To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 27690
27689  |  27691
Subject: 
Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:49:17 GMT
Viewed: 
1577 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote:
   Honest question - which is more ridiculous?

1 - pro-life and pro-death-penalty

Okay, Tom, let me take a stab at justifying a position such as this one. A pro-life stance would hold that a human life above all is sacred. So, the ultimate crime would be the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, the ultimate punishment (execution) is the consequence for the ultimate crime.

All that “ultimate punishment” talk is, alas, straight from the George W. Bush buzzword lexicon. In typical Dubya fashion, it enables him to sound tough without actually taking a definitive stand. Since I know you to be a person of conviction (though I don’t always share them!), I’d urge you to select a terminology more consistent with the strength of your opinion.

Of course, the problems also arise when we try to pin down exactly what “innocent life,” “ultimate crime,” and “ultimate punishment” really mean, at which point we generally get to hopelessly subjective benchmark-definitions. What’s the ultimate crime? Murder? Pedophilia? Rape? Bankrupting a nation? Decimating a wetland? Who’s to say? Is it just a matter of consensus? That doesn’t sound very “ultimate” to me.

AFAIC, life imprisonment with no parole and no access to other people would be a much more severe punishment than execution, and it has the added benefit of correctability if an error is discovered. To someone else, the “ultimate punishment” might be slow, excruciating torture carried out over an uninterrupted period of years. Someone else might consider the “ultimate punishment” to be eternal damnation, which I grant is a bit out of our jurisdiction. So who’s correct?

Even “innocent life” is too nebulous to be helpful. Is a newborn person “innocent life?” What about a town full of civilians who happen to live under a brutal dictator? What about a guy who commits murder? Is he “innocent life?” If he’s not, does that mean that anyone can kill him with no further justification?

These may seem like petty, lawyerly questions, but I think that they get to the heart of the problem. Yet they don’t even cover the really sticky problems, such as why the rights of an “innocent” fetus are given greater priority than the rights of an “innocent” woman.

Beyond all that, why shold one person’s definition of “ultimate” anything be endorsed in preference to any other’s? If it’s a simple matter of majority opinion, then can we simply vote to execute someone for voting Republican or for lacking a foreskin.

Whenever someone claims to be certain of any “ultimate” truth, I immediately get suspicious. And when the person who claims certainty also claims authority to act above the law, then I cry foul.

  
   2 - pro-choice and anti-death-penalty

I don’t know, but I see far too many conservatives that fit #1, which makes little sense. And of course I see a decent amount of liberals that fit #2.

I agree that #2 makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, now. It makes clear sense if you’re able to distinguish between a pre-viability fetus and a fully-grown human being—a distinction that you yourself make below.

   I do not go so far as to equate a 1 week fetus to an adult human being, but I draw the line pretty early, though, when the heart begins beating, which is around 3 weeks. I don’t have a problem with the so-called “day-after pill”.

I’ve got to be honest and say that I was stunned to read this, because it was almost a direct contradiction of what I thought to be your opinion. I am gratified to see that your view is substantially more moderate than I’d realized!

   I have serious problems with late term abortions.

So does pretty much everyone. I don’t think I’ve ever heard from a person who applauded them as a great option, in fact.

Here’s something to consider, as put by a good friend of mine: no one is more strongly anti-abortion than the woman who just had to have one.

Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
 
(...) Now, now, settle down, Dave! I'm pretty sure that the word "ultimate" pre-existed some apocryphal, presidential playbook and no association with OFL whatsoever was intended. (...) Let's see. (...) See? You got it on the first try! :-) (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!
 
(...) Okay, Tom, let me take a stab at justifying a position such as this one. A pro-life stance would hold that a human life above all is sacred. So, the ultimate crime would be the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, the ultimate punishment (...) (19 years ago, 23-Mar-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

18 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR