and smarter and you can do as you please.

I'm arguing that unnecessarily hurting, harming or contributing to the suffering of beings capable of suffering is wrong.

Who decides what "hurting" is necessary?

I believe that certain actions demand "hurting" as a consequence - like eating spicy foods or murdering someone.

I do not believe that we have the right to kill our children just because they can hurt us.

How do you see this as comparable to pro-slavery or tribalist arguments?

"You are different from me and on my land - you are not worthy of moral consideration - I own you and can do what I want with you."

"You are different from me and in my body - you are not worthy of moral consideration - I own you and can do what I want with you."

Are you saying all living beings exhibit self awareness, anticipation of futurity and are capable of suffering?

I did not say "living beings" - I said "human beings" - you just violated Forum Rule #3 "misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments"

We are talking about human beings - nothing else - so save your intentionally blurring the lines and misrepresenting me.

When it comes to a human being - self-awareness, anticipation of futurity and the capacity to suffer are irrelevant.

If you use any of these metrics to justify killing a human being - you can justify killing all kinds of already-born people.

Conception is the only logical and consistent determinant of moral consideration.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Again, I think this is a knee-jerk reaction you haven't thought out. Eating a strawberry is killing a living being, but I don't think you're a photosynthesist.

Oh wow - you violated Forum Rules #3 so you could draw this unborn child to strawberry comparison?

So not worth - because it was a lame comparison. So dumb.

How are you defining "punishment?"

Punishment - "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense".

The penalty being "death" and the offense being "your existence being inconvenient".

It seems to me that punishment presupposes awareness of same, and has a purpose -- presumably corrective.

Nope.

You can punish a child or even a pet without them understanding what is happening - even though you would want them to understand.

Obviously only a psycho would intentionally punish someone who lacks understanding and without the desire to correct behavior - but it would be a punishment nonetheless.

How does this apply to a fœtus, or even an unborn baby?

Because you are penalizing them for existing.

So a Isn't a "leftist agenda" identical to the values expounded by Christ? The Beatitudes sound a lot like Hippie values

God, no.

Prophet, you're not really thinking about this. Your responses look like knee-jerk reactions to a contrary point of view.

Really? This coming from someone who attributes the same amount of moral consideration to fetuses as to rocks?

So what does matter? Their species?

Of course that - but also the fact that they are the literal child of the one demanding their execution.

And stop using "executed," it's a value-laden word that doesn't apply in this situation.

No. I am using that term because that is the value I wish to convey with my words.

And it applies more than your talk of strawberries and rocks.

I'm seriously saying that destroying a non-sentient thing, with no characteristics that would confer a claim to moral consideration, is like destroying any other non-sentient thing with no moral claim. There is moral equivalence.

Then let's kill people in comas - they can't feel or perceive things - right?

Your bestowal of moral consideration is completely subjective. Totally your own opinion.

Again, my argument is going right over your head.

Nope - you just don't realize that your entire "argument" is nothing but your own subjective bias and wishful thinking.

It's "Faith" - if you will - hardly an argument.

Slave owners were exploiters of beings with a right not to be exploited.

According to you and me - but they believed that their slaves had no moral consideration.

So - just like you with the not-yet-born.

They put slaves in chains for the slave owner's own good.

And you are killing babies for their own good? Or for the "good" of their mother?

How is this in any way pertinent? Again, my argument is going in one ear and out the other. You're missing my points completely.

Your "points" are useless fluff. Your argument is absurd.

Once you start making up your own metrics for which human beings have moral consideration or not - you are acting no different than Hitler or any other genocidal maniac.

Morality applies universally. It does not change if you declare yourself a military. It does not change at borders. It does not change with ethnicity, nationality or religion.

No - that is not true at all.

If that were true - then every case of killing someone in self-defense should be considered murder?

Circumstances can affect how any action should be judged.

For example - a mother's life in danger due to her pregnancy may warrant an abortion.

This just illustrates how you've completely misconstrued me and my moral arguments.

You just don't like what you see in the mirror I am holding up.

You don't know me.

Obviously - and I don't need to know you to judge that what you have shared is wrong.

I'm an unreconstructed Hippie radical. I'm a radical pacifist and follower of Gandhi. I don't wear leather or consume any animal products. I haven't eaten meat in 50 years. I'm an environmental and human rights activist. I've been tear gassed in anti-war, anti-imperialist demonstrations from Vietnam to Iraq. I'm very tuned in to -- and concerned with -- human rights abuse and history.

Ew.

You might want to change a couple parts of your resume.

You are not a "human rights activist" - but rather a "sentient person activist" - because you compare non-sentient human beings to strawberries and rocks.

You are not concerned with "human rights abuse and history" - but rather "beings you personally decided warranted moral consideration "rights" (they only have rights if they are sentient) and history".

Besides - none of this matters. It's some strange "appeal to authority" - but it is meaningless.

A lot of hard work and dedication wasted considering that none of it helped you in this case - cause you're wrong.

Nazis? I've always been anti-Nazi; anti-Fascist.

That's a weird thing for someone who thinks like Nazis and Fascists to say.

I'm against all symbols of nationalism. I don't pledge the flag or stand for the national anthem.

Weird but irrelevant.

And I'll bet I Know more about Nazism and Nazi history, crimes, motivations and psychology than you do.

If that is true - then this is much more sad than I had initially thought.

I have three full bookshelves of political history and analysis of this period, not three meters from where I sit -- and I'm not even in my library, I'm sitting in bed.

Maybe try reading them?

Please stop jumping to conclusions.

Everything you just said was meaningless - because none of it changes what you have already said to me - and what you have said is horrifying.

I use the term for a reason.

I know - I have mentioned it many times - your "word games".

It's personhood, not species, that confers a claim to moral consideration.

According to you.

You seem to be using species as the determinant, but you haven't explained why.

It is the only consistent line of determination.

A cancerous tumor is "human," but I'll bet you wouldn't object to its 'execution' -- because it does not have the characteristics that confer moral consideration. How is my argument any different? Huh?

A tumor is not "a human being" - sure it is a "human" tumor.

My God - so the unborn are strawberries, rocks and now tumors. That's gross.

A tumor will consist of the DNA of the person within whom it resides - not so with an unborn child - it will have its own unique DNA sequence.

I said: "

Isn't a "leftist agenda" identical to the values expounded by Christ? The Beatitudes sound a lot like Hippie values from the '60s" You said:
How not? Read Jesus' sermon on the mount. Are these not Hippie values -- all this love, peace and brotherhood stuff?

No - because you want to kill babies - and Jesus doesn't like that.

This is absurd, revisionist history. You need to do some reading.

Says the person with three full bookshelves of unread books in their bedroom.

As a radical pacifist, I'm pretty much the opposite of a brownshirt.

A radical pacifist arguing for on-demand execution of unborn human babies.

You seem to be painting anyone with political views or opinions on abortion different from yours as some kind of Fascist monsters, without really hearing or understanding their viewpoints -- or understanding the Fascism/Nazism you accuse them of. You're free with your ad homs, but you wont engage in any serious discussion.

For the record - an ad hominem is a personal attack against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I attacked your arguments and then shared what you having those arguments says about you - so it is not ad hominem.

And I did not say the things I said because you disagree with me - but because I understood what you were saying and it was horrible.

You are repeating the sins of the past and you do so while claiming some imagined authority to declare which human beings are worthy of moral consideration or not.

 

[Valjean]

Even if this were true - it is not - it would be irrelevant.

As I have said - slave-owners used many arguments to justify what they were doing - they even claimed that the Bible supported them and that black people were less-evolved - therefore it was a good thing for them to be subjugated.

None of that mattered - they were wrong and what they did was evil

Their intent was to benefit the pregnant woman. That is benevolence. You're focused on the fœtus, which, in my opinion, lacks the qualities that would entitle it to moral consideration. Besides its species, you haven't made a case for moral consideration in the fœtus.

Slave owners were not benevolent, despite their protestations to the contrary. They benefited only themselves. The slaves had a claim to moral consideration, and the slavers could never cite any good reason why they didn't, except an appeal to religion.

You know - people used to sacrifice their children to their gods for benevolent reasons too.

There reasons were placatory, not benevolent. Noöne was benefited.

You believe that that practice was a good one just because they had "good intentions"?

Both the intentions and the results were beneficial, were they not?

There are many ways to translate that word - but among them are "small child" and "little one".
And have you ever seen a picture of a fetus? They look like teeny human babies.

Besides irrelevant semantics and appearances, (a Barbie doll looks human, too) what qualities do fœtuses have that entitles them to moral consideration?

At the moment of conception a new and unique human DNA sequence is created - the child of the mother and father.
That means it is not a part of the mother. It is not an organ. It is not a lump of tissue. It is a separate and distinct human being - a child.

You're not paying attention. I'm not arguing that they're not individual human beings. I'm arguing that these humans do not yet possess the qualities that entitle them to moral consideration.

No - I don't know that.
I can say with 100% certainty that if a woman practiced abstinence her entire life she would never get pregnant - barring the possibilities of rape and her artificially inseminating herself of course.
Abstinence is 100% effective.
Yes - people can and do fail - but abstinence works.
You claiming that abstinence doesn't work - because people fail - is so lazy.
It's like blaming marriage for divorce rates.

Yet attempts to enforce abstinence have resulted in either repression or widespread disregard.

Not having sex is actually very easy. Like incredibly easy. It's like deciding not to run a mile. It's definitely easier than actually running the mile - isn't it?

History would question that. People, especially young males, often take great risks and go to great trouble and expense for the possibility of sex.
But, to each his own. Some people have higher sex drives than others.

Your willingness to "split hairs" over which human being's should receive moral consideration or not is disgusting.
That way of thinking has led to many atrocities throughout the history of Mankind.

Splitting hairs? Sorry if I take the time actually to think about the question. It was self-serving conventionalism, not humanitarianism or compassion that contributed to atrocities.

According to...?

Reason and compassion.

No - there are not. It is wrong to kill babies.

Agreed.

Anyone debating "philosophical abstractions" are those trying to justify the absurdity of their position.

It's the conventionistsalists incapable of philosophical debate that acquiesce to the aforementioned atrocities. Some people think about things, some just go with the flow, or make judgements based on gut feelings.

So - the arguments you have been sharing up until this point have not been yours?

They're hardly original arguments, but I subscribe to them.

So - if a human being loses the ability to perceive or feel things - we can kill that person?

Not generally, though I've done that in the past. Most unconsciousness is only a temporary cessation of consciousness. Most people, for example, sleep every night.

And human beings do not become "self aware" until sometime after their first year of life - around eighteen months.

That may be true, but I'm not claiming self-awareness as the sole criterion. Can an infant experience pain, or suffering, for example?

You are exploiting the not-yet-born and claiming that they do not have a right to life because you are bigger and smarter and you can do as you please.

You really haven't been paying attention. You've drawn a conclusion about me and are making unsupported, emotional accusations based on it.

Who decides what "hurting" is necessary?

The individuals involved.
I'm going to the dentist in a few hours to have a tooth pulled. I expect it to hurt, but it's necessary.

I believe that certain actions demand "hurting" as a consequence - like eating spicy foods or murdering someone.
I do not believe that we have the right to kill our children just because they can hurt us.

You must, by now, know my response....

"You are different from me and on my land - you are not worthy of moral consideration - I own you and can do what I want with you."

Is this how you interpret my arguments? You have not been paying attention.

When it comes to a human being - self-awareness, anticipation of futurity and the capacity to suffer are irrelevant.

So what is? Species only? Why? Justify your speciesism.

If you use any of these metrics to justify killing a human being - you can justify killing all kinds of already-born people.

And yet I don't, and I'd guess I'm more harmless and compassionate than you are.

Conception is the only logical and consistent determinant of moral consideration.

OK... Why?

 

[Valjean]

Oh wow - you violated Forum Rules #3 so you could draw this unborn child to strawberry comparison?
So not worth - because it was a lame comparison. So dumb.

You're the one failing to grasp this.

Punishment - "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense".
The penalty being "death" and the offense being "your existence being inconvenient".

As I said. Retribution/punishment usually assumes the punished is aware of the punishment.

You can punish a child or even a pet without them understanding what is happening - even though you would want them to understand.
Obviously only a psycho would intentionally punish someone who lacks understanding and without the desire to correct behavior - but it would be a punishment nonetheless.

Your concept of punishment is overly broad, in my opinion.

Because you are penalizing them for existing.

If I cut down a tree or remove a tumor, am I penalizing it for existing?

God, no.

OK....How not?

Really? This coming from someone who attributes the same amount of moral consideration to fetuses as to rocks?

Coming from someone who actually gave this some thought.

Of course that - but also the fact that they are the literal child of the one demanding their execution.

And you know my response to that. You haven't in my opinion, established this "child's" claim to moral consideration.

Then let's kill people in comas - they can't feel or perceive things - right?

Is their coma temporary, or permanent? Might they be both conscious and comatose? Then there are the feelings of the friends and relatives to consider.

Your bestowal of moral consideration is completely subjective. Totally your own opinion.

And yours is....?

Nope - you just don't realize that your entire "argument" is nothing but your own subjective bias and wishful thinking.

And what is yours based on?
Sorry for the tu quoques, but I don't think you're following my arguments at all.

According to you and me - but they believed that their slaves had no moral consideration.

So - just like you with the not-yet-born.[/quote]I believe my arguments are more sound than their unfounded, self-serving declarations of natural inferiority, God ordained servitude and benevolent stewardship.
I'd be willing to debate them.

And you are killing babies for their own good? Or for the "good" of their mother?

You know my response to your claim of "killing babies."

Your "points" are useless fluff. Your argument is absurd.
Once you start making up your own metrics for which human beings have moral consideration or not - you are acting no different than Hitler or any other genocidal maniac.

What alternative do I have? What criteria should I use? What should my actions be based on?
We all make up our own metrics for our actions. I believe mine are motivated by compassion and humanitarianism, and based on similar principles.

No - that is not true at all.
If that were true - then every case of killing someone in self-defense should be considered murder?
Circumstances can affect how any action should be judged.
For example - a mother's life in danger due to her pregnancy may warrant an abortion.

I have no problem with self defense from an immediate threat. But how does this apply to a non-person like a fœtus?

Ew.
You might want to change a couple parts of your resume.
You are not a "human rights activist" - but rather a "sentient person activist" - because you compare non-sentient human beings to strawberries and rocks.

OK, I'm fine with being a 'sentient person activist'.

You are not concerned with "human rights abuse and history" - but rather "beings you personally decided warranted moral consideration "rights" (they only have rights if they are sentient) and history".

So whose decision should inform my actions, if not my own?

Besides - none of this matters. It's some strange "appeal to authority" - but it is meaningless.

Whose authority am I appealing to?

A lot of hard work and dedication wasted considering that none of it helped you in this case - cause you're wrong.

Huh?

That's a weird thing for someone who thinks like Nazis and Fascists to say.

Explain again how I'm thinking like Nazis.

Everything you just said was meaningless - because none of it changes what you have already said to me - and what you have said is horrifying.

I'm really pretty harmless. Rest easy.

I know - I have mentioned it many times - your "word games".

All discussion, debate, explanation, and conversation are "word games."

According to you.

