This question was brought up in another thread about how it seems that people who are pro-choice are anti-death penalty and vise-versa and I thought it would be interesting to see how board members stack up. This is just a generalization-not to include EXCEPTIONS.




Cat

I'm kind of semi-choice and semi-pro DP.  I think abortion should be allowed in the earliest stages of pregnancy and in the case of rape, incest, and the mother's life if we're talking partial-birth.

As for death penalty, on one hand I don't think a Western country should uphold such an old-fashioned pratice, but on the other hand why is life in jail any better?

I've thought about it, and I think one can support one or the other without contradicting themselves.  Basically, people who are pro-life and pro-DP think that a fetus is an innocent life and a death row prisoner is a scumbag.  A person who is pro-choice and anti-DP believes taking a life is always bad, but doesn't consider a fetus a life.

I think they are totally different from one another.  Someone who is sitting on death row, 99% of the time, did something pretty horrible to get themselves there....they chose to act out in a bad way, and I think there should be consequences for those kinds of choices, however, no child EVER asks to be born (if that was the case...a lot of them, I am sure, would opt NOT to be born, considering the types of "parents" that they will be dealt).  I realize that there are instances/exceptions to both sides of the spectrum...and I am not going to get into them, or what I believe, etc....I just wanted to give my opinion on how I think that the two differ.

I think they are totally different from one another.  Someone who is sitting on death row, 99% of the time, did something pretty horrible to get themselves there....they chose to act out in a bad way, and I think there should be consequences for those kinds of choices, however, no child EVER asks to be born (if that was the case...a lot of them, I am sure, would opt NOT to be born, considering the types of "parents" that they will be dealt).  I realize that there are instances/exceptions to both sides of the spectrum...and I am not going to get into them, or what I believe, etc....I just wanted to give my opinion on how I think that the two differ.


I agree.

Basically, it depends if you think unborn babies are legit people.  Death row prisoners are undisputably people, albeit despicable people.  If you think unborn babies are people, it makes sense to believe that only they should be saved and the death row inmate should fry.  If you don't think a fetus is a person, and thus are pro-choice that doesn't mean you have to support the death penalty.

I had to answer "Pro Choice" and "Pro Death Penalty".  I know I've explained my position on both issues many times, but basically I don't like abortion and I don't like the death penalty, but I understand that in some circumstances there are no other reasonable alternatives.

I had to answer "Pro Choice" and "Pro Death Penalty".  I know I've explained my position on both issues many times, but basically I don't like abortion and I don't like the death penalty, but I understand that in some circumstances there are no other alternatives.


Same with me.  I don't like either, but in some cases they work for the best.  I find both ugly and I wish we didn't have to do either, but I feel we should allow both until our nation progresses to a better state.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

I'll explain why.

An Unborn child has never commited a crime, a criminal has.

This is yet another case where I wish there was an "Other" choice.  I did not vote.

I am pro Death Penalty.  I am cautious when it comes to Abortion.

I oppose (note the word "oppose", and not "want to see illegal") abortion for purely "Birth Control" reasons.  I support it for Health of the mother, deformity, and rape (I consider forced incest as Rape, consentual Incest to me is just another form of sex).  If there was mearly an "Ooops" in birth control (or the lack of any being used), I support adoption.

I myself would probably oppose a ban on abortion, but I wish that more attention was given to alternatives.  With so many childless couples, I find it unconcieveable that other women would simply choose to do something like that.

Wouldn't it be fairer to have the option "anti-abortion" instead of "anti-choice"?

Wouldn't it be fairer to have the option "anti-abortion" instead of "anti-choice"?


That's not the issue. Pro-choice people can be anti-abortion, but that's not what this poll is asking. People who have already voted have said that they picked pro-choice even though they're anti-abortion.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

I'll explain why.

An Unborn child has never commited a crime, a criminal has.

There are prisoners on death row who are innocent. Just because you were convicted doesn't mean you commited the crime. Even if you could be 100% sure a convicted murderer committed the murders of which he was convicted, I would still be against capital punishment.
1. There is economic and racial disparity involved in the application of the DP.
2. I am simply against it philosophically.  I am against the culture of retribution that surrounds the pro-DP cause.

I am pro-choice because I am pro-woman, pro-family, and believe every child born should be a wanted child. 
8)

I am pro-choice because I am pro-woman, pro-family, and believe every child born should be a wanted child. 
8)


Yeah!  8)

You do dislike casual abortion though, right? Not necessarily to the extent of making it legal, but you would frown upon someone doing partial-births for fun, right?

I'm pro-choice and kind of not sure on the death penalty. I did answer pro-choice and anti-death penalty, because I think the death penalty is flawed right now and that too many innocent people are on death row or have been put to death. However, do I feel bad when a cold blooded killer is executed?, not really.

I'm pro-choice and kind of not sure on the death penalty. I did answer pro-choice and anti-death penalty, because I think the death penalty is flawed right now and that too many innocent people are on death row or have been put to death. However, do I feel bad when a cold blooded killer is executed?, not really.


I'm sort of against the death penalty because I don't think a civilized country should kill its own people.  But on the other hand, why waste the resources to keep them in prison?

I'm sort of against the death penalty because I don't think a civilized country should kill its own people.  But on the other hand, why waste the resources to keep them in prison?


Yeah I agree about keeping them in prison, these guys are getting way too much benefits in prison. They get better medical care than most people not in prison.

Yeah I agree about keeping them in prison, these guys are getting way too much benefits in prison. They get better medical care than most people not in prison.


I agree.  Just give them enough to remain (somewhat) sane and spend tax money on education.  That way there will be less criminals in the first place.

I am 100% pro-choice, but I do have my own ideas around it, such as I'm against late-abortions etc. (It shouldn't take, say, 8 months to decide whether you want an abortion or not...) But I don't agree that late-abortions should be illegal.

I am 100% anti-death penalty. I just don't believe capital punishment has a place in a modern society such as this.

I just don't believe capital punishment has a place in a modern society such as this.


I believe not having the death penalty has no place in a modern society.

I am pro-choice and voted pro-death penalty, but I'm not really for it as a realistic means of punishment. From what I understand death penalty cases cost the states almost 3 times the legal fees that a life without parole case would. It's a waste of money. States that have the death penalty do not have a significant reduction in crimes that can be tried as capital offenses, so it isn't a particularly effective deterrent either. There is also the incredibly small percentage of innocent people on death row; while rotting in jail is not much better at least if later on evidence proving innocence surfaces one would still have a chance of using it.

If I had to choose between life in a hell hole or a relatively quick death, I'd take the latter.

I am curious as to what people think about attempted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia, since we are on this light hearted topic.  ::)

I am 100% pro-choice, but I do have my own ideas around it, such as I'm against late-abortions etc. (It shouldn't take, say, 8 months to decide whether you want an abortion or not...)



Late-term abortions are not legal unless there is a threat to the health of the mother, or if the condition of the fetus is so dire that the child would not survive out of the womb and/or the birth would endanger both the mother and itself.  Abortions by choice must happen before the fetus becomes viable(able to survive on its own outside of the womb), after that there have to be extenuating circumstances. I did have a friend who was very anti choice, until an ultrasound found the fetus was armless, legless, and the head and brainstem were not developing.  She had a late term abortion.  She has modified her views.
As for the death penalty, the government, and the people, get it wrong too many times to trust them with this.  It is more like the Roman forum, most don't really look to make sure if the person is the right one, the people just want to see blood.

I'm opposed to the taking of human life in general, but not to the point of being totally inflexible. There are always occasions when things need to be done. I think abortion is totally unecessary (there are many other options) and sort of an indicator of how our society is, in some way, 'de-valuing' human life. Though, I think, to the rich and powerful human life has never had very much value in the first place. In Australia those opposed to abortion are said to be, 'pro-life' instead of anti-choice but yeah, sort of a different connotation even if it means the same thing..our state of Western Australia only legalised abortion in 1998, and it was pretty big news.

Don't have much experience or knowledge regarding the Death Penalty, WA was the last state to officially abolish the Death Penalty (in 1984) - that, and the fact abortion was illegal here and legal in other states may say something about West Australians. But I'm opposed to it...it doesn't reduce crime, etc. add to the perception of safety in any way. And it is not uncommon for an innocent criminal to be framed, wrongly convicted etc. Though in some cases, I find it hard to maintain this view.

This question was brought up in another thread about how it seems that people who are pro-choice are anti-death penalty and vise-versa and I thought it would be interesting to see how board members stack up. This is just a generalization-not to include EXCEPTIONS.




Cat
Since I'm the one who originally posed this question, I'll be glad to give my two cents on this subject:  To me it's a matter of consistency. Generally, people who consider themselves "liberal" are for abortion and against the death penalty, and those who consider themselves "conservative" oppose abortion and support capital punishment. And what irritates me is that when a lot of these "pro-choice" liberals argue against the death penalty, and when conservatives who support the death penalty argue against abortion, both sides start pounding their fists about how they must defend the "sanctity of life" and I think in both cases it's hypocritical.  Either way, to me that's like saying it's OK to kill these people over here but it's not OK to kill those people over there and that's bullsh*t. (Apologies to Mr. Pink.)
  People like to get down on the Catholic Church, and long ago I left that religion for reasons I won't go into, but one thing I have to give them credit for is that their official stance is that they oppose both abortion and the death penalty, and while I may not agree with this position I can at least respect it because it's consistent.
  My own view on this topic is that I don't feel all that strongly about abortion, but I am strongly in favor of the death penalty, because I believe in my heart that if some scumbag goes out and brutally rapes and murders a young child, that they truly deserve to die for it. As far as abortion goes, you can argue to me all you want about first-trimester/second-trimester, which to me is ludicrous, because that implies that one day a fetus is nothing but a blob of goo, and the very next day it'll be able to put on a top hat and pick up a cane and start singing "The Michigan Rag." Even when it's still a blob of goo, if you abort it you're still snuffing out a life and no amount of arguing will ever convince me otherwise.
  But you know what? Despite that, I'm still grudgingly pro-choice, because a) I feel I must be in order to be consistent with my view on the death penalty, and b) some of you may consider this a cop out, but quite simply I'm too much of a libertarian to feel that I should tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body.  

Don't have much experience or knowledge regarding the Death Penalty, WA was the last state to officially abolish the Death Penalty (in 1984) -


You mean the state of Washington or something else?  I know that the state of Washington still has legalized lethal injection and hanging.

You mean the state of Washington or something else?  I know that the state of Washington still has legalized lethal injection and hanging.


Western Australia.

It's just my opinion, but the "anti-choice" option seems a little...well, euphemistic. Why not refer to someone who's "pro choice" as "pro-death"? I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I am curious how we decide what descriptions to use here. It seems like a big setup, that's all. Sorry if that sounds out of place.

I think the problem with these issues is that everybody wants them to be totally black-and-white. Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. Sometimes individual circumstances mean making tough choices. I'd love it if we could depend on the justice system to work properly and not have to worry about the wrong person going to jail...but it happens. Rarely, perhaps, but it *can* happen. The same thing can be said about abortion and the death penalty. I consider myself a Christian, but even I know that abortion is sometimes the only option that makes any sense. I'm willing to make exceptions. That's life. Living it by hard-and-fast rules doesn't always apply.

The older I get, the less certain I feel about my position on the death penalty. I used to think it was the only way to deal with the worst of humanity, but now I see it as less viable than most other forms of punishment. I'm in conflict over it, because a cold-blooded killer needs to be dealt with properly, but how to do it? Life in prison can be hell of a sort, but is that satisfaction enough for the deceased's loved ones? Should that even be a factor? Then again, are we really in the position to take a life for a life? My faith leads me to say "no", but again, does that mean "no" all the time? I don't have a good answer.

 




   

//.both sides start pounding their fists about how they must defend the "sanctity of life" and I think in both cases it's hypocritical.  Either way, to me that's like saying it's OK to kill these people over here but it's not OK to kill those people over there and that's bullsh*t. (Apologies to Mr. Pink.)



I agree. Who is Mr Pink?



//.., because I believe in my heart that if some scumbag goes out and brutally rapes and murders a young child, that they truly deserve to die for it.



Yes they do, which is the main reason I am pro-death penalty despite the major flaws I previously listed with it.



As far as abortion goes, you can argue to me all you want about first-trimester/second-trimester, which to me is ludicrous, because that implies that one day a fetus is nothing but a blob of goo, and the very next day it'll be able to put on a top hat and pick up a cane and start singing "The Michigan Rag." Even when it's still a blob of goo, if you abort it you're still snuffing out a life and no amount of arguing will ever convince me otherwise.



Well, I won't argue, but just to say my own belief is based on viability of the fetus.


//..b) some of you may consider this a cop out, but quite simply I'm too much of a libertarian to feel that I should tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body.  


It's not a cop-out at all IMO, that's one of the primary reasons I'm pro-choice.

Since I'm the one who originally posed this question, I'll be glad to give my two cents on this subject:  To me it's a matter of consistency. Generally, people who consider themselves "liberal" are for abortion and against the death penalty, and those who consider themselves "conservative" oppose abortion and support capital punishment. And what irritates me is that when a lot of these "pro-choice" liberals argue against the death penalty, and when conservatives who support the death penalty argue against abortion, both sides start pounding their fists about how they must defend the "sanctity of life" and I think in both cases it's hypocritical.  Either way, to me that's like saying it's OK to kill these people over here but it's not OK to kill those people over there and that's bullsh*t. (Apologies to Mr. Pink.)


Yes, I'm annoyed at people that are for one pro-death thing and against another.  I do think that it can be consistent, if your rationale for death penalty is that they're worthless scum and that a fetus is a person, or if your rationale for being pro-choice is that a fetus isn't a person and a death row inmate is a scummy person.

I was once a Catholic myself, and although I've been out of the "faith" for 3 years due to realizing all the woo-woo bullsheeshe in it I do respect how they're totally pro-life. 


  My own view on this topic is that I don't feel all that strongly about abortion, but I am strongly in favor of the death penalty, because I believe in my heart that if some scumbag goes out and brutally rapes and murders a young child, that they truly deserve to die for it. As far as abortion goes, you can argue to me all you want about first-trimester/second-trimester, which to me is ludicrous, because that implies that one day a fetus is nothing but a blob of goo, and the very next day it'll be able to put on a top hat and pick up a cane and start singing "The Michigan Rag." Even when it's still a blob of goo, if you abort it you're still snuffing out a life and no amount of arguing will ever convince me otherwise.
  But you know what? Despite that, I'm still grudgingly pro-choice, because a) I feel I must be in order to be consistent with my view on the death penalty, and b) some of you may consider this a cop out, but quite simply I'm too much of a libertarian to feel that I should tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body.  


But should people always get what they deserve?  My charitable neighbor probably deserves a million bucks ... does that mean Bill Gates should come to my neighborhood and give them a check?  Besides, prison is just as bad as the death penalty anyway, in my opinion (assuming they can't get out of jail and have only the barest necessities and entertainment). But I do swing on the issue a lot, because I do think the death penalty is very economically efficient.  It's more a question of ethics than anything else, I couldn't care less if they're executed or not personally (hell, I hardly personally feel bad when some innocent person halfway around the world is killed, but then again I'm not the most sensitive person).

I also agree on the Libertarian thing.  If we are going to ban abortion, we should have women legislate it.

It's just my opinion, but the "anti-choice" option seems a little...well, euphemistic. Why not refer to someone who's "pro choice" as "pro-death"? I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I am curious how we decide what descriptions to use here. It seems like a big setup, that's all. Sorry if that sounds out of place.

I think the problem with these issues is that everybody wants them to be totally black-and-white. Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. Sometimes individual circumstances mean making tough choices. I'd love it if we could depend on the justice system to work properly and not have to worry about the wrong person going to jail...but it happens. Rarely, perhaps, but it *can* happen. The same thing can be said about abortion and the death penalty. I consider myself a Christian, but even I know that abortion is sometimes the only option that makes any sense. I'm willing to make exceptions. That's life. Living it by hard-and-fast rules doesn't always apply.

The older I get, the less certain I feel about my position on the death penalty. I used to think it was the only way to deal with the worst of humanity, but now I see it as less viable than most other forms of punishment. I'm in conflict over it, because a cold-blooded killer needs to be dealt with properly, but how to do it? Life in prison can be hell of a sort, but is that satisfaction enough for the deceased's loved ones? Should that even be a factor? Then again, are we really in the position to take a life for a life? My faith leads me to say "no", but again, does that mean "no" all the time? I don't have a good answer.The trouble with these issues is that they bring out such a strong emotional response in people that it's nearly impossible to try and analyze them with strictly reason and logic. And I'm guilty of this myself. As I said earlier, I don't feel too strongly either way about abortion but I have strong feelings about the death penalty. And I can understand the arguments against it. I understand that most people who oppose the death penalty do so not because they're a bunch of "bleeding hearts" who want to put criminals' rights ahead of victims' rights, as all the Hannitys and Limbaughs out there would like us all to believe. They do so because they're fighting against a system that they feel is inherently flawed and biased and is a drain on taxpayer's money and I think those are valid arguments, and I can understand them.  But then when I think about what some of these people on death row did to get there in the first place, I get so angry that I don't care about what rights they may or may not have and I think they're getting exactly what they deserve.

I agree. Who is Mr Pink?
He's a character from the movie "Reservoir Dogs." I kind of paraphrased him there.

But should people always get what they deserve?  My charitable neighbor probably deserves a million bucks ... does that mean Bill Gates should come to my neighborhood and give them a check?  Besides, prison is just as bad as the death penalty anyway, in my opinion (assuming they can't get out of jail and have only the barest necessities and entertainment). But I do swing on the issue a lot, because I do think the death penalty is very economically efficient.  It's more a question of ethics than anything else, I couldn't care less if they're executed or not personally (hell, I hardly personally feel bad when some innocent person halfway around the world is killed, but then again I'm not the most sensitive person).

I also agree on the Libertarian thing.  If we are going to ban abortion, we should have women legislate it.
Perhaps my biggest argument for the death penalty, and this is coming from a more logical rather than emotional perspective, is that it removes any chance whatsoever that the individual in question could somehow be released from prison on either some technicality or oversight and bring harm to another innocent person.

Yes, I am pro-choice-but like many people here, I also don't believe in late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is in danger. I do believe there are reasons for abortion but birth control is not one of them. But I feel that it is the woman's choice-not anyone else's to decide what is best for her.

In general I am anti-death penalty with maybe a few exceptions (which I know does sound like an oxymoran) but let me explain myself. I'm not going to get into the cost (which is one issue). The justice system in this country is broke. There are many innocent people sitting on death row-and many guilty as well. As William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." Another reason is that we really don't know what is on the "other side". It just may be a much better place than this. As Red Ant said:



If I had to choose between life in a hell hole or a relatively quick death, I'd take the latter.



So, which is the greatest punishment? We really don't know for sure, but my guess would be life in prison.




Cat

Perhaps my biggest argument for the death penalty, and this is coming from a more logical rather than emotional perspective, is that it removes any chance whatsoever that the individual in question could somehow be released from prison on either some technicality or oversight and bring harm to another innocent person.


That's a very good argument.  I don't think emotions should cloud one's judgement on such things, but when I think of someone who say, kidnaps a kid, rapes them, puts them to slavely and then brutally murders them I can't really feel too sorry for them.  But then again, I'm so misanthropic I hardly even feel personally sorry about innocent people dying that aren't close to me, although of course I'd much rather if they didn't die or suffer.

I think most people who are opposed to the death penalty are for two reasons, and this includes the liberals.  Most liberals I've met are against the death penalty for one or both of these reasons:

1. They think (and I agree) that execution has no place in society, and puts the state at the same level as the criminal
2. The system is flawed.  If there was a perfect death penalty system, even most American liberals would probably passively approve of it

because I do think the death penalty is very economically efficient. 

You would be incorrect then.

In theory, it is more efficient than life without parole. 50 cents worth of HCN, 5$ worth of rope, 1$ for a sufficiently lethal bullet, etc are all a lot cheaper than housing someone until they die.

In reality, death penalties are often appealed until appeals are exhausted and the legal fees are staggering. You can see some of the actual costs here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

You would be incorrect then.

In theory, it is more efficient than life without parole. 50 cents worth of HCN, 5$ worth of rope, 1$ for a sufficiently lethal bullet, etc are all a lot cheaper than housing someone until they die.

In reality, death penalties are often appealed until appeals are exhausted and the legal fees are staggering. You can see some of the actual costs here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html


Which is why there should be 2 appeals only.

^Oh, I mean when done right, Red Ant.

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. 


As for the death penalty, I believe it should only be used in the most severe and extreme of circumstances; ie., for someone like Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 conspirator who is currently on trial. 

Someone who is sitting on death row, 99% of the time, did something pretty horrible to get themselves there....

You have a much higher opinion of the justice system than me, then: the number of people on death row subsequently acquitted is >1%

If you're pro-death penalty, then the "collateral damage" that is executing the wrong person has to be acceptable to you.  I'm afraid that there have been too many miscarriages of justice for me to consider supporting the death penalty.


I'm sort of against the death penalty because I don't think a civilized country should kill its own people.  But on the other hand, why waste the resources to keep them in prison?

One suggestion I made a while back was to enable a person serving a life sentence to select *for themselves* the death penalty: if they want to, then why the hell not?

One suggestion I made a while back was to enable a person serving a life sentence to select *for themselves* the death penalty: if they want to, then why the hell not?

I totally agree here.

^^I think in the case of executing terrorists, it's almost more like a war killing then an execution, since they've essentially declared war on the country.

One suggestion I made a while back was to enable a person serving a life sentence to select *for themselves* the death penalty: if they want to, then why the hell not?

I totally agree here.

^^I think in the case of executing terrorists, it's almost more like a war killing then an execution, since they've essentially declared war on the country.



The problem is, you execute a terrorist and they become a martyr.  ::)



Cat

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. 


As for the death penalty, I believe it should only be used in the most severe and extreme of circumstances; ie., for someone like Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 conspirator who is currently on trial. 
Either that, or in cases where the crime was especially heinous, like when someone kills a child.

Late-term abortions are not legal unless there is a threat to the health of the mother, or if the condition of the fetus is so dire that the child would not survive out of the womb and/or the birth would endanger both the mother and itself.  Abortions by choice must happen before the fetus becomes viable(able to survive on its own outside of the womb), after that there have to be extenuating circumstances.
This I agree with. But at what age is a fetus considered viable?

Either that, or in cases where the crime was especially heinous, like when someone kills a child.



Yes, that as well.  I don't think the death penalty should be used everytime someone is convicted of murder.  There are some crimes that are so egregious, so disgusting that sometimes the death penalty is the only applicable punishment. 

Either that, or in cases where the crime was especially heinous, like when someone kills a child.


No, because then we're just getting revenge.  Killing a child is worse than killing an adult, and certainly raises the blood temperature more, but murder is murder and if we're going to kill murderers, we can't only do it when it's especially infuriating or else we're not much better than them.

It's different with terrorists because they're essentially at war with us, it would be like killing an enemy soldier.

Yes, that as well.  I don't think the death penalty should be used everytime someone is convicted of murder.  There are some crimes that are so egregious, so disgusting that sometimes the death penalty is the only applicable punishment. 


Well like I said we shouldn't base the decision on how much the crime pisses off and disgusts us, but rather on whether we're better off with them being alive or dead.
I'm definitely more disgusted at someone killing a defenseless child then if they kill a strong adult, but my level of anger shouldn't dictate whether they live or not.

It's not a child, it's a blob.
8)

This I agree with. But at what age is a fetus considered viable?



I believe most doctors set the point at 24 weeks.

It's not a child, it's a blob.
8)


I'm talking about babies, not embyros here.  :)

I'm talking about babies, not embyros here.  :)


When does a Tollhouse chocolate chip cooke become a Tollhouse chocolate chip cookie?  When you mix the batter? When you form the cookie shape? When you put the tray in the oven? When the batter is baking? When you remove the tray from the oven? When...
The possibilities are mind-boggling!
:D

^Well, I don't really buy the notion that life actually begins when the baby pops out ... I think it the baby could in theory be born prematurely and live, it's a valid "person".

The problem is, you execute a terrorist and they become a martyr.  ::)

Cat


True, but I suppose on the other hand keeping them in jail forever could lead to the terrorist's followers taking hostages and demanding his release.


You have a much higher opinion of the justice system than me, then: the number of people on death row subsequently acquitted is >1%



True as well, though many of those cases are quite old and have been turned over by DNA evidence which wasn't available then. I suspect that >1% will drop to close (but never ) 0% in the future.



If you're pro-death penalty, then the "collateral damage" that is executing the wrong person has to be acceptable to you.  I'm afraid that there have been too many miscarriages of justice for me to consider supporting the death penalty.



Even if they aren't executed, they would spend the rest of their lives in prison, so they would still be getting screwed. Innocent people get the shaft every day, while that isn't an excuse I'm of the opinion that executing ~1% who are innocent, given the legal system we have, is an acceptable trade off for putting down 98 or 99 other people who are infact guilty. Unfortunately no sytem will ever be perfect.


I'm not cold though, perhaps everyone who has been on death row since before DNA analysis/better forensic methods came along should have their sentences made into life imprisonment terms. Perhaps that would eliminate the >1%



One suggestion I made a while back was to enable a person serving a life sentence to select *for themselves* the death penalty: if they want to, then why the hell not?



Why not indeed.



I believe most doctors set the point at 24 weeks.


Viability as far as I understand it (and in layman's terms) is the ability for the fetus to survive a birth at that age. 24 weeks sounds about right.

It's not a child, it's a blob.
8)
Until the second trimester, when it suddenly puts on a top hat and picks up a cane and starts singing "Hello, my baby, hello, my honey, hello my ragtime gal..."

Until the second trimester, when it suddenly puts on a top hat and picks up a cane and starts singing "Hello, my baby, hello, my honey, hello my ragtime gal..."


I don't even care what this is an argument about (I stopped reading it pages ago) but this particular image is that perfect mix of twisted and hilarious. Cheers!

Until the second trimester, when it suddenly puts on a top hat and picks up a cane and starts singing "Hello, my baby, hello, my honey, hello my ragtime gal..."



Applause and quote of the day.  ;D ;D ;D




Cat

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

I'll explain why.

An Unborn child has never commited a crime, a criminal has.



100% Agreed :)

Funny you should mention this....my stance is based primarily on reason and logic.  Emotionally, I am 100% against abortion except in rare circumstances because I emotionally view the fetus as a baby, but I realize that there are people who don't agree and I have no right to tell them how to feel and vice versa.  Looking strictly at biology, it is simply a parasite, depending 100% on the mother until it is born.  I realize that sounds offensive, but it's true.  :-\\

That being said, I am also pro-death penalty, although that is based primarily on emotion.  I readily admit it's the "eye for an eye" mentality.  If anyone ever did anything to any of my children, they wouldn't have to worry about getting the death penalty because I'd probably kill them myself....
With me, my views were shaped when I was a kid and a couple of particularly brutal murders happened in the area. No one involved was anyone I knew but it really struck a raw nerve with myself and the kids my age. It was a strange time.

Looking strictly at biology, it is simply a parasite, depending 100% on the mother until it is born.  I realize that sounds offensive, but it's true.  :-\\



Karma point for stating this on open board.

Karma point for stating this on open board.




Karma point for giving Crazymom a karma point.

Why do I get the feeling that many who call themselves "pro-choice" aren't "pro-choice" when it comes to school-choice and gun rights.

Why do I get the feeling that many who call themselves "pro-choice" aren't "pro-choice" when it comes to school-choice and gun rights.


I have a feeling.. you may be right.

Why do I get the feeling that many who call themselves "pro-choice" aren't "pro-choice" when it comes to school-choice and gun rights.


You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "school-choice".

As for gun rights, I support the 2nd ammendment and rights of individuals to own firearms with few limitations/exceptions; this is probably my most 'conservative' or 'Republican' trait. So yes, I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd ammendment.

I am pro-Choice and anti-Death penalty.

I believe abortion is not murder if it's done the way it's supposed to be(the first trimester). Abortion is only okay beyond that if the mother's life is in danger. If it comes down to either the mother or the child, I think the mother should always be the one chosen for life. Because she has already lived on this planet, has a name, a face, a life of memories, friends etc. No one knows the baby, it hasn't even been born yet. Know what I mean?

I am anti-Death penalty for more than one reason. First of all, like Max, I'm just philosophically opposed to the idea of state murder. Second of all, I don't believe it works as a deterrent. Texas has a very high murder rate despite the fact we execute more than any other state. Infact, we may have the highest murder rate of any state.  I'm not sure about that.  The third reason is I believe it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.  Finally I am opposed to it because I feel justice is about balance and harmony.  The convicted should be rehabilitated,  or if that doesn't work/isn't possible,  they should be kept away from general society to protect it.  But it isn't the place of the justice system to dole out vengence.

I am pro-Choice and anti-Death penalty.

I believe abortion is not murder if it's done the way it's supposed to be(the first trimester). Abortion is only okay beyond that if the mother's life is in danger. If it comes down to either the mother or the child, I think the mother should always be the one chosen for life. Because she has already lived on this planet, has a name, a face, a life of memories, friends etc. No one knows the baby, it hasn't even been born yet. Know what I mean?

I am anti-Death penalty for more than one reason. First of all, like Max, I'm just philosophically opposed to the idea of state murder. Second of all, I don't believe it works as a deterrent. Texas has a very high murder rate despite the fact we execute more than any other state. Infact, we may have the highest murder rate of any state.  I'm not sure about that.  The third reason is I believe it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.  Finally I am opposed to it because I feel justice is about balance and harmony.  The convicted should be rehabilitated,  or if that doesn't work/isn't possible,  they should be kept away from general society to protect it.  But it isn't the place of the justice system to dole out vengence.


I totally agree.

I am pro-Choice and anti-Death penalty.

I believe abortion is not murder if it's done the way it's supposed to be(the first trimester). Abortion is only okay beyond that if the mother's life is in danger. If it comes down to either the mother or the child, I think the mother should always be the one chosen for life. Because she has already lived on this planet, has a name, a face, a life of memories, friends etc. No one knows the baby, it hasn't even been born yet. Know what I mean?

I am anti-Death penalty for more than one reason. First of all, like Max, I'm just philosophically opposed to the idea of state murder. Second of all, I don't believe it works as a deterrent. Texas has a very high murder rate despite the fact we execute more than any other state. Infact, we may have the highest murder rate of any state.  I'm not sure about that.  The third reason is I believe it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.  Finally I am opposed to it because I feel justice is about balance and harmony.  The convicted should be rehabilitated,  or if that doesn't work/isn't possible,  they should be kept away from general society to protect it.  But it isn't the place of the justice system to dole out vengence.


I agree.

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "school-choice".


Vouchers so that people have the choice of a government/public school or a private school for their kid.

Vouchers so that people have the choice of a government/public school or a private school for their kid.


The government doesn't need to throw money at private schools. It needs to spend some of that money on bettering the ones they run.

Personally, I am opposed to the idea of private schools altogether. I think that if ALL schools in this country were public, that the public school system would be in a lot better shape.

The government doesn't need to throw money at private schools. It needs to spend some of that money on bettering the ones they run.

Personally, I am opposed to the idea of private schools altogether. I think that if ALL schools in this country were public, that the public school system would be in a lot better shape.


I think private schools are a good idea, for those who want their children to be taught religion.  But I agree with you that they shouldn't be government funded.  Church funded, maybe...

Vouchers so that people have the choice of a government/public school or a private school for their kid.



Nice thought that doesn't work in many cases.  If the government gave me a voucher today I would have to first find a school, then get accepted, then find transportation to and from.  This may work for people with stay at home parents, cities with reliable transit, and places
where there are a range of schools to choose from. Of course if I was wealthy and my kid was already in private school it would work out quite well.  Special needs parents are left way out in the cold on this one, the choices for placement are extremely limited, they would be left in the schools who would suffer from diminshed funding should a significant number of students take vouchers and leave. How about
fixing the public school system.

I agree, it is sort of hyprocitical pro-choice people going against the death penalty and vice-versa. Logically, I would have thought those in favour of the death penalty would also support abortion. It seems its not okay to kill criminals, but okay to kill innocent babies. And if you're on the other side of the fence, it's somehow okay to kill people but not okay to kill fetuses who have reduced awareness (but are in no way less human)?

Humans are irrational creatures, to be human is to be irrational.

The government doesn't need to throw money at private schools. It needs to spend some of that money on bettering the ones they run.

Personally, I am opposed to the idea of private schools altogether. I think that if ALL schools in this country were public, that the public school system would be in a lot better shape.


What a ridiculous idea. You're gunning for something straight out of Communist Russia there.

Private schools are there for people who can afford them and have the brains to go to them. I know a lot of people don't like to admit this but guess what, some people are D-U-M-B and some people are S-M-A-R-T. The whole myth that different educational institutions perpetuate the class system is ridiculous. Those who have the money and ability SHOULD receive a better education.

Those who have the money and ability SHOULD receive a better education.


But too often it is only the first factor which is taken into account.

But too often it is only the first factor which is taken into account.


Which is unfortunate, I'd be perfectly happy to see a world in which everybody received a first class education, however, that's impossible. If you give everyone the same opportunities, all you are doing is lowering the standards.

I don't know why any law or government should interfere with any medical treatment or procedure that anyone decides they want.
I am undecided on the issue of abortion.  I have to come back on that.

ONe really really fast aside...not a hijacking...
ever see those people that are addicted to surgery and get limbs amputated and stuff?  eeechh.

I think private schools are a good idea, for those who want their children to be taught religion.


There are plenty of private schools that have nothing at all to do with religion.

If you have the money, please don't send your kid(s) to the government to be educated.

If they "choose" to send their child to a private school, then they need to be responsible for that "choice" and find the $$ to pay for it. 


What about a woman whose life is not in any danger who wants medicaid to fund her abortion?  Should she be responsible for her choice to have unprotected sex?  Or does the burden fall on the taxpayers?

Luckily taxpayer funded abortions don't exist (I think) anywhere in this country, at least not in the military.  But you can bet NARAL and planned parenthood want that changed.

Which is unfortunate, I'd be perfectly happy to see a world in which everybody received a first class education, however, that's impossible. If you give everyone the same opportunities, all you are doing is lowering the standards.


Rubbish.


What a ridiculous idea. You're gunning for something straight out of Communist Russia there.

Private schools are there for people who can afford them and have the brains to go to them. I know a lot of people don't like to admit this but guess what, some people are D-U-M-B and some people are S-M-A-R-T. The whole myth that different educational institutions perpetuate the class system is ridiculous. Those who have the money and ability SHOULD receive a better education.


Yes, some people are dumb and some people are smart.  But education is still something that people should have universal access to.  And if the government supports private schools that undermines that.  Because what happens is you have a certain minority of people who can afford private school, and the majority are stuck with public schools which decline further in quality because they aren't getting the support they need from the government.  Having the gov't. give money to private schools or give out vouchers for people to attend them only worsens the problems in public school.

The only way to remedy it is for EVERYONE to go through the same education system. If the upper middle class and wealthier people in this country have no choice but to send their kids to the same schools as everyone else, people will say "well it's the only system we have, so we have to make it work".

I see education as a viable RESOURCE and as such the government needs to insure that all people have equal access to the same quality of it.

The same should go for medicine and utilities.  Electricity has gotten RIDICULOUS in this country. In many areas it costs almost as much as rent every month.
What about a woman whose life is not in any danger who wants medicaid to fund her abortion?  Should she be responsible for her choice to have unprotected sex?  Or does the burden fall on the taxpayers?

Luckily taxpayer funded abortions don't exist (I think) anywhere in this country, at least not in the military.  But you can bet NARAL and planned parenthood want that changed.


Of course I say the burden falls on the taxpayer because I support socialized medicine.

But education is still something that people should have universal access to.  And if the government supports private schools that undermines that. 


Do you believe private schools have any right to exist?  How can one call themselves "pro-choice" and not even support the right of people to send their kids to a private school with their own money?

Do you believe private schools have any right to exist?  How can one call themselves "pro-choice" and not even support the right of people to send their kids to a private school with their own money?


I don't think they have the right to exist on the primary and secondary levels.  K-12 should be all public.  No exceptions.

I personally think we should do it like the UK.  After secondary school(high school),  there should be government-funded two year colleges which are free to attend like public primary school and secondary school, but beyond that, at the University level,  it's private.

I support that way of doing it because if someone does well at a two-year college then they have a good shot at recieving a grant or scholarship to go on to Uni. But by keeping the first two years public and free, you give everyone a chance at making it in college.

I am pro-choice.  On the issue of abortion.  But pro-choice isn't an ideology meant to be applied to all debates and issues.  It's just a term pertaining to one debate.  And that is the woman's right to choose when it comes to abortions(or any other medical decision really).

What about a woman whose life is not in any danger who wants medicaid to fund her abortion?  Should she be responsible for her choice to have unprotected sex?  Or does the burden fall on the taxpayers?

Luckily taxpayer funded abortions don't exist (I think) anywhere in this country, at least not in the military.  But you can bet NARAL and planned parenthood want that changed.

Should, should, should, we all have our shoulds!  Then there is the so-called real world.  You don't want the "taxpayers" to pay for reproductive healthcare for women who don't have money for private care.  On the other hand, you b!tch and moan about taxpayer-funded social programs for children born into deprived circumstances.  I get the impression you just hate poor people.  Ronald Reagan and his goons spread the myth of the "welfare queen," that is, a woman who gets pregnant on purpose just to up her benefits.  Reagan didn't contrive the "welfare queen" caricature, but he was nuts enough to believe it.  And yet, he and all his cohorts were rabidly pro-life.  The just hated poor people, that's all.

"Should she be responsible...," of course she should.  However, a huge percentage of teens, especially teens from poverty, who get pregnant DID NOT consent to sex. In other words, they are pregnant because the were raped. If she's under the age of seventeen, depending on the state, she may not be able to "consent" legally at all.  However, the South Dakota legislature insists a fourteen year old girl who gets pregnant by her psycho uncle must carry the product of rape and incest to term!



Of course I say the burden falls on the taxpayer because I support socialized medicine.

Here, here! Socialized medicine would be cheaper to run, deliver more efficient care, and make our economy more competitive.  However, the proponents of socialized medicine cannot do what the insurance lobby can do: hand legislators satchels full of hundred dollar bills.  Every time the question of "single-payer" or "socialized" medicine comes up, out come all the lies about its costs and detriments from Limbaugh and his ilk.


Do you believe private schools have any right to exist?  How can one call themselves "pro-choice" and not even support the right of people to send their kids to a private school with their own money?

Well, I can't help it, but there you go again! That thar is Hannity hysteria!
;D

The more salient question is do YOU, GWB, believe every American child should have the right to a decent education?
???

The biggest problem I have with medicare/insurance covering abortion is that last time I checked, many don't even cover birth control.

The biggest problem I have with medicare/insurance covering abortion is that last time I checked, many don't even cover birth control.


You're right,  Andrea. 

I recently saw a report about how young women take many risks during Spring Break partying, and how (scarily enough) unprotected sex is still quite common.

Maybe if more schools in the U.S. taught CONTRACEPTION and BIRTH CONTROL rather than abstinence-only education this wouldn't still be such a problem.  I am aware that it is the "job of the parent" as they say for the kids to be taught on such matters.  And they're right,  it SHOULD be the job the parent.  But like Maxwell said,  should and reality are a looooong way apart.  You can't just bury your head in the sand;  you have to deal with how things actually work.

There are lots of parents who don't take the time to have proper sex talks with their kids.  There are also a lot of kids who are unfortunately in homes where parents just don't give them much attention period.  You would THINK in this day and age that any idiot should know by the time they are old enough to have sex and reproduce to use birth control,  but it seems like despite the sexualization of our culture,  a lot of teens and young adults still seem to be ignorant on these issues.

Anyway,  I went off on a tangent,  but I'm just saying I think society owes it's young people better when it comes to such an important subject as sexual safety.

I'm Pro-choice and Pro-Death Penalty when it is found that the person is actually guilty of the crime.

You're right,  Andrea. 

I recently saw a report about how young women take many risks during Spring Break partying, and how (scarily enough) unprotected sex is still quite common.

Maybe if more schools in the U.S. taught CONTRACEPTION and BIRTH CONTROL rather than abstinence-only education this wouldn't still be such a problem.  I am aware that it is the "job of the parent" as they say for the kids to be taught on such matters.  And they're right,  it SHOULD be the job the parent.  But like Maxwell said,  should and reality are a looooong way apart.  You can't just bury your head in the sand;  you have to deal with how things actually work.

There are lots of parents who don't take the time to have proper sex talks with their kids.  There are also a lot of kids who are unfortunately in homes where parents just don't give them much attention period.  You would THINK in this day and age that any idiot should know by the time they are old enough to have sex and reproduce to use birth control,  but it seems like despite the sexualization of our culture,  a lot of teens and young adults still seem to be ignorant on these issues.

Anyway,  I went off on a tangent,  but I'm just saying I think society owes it's young people better when it comes to such an important subject as sexual safety.





I agree. Even though I tend to agree with more conservative viewpoints..I feel that sex education should be taught in schools and that contraceptives should be available within the school.  I mean, the thought of abstinence is a nice thought...but just not realistic...and perhaps if these teens had access to the education and protection concerning safe sex...there would be a LOT less unwanted pregnancies to deal with.  That is one problem that I would have to say that I disagree with concerning pro-life supporters. They don't want people having abortions, yet they aren't willing to deal with the problems and allow preventive measures (birth control) to be in the picture either.

