Subject:
|
The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:33:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1730 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
| |
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.
|
Let’s see.
| |
What’s the ultimate crime? Murder?
|
See? You got it on the first try! :-)
| |
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.
|
Our culture is based upon the idea of the sanctity of life. Or, more secularily
put, we all have the (God-given, nature-given, Creator-given; whatever) right to
life, as expounded in the DoI. Because without life, consciousness, whatever
you want to call it, the discussion quickly becomes mute;-) The ultimate
“thing” you have is your life. All else is secondary (let’s save quality of
life issues for another discussion).
So respect for life, that is, I don’t kill you and you don’t kill me, is the
number one priority of our culture. That respect carries on towards how we
treat each other as well, in an order of descending priority. First, you don’t
kill me; next you don’t rape me, next you don’t touch my stuff; next you don’t
call me Francis (or I’ll kill you), etc. Calling me Francis, while egregious,
isn’t equal to killing 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.
|
Maybe to you, but let’s ask the guy to whom the sentence has been given. I
believe they usually prefer to remain alive, selecting your “much more severe”
punishment. Hmmm.
| |
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?
|
I am, Dave! Haven’t you gleaned this already? :-)
The only punishment society can morally offer (as opposed to your abhorrent
torture example above) is incarceration, or, the deprivation of freedom. And
that is only because it is the only way to protect society from these offenders,
being that all of the big island continents on which to dump criminals are all
spoken for.
| |
Even “innocent life” is too nebulous to be helpful. Is a newborn person
“innocent life?”
|
Of course. Of what would they be guilty?
| |
What about a town full of civilians who happen to live
under a brutal dictator?
|
Innocent of what? What is the charge?
| |
What about a guy who commits murder? Is he
“innocent life?”
|
He is guilty of killing someone who didn’t deserve to be killed.
| |
If he’s not, does that mean that anyone can kill him with no
further justification?
|
Those powers are given by the people to the government, which, being of the
people, represents the will of the people. In this system, he is given a fair
trial.
| |
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.
|
Not so sticky. Which particular rights are we comparing? I’d say the right of
a late term baby to live supercedes the right of an innocent woman to not want
to be pregnant anymore, the same as a liberal parent doesn’t have the right to
murder their whiny, future neocon 2 year old because they are tired of dealing
with him.
| |
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.
|
Seriously, what is more ultimate to any individual than coming into and leaving
existence?
| |
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.
|
Let me guess, Dave! -- your favorite MB color is gray? :-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
What is clear about refusing to kill a confessed mass murderer, and yet not
giving a second thought to ending a 7 month pregnancy? (in theory) Or the
murdered fetus on the way to the abortion clinic scenario?
| |
| |
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!
|
It is only logical not to equate a 1 day old zygote and a full grown human
being. But as I say, I draw the line fairly quickly...
| |
| |
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.
|
When I say “serious”, I mean I consider ending a late term pregnancy
infanticide, which I would consider equal to killing a 2 year old whiny future
neocon.
| |
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.
|
But that doesn’t account for the many women who have multiple ones.
If I can tie this back to Bush, where you began-- we should be a culture that
respects life, and though there may be times when taking life is necessary, it
should be after deep contemplation and thorough soul-searching.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