True.
What criteria should I be using?

It is the only consistent line of determination.

Consistent? Consistent with what? What is it based on? Why does one, particular species merit special consideration?

A tumor is not "a human being" - sure it is a "human" tumor.
A tumor will consist of the DNA of the person within whom it resides - not so with an unborn child - it will have its own unique DNA sequence.

I'm not arguing that a fœtus isn't a unique human. I'm arguing that it's not a person, and doesn't have the characteristics that would give it a claim to moral consideration. A "person" is not the same as a human.

No - because you want to kill babies - and Jesus doesn't like that.
Says the person with three full bookshelves of unread books in their bedroom.
A radical pacifist arguing for on-demand execution of unborn human babies.

For the record - an ad hominem is a personal attack against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Yes, that's true.

I attacked your arguments and then shared what you having those arguments says about you - so it is not ad hominem.

OK, I won't belabor the point.

And I did not say the things I said because you disagree with me - but because I understood what you were saying and it was horrible.
You are repeating the sins of the past and you do so while claiming some imagined authority to declare which human beings are worthy of moral consideration or not.

By what authority do you judge sin?

 

[wellwisher]

I always thought the label “pro life” was a little rich. I mean if one is consistent in their views on life, anti war, anti death penalty etc etc, then I’ll happily accept the moniker is applicable. And indeed I know people who hold such views.
But the pro life movement I’m more familiar with is more akin to pro birth than anything else.

I wonder though how this poll would look in countries that haven’t had the death penalty in generations. Or in countries that don’t share the US gun culture

There are several left out considerations when comparing being anti-death penalty with being anti-abortion, when it comes to being pro-life. First of all, with the death penalty, one is dealing with criminals who have killed others. The unborn of abortion, on the other hand, are victims of circumstance, who did not kill or hurt anyone. This is rotten apples versus fresh oranges.

The victims of abortion are similar to the victims of a murderer, who does not get the death penalty, which atheists seem to think means pro-life. It is actually pro-criminal life. Atheists do not seem to mourn the victims, but whole heartedly defend the criminals. One can see this on display in Democrats run cities across the USA, where criminals are coddled and victims deserve it.

We can also look at the numbers, since the atheists pride themselves as bing superior math and science skills. In 2020, for example, there were 1500 people executed in the US based on murder changes. During that same year there were 800,000 innocent unborn killed via abortion. To me favoring the lions share of victims, over those who take lives, adds up to being more pro-life.

As far as guns, guns are inanimate objects. A gun cannot pull it's own trigger nor do they spontaneously fire. Like an automobile, they requires a human to aim, point and shoot. There is no such thing as a smart gun beyond top secret military R&D.

In the USA, Democrats controlled cities have the worse human controlled gun problem. This is not always reported by left wing fake news, who are among those who coddle the criminals. What is left behind are victims and families of victims, who do not seem to matter to one side of the political spectrum. They blame the gun, but not the criminal, since guns are also how victims protect themselves from criminals in these crime coddled areas. This is why they give the animate object; gun, a type of intelligent life. The magic gun's spirit can take over anyone and not just criminals. This comes from, those who say they know science but sell mysticism.

Guns in the US were made legal to allow self protection by the honest citizens, if and when criminals start to control things at any and various levels of culture. This was also designed to help one defend themselves from a potential corrupt government, which oversteps its Constitutional rights. Guns had the victims mind and not the criminals. Protection of guns, by the 2nd amendment prevents, criminal governments from disarming the honest citizens who will follow the law. Everyone knows that black market guns will still be available to the criminals, who do not obey the law.

Most of the guns that kill in Democrats inner cities comes from the black market. These cities and states have the strongest gun laws, so the criminals by pass the law and use the black market. The vulnerable citizens who obey the law are left disarmed, unless they join the criminals and seek the black market. The atheists call that pro-life.

