Since my previous post on the abortion and death penalty issues, I've gotten some questions that I thought that I'd go ahead and answer here.
One person thought that I was a bit harsh on death penalty supporters (DPSs from here on). This was mainly in regard to my statement which said that if the death penalty is morally and ethically right, then it wouldn't matter how the execution was carried out. That is, it wouldn't matter if it was by lethal injection, electrocution, or beheading. I further said that if beheadings make DPSs squeamish, then perhaps their conscience is telling them something that they need to hear. I don't see what was particularly harsh about the way I said it. Sometimes the truth hurts, and maybe that's what sounded "harsh". I stand by what I said in my initial post.
One curious note that I want to bring up here is the choice of words in the headline of this article. It referred to the hanging of Saddam Hussein's half brother as a "botched execution". They chose the word "botched" because he was supposed to only hang, but his body dropped with such force that the rope decapitated the head. As in my previous post, I have to say something that may unintentionally come across as flippant, but I don't know how else to say this: Wasn't the whole point of the hanging to kill him? If so, then what was "botched" about it? He would have been just as dead had the rope not severed his head from his body. Certainly decapitation wasn't the intent, but the end result is still the same. To me, all this does is prove how barbaric the death penalty is, and this "botched execution" illustrated my point rather effectively.
In regards to whether I'd kill someone who was threatening to kill me, well - that's kinda a no-brainer, donchathink? That's called self defense. I'd do the same if that same homicidal maniac was also threatening someone I love. The circumstances here are different because of the immediacy of the act. However, if this homicidal maniac is behind bars, then his threat is neutralized so long as they keep him (or her, just to be fair) behind bars.
Another DPS's comment also made me realize that I need to add this clarifier: A life sentence should indeed mean "behind bars for life". Those who are opposed to the death penalty should also be the most vocal about "life means life". The more bleeding heart types among the anti-death penalty crowd who want to give a homicidal maniac a shortened sentence only hurt the credibility of the anti-death penalty movement.
So to you bleeding heart types: Stop being stupid and accept the concept that "life means life". If you're that opposed to the death penalty, then you need to accept this perfectly reasonable alternative to the violence of state-sanctioned death. Otherwise, you'll look like a clueless idiot that doesn't know what they're talking about.
A question was posed to me that I think needs to be answered: Is there ANY form of abortion that I would accept? There is one. This is in regards to ectopic pregnancies. From what I understand about this condition, there is NO WAY that the unborn can be carried to term, and to allow the pregnancy to continue could be fatal to the mother. In this instance, the abortion is the RESULT, and not the INTENT. BIG difference.
And a miscarriage is also morally neutral for the same reason: the abortion is the result and not the intent. I know the difference between a miscarriage and a willful act of abortion, so I don't see why I was asked this question other than for me to demonstrate to this person that I know the difference. Hopefully I have done just that.
And with that, I hope that I've taken care of just about everyone's questions about these two issues. But feel free to ask me anything else if I haven't quite covered what you want to know.
Now With New Videos Embedded! - The latest edition now includes photos and videos! https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085BTCCCD
3 months ago