There are many things that are illegal in the USA, most of which can still be obtained in the black market. Heroin is illegal and most honest citizens stay away. Those intent on getting heroin can use the black market t find what is illegal. The result is a serious drug problem, since the black market is run by criminals who do not care about victims, as much as the money they make. The atheist and Democrats want this black market control for guns.

 

[Valjean]

There are several left out considerations when comparing being anti-death penalty with being anti-abortion, when it comes to being pro-life. First of all, with the death penalty, one is dealing with criminals who have killed others. The unborn of abortion, on the other hand, are victims of circumstance, who did not kill or hurt anyone. This is rotten apples versus fresh oranges.

The victims of abortion are similar to the victims of a murderer, who does not get the death penalty, which atheists seem to think means pro-life. It is actually pro-criminal life. Atheists do not seem to mourn the victims, but whole heartedly defend the criminals. One can see this on display in Democrats run cities across the USA, where criminals are coddled and victims deserve it.

Where did you get all these statistics on the opinions of atheists and Democrats? Link, please. Are you just making assumptions about demographic you disagree with?

*How were these 'atheists' identified as atheists?
*Why do you think atheists don't morn murder victims, or that Democrats coddle criminals, or think crime victims deserve to be victimized? Hasn't it been the Left wing that's given us the eight hour day, Social Security, universal education, civil rights, women's rights, &c.all the social programs and prosperity that we enjoy? Wasn't it the Right wing that opposed all of these?
*Don't accused criminals deserve a defense, especially considering how many innocent people are convicted of crimes?
*Why do you say "victims" of abortion? How can a non-person be a victim?

It's us liberals who are the compassionate ones, who care about the welfare of the people.
I'm assuming you're pro death penalty. What advantages does the death penalty have over imprisonment &/or correction?

We can also look at the numbers, since the atheists pride themselves as bing superior math and science skills. In 2020, for example, there were 1500 people executed in the US based on murder changes. During that same year there were 800,000 innocent unborn killed via abortion. To me favoring the lions share of victims, over those who take lives, adds up to being more pro-life.

Where do you get the idea that atheists pride themselves on being superior at math and science? Link, please.

As far as guns, guns are inanimate objects. A gun cannot pull it's own trigger nor do they spontaneously fire. Like an automobile, they requires a human to aim, point and shoot. There is no such thing as a smart gun beyond top secret military R&D.

But there are smart guns; guns that can only be fired by someone biometrically or telemetrically keyed to them. For some reason, though, gun dealers who try to sell them are boycotted and receive death threats.

Are you in favor of machine guns or hand grenades being sold to the public? What's the difference? They can't pull their own triggers or pins, either.
In societies where guns are strongly regulated, haven't the social effects been beneficial? Aren't people safer?

In the USA, Democrats controlled cities have the worse human controlled gun problem. This is not always reported by left wing fake news, who are among those who coddle the criminals. What is left behind are victims and families of victims, who do not seem to matter to one side of the political spectrum. They blame the gun, but not the criminal, since guns are also how victims protect themselves from criminals in these crime coddled areas. This is why they give the animate object; gun, a type of intelligent life. The magic gun's spirit can take over anyone and not just criminals. This comes from, those who say they know science but sell mysticism.

"Left wing fake news?" Please. What news would that be?
How's insular, Right-wing, ignorance been working out? -- it's given us crime, homelessness, and insecurity.

You strike me as a tough-on-crime, law-and-order sort of guy. We tried this approach back in the '80s and '90s, and crime increased. Now we have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, and a terrible recidivism rate. Most prisoners are eventually released, and they come out angrier, more resentful, and with less respect for the law than when they went in -- and with fewer social skills.

What actually works? What reduces crime? -- mollycoddling, as you'd call it; ie: rehabilitation. Countries that treat prisoners respectfully and teach them positive values and social skills find that most prisoners go on to lead productive, crime free lives. Sorry to be all sciency, but those are the facts. Knee jerk vindictiveness is counter-productive.