The voucher system has nothing to do with being "pro-choice".  You are equating the voucher system to abortion in a way that's not proportional.  People DO have a "choice" when it comes to what schools their children attend....if they "choose" to send their child to a private school, then they need to be responsible for that "choice" and find the $$ to pay for it.  Proponents of the school voucher system want people to be able to choose what school their child attends and allow them to attend it for free.  Pro-choice proponents want women to be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion, but most aren't fighting for them to be free.  Right or wrong, in most cases, "private" organizations are more costly than public ones. 


Wow Crazymom, this is the moderate view here.

I never even heard of anyone oppsoing private schools until today.  School vouchers, yes.  But opposing the right of private schools to exist?  Good lord.

I can't even think of one politician who opposes private schools, not even the more far-left democrats say anything that extreme.

I feel.....that contraceptives should be available within the school.

Prediction: never going to happen in this country.

I can't even think of one politician who opposes private schools, not even the more far-left democrats say anything that extreme.



I'm that kinda guy I guess. :)




Prediction: never going to happen in this country.


What are you talking about?  I live in TEXAS and at my old high school if you went to the nurse and asked you could get contraceptives.

Wow Crazymom, this is the moderate view here.

I never even heard of anyone oppsoing private schools until today.  School vouchers, yes.  But opposing the right of private schools to exist?  Good lord.

I can't even think of one politician who opposes private schools, not even the more far-left democrats say anything that extreme.



Read what crazymom wrote again.  She is not saying that there sholdn't be private schools.  She is saying that if you choose to send your children to a private school that is your choice and you should pay for it, not the taxpayer.

Yes, the education is usually better than the public schools, but getting rid of them isn't going to make public schools any better, no matter how much $$ you throw at them.


Which was my point.
To give everyone a level playing field you have to essentially dumb down those who are smart.
All through elementary and high school I went to public schools. I was a lot smarter than probably 98% of the people there, whenever it came to standardized testing time I was in the top 1%, every single time.
But, I got bored. I didn't want to learn about the different capitals of the world at 14, I knew 'em all  ;D

If you eliminate the elite factor then you eliminate the creativity as well.

Public and Private schools are a perfect example of Capitalism.

Those who are willing to be entrepreneurs take the risk and either go or send their kid's to private schools if they believe they will excel. I they excel then their liquid capital investment pays off.
The cream rises to the top.

The biggest problem I have with medicare/insurance covering abortion is that last time I checked, many don't even cover birth control.



I agree with you there-but they will fund Viagra.  ::)  It really doesn't make any sense and if you ask me, it is a bit of a double standard.




Cat

I agree with you there-but they will fund Viagra.  ::)  It really doesn't make any sense and if you ask me, it is a bit of a double standard.


Cat


Ours, and many others, began covering birth control after it was found that they cover Viagra.  They are only taking care of birth control to cover themselves on the Viagra side.  There was never any question of not covering Viagra.

I don't think it's necessarily making those who are more intelligent "dumb down", but thinking that eliminating private schools will "even the playing field" is a pipe dream.  In my school district, there are currently 4 grade schools.  Of those, 2 are overcrowded so they are "reassigning" schools so my kids will now be going to a school that's 20 minutes away instead of 5.  In our town alone (our school district is comprised of 6 small towns), there are at least 100 kids who currently go to private schools (of which there are none within the boundaries of our district).  If you add them and all of the kids who live in other towns that go to private schools, all 4 of our schools would be overcrowded and we would need additional schools to compensate for the "excess".  The cost alone to build a school is $1+million...the operating budget to run the school for 1 year is about $1 mil.  There are thousands of school districts throughout the country who would be in the same boat.....it's just not feasible.  The additional funds just aren't there because the private schools receive little or no government funding.


That's a good point. The costs would just be too high.
Of course, that's never been a problem for the Tax Happy left  ;D

Ours, and many others, began covering birth control after it was found that they cover Viagra.  They are only taking care of birth control to cover themselves on the Viagra side.  There was never any question of not covering Viagra.



I know a lot of insurence companies did that after the Viagra issue was brought to light.  ::)



Cat

Read what crazymom wrote again.  She is not saying that there sholdn't be private schools.  She is saying that if you choose to send your children to a private school that is your choice and you should pay for it, not the taxpayer.


That is exactly what I read into what she wrote.

crazymom it sounds like you believe that public schools just cannot improve no matter what.  I don't believe that.  So we're at an impasse on this issue I guess.

crazymom it sounds like you believe that public schools just cannot improve no matter what.  I don't believe that.  So we're at an impasse on this issue I guess.


Stop me if I'm wrong here..

I believe what she was saying was that without a serious cash injection from the state it's very difficult for public school's to improve. This is a correct statement.
School spending goes up every year, costs go up every year.
Without serious Tax hikes it's exceedingly difficult to increase the standard of public schools and most people just aren't willing to pay for it.

Well then most people are wrong.

Well then most people are wrong.


That's a matter you'll have to take up with them.

As I'm sure you're aware, I'm all about cutting down the size of the Government. Starve the beast and things like education would have a far larger budget.

  If there was mearly an "Ooops" in birth control (or the lack of any being used), I support adoption.


have many of these children have you adopted?

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  Here's why.  In China they have a one child policy any further pregnancies are considered criminal.  I believe that forcing a woman to or not to have an abortion is wrong.  Pro-death penalty, my only concern is they'd better make damn sure he/she is guilty and has no remorse for the crime before they execute.

have many of these children have you adopted?




Also,  I wonder if he supports the right of homosexual couples to adopt?

Also,  I wonder if he supports the right of homosexual couples to adopt?


Oh Gosh! Don't get me started on this.

I'm gonna start a new thread, I wanna know people's opinions on it.

That's a good point. The costs would just be too high.
Of course, that's never been a problem for the Tax Happy left  ;D


The "tax happy left"?  As opposed to what? The "Debt Happy Right"? 

Thanks to our fascist government's new bankruptcy laws, YOU have to pay your debts even if that means selling your body on the street, but THEY can vote to raise their "debt ceiling" just as high as the f**king moon! And what do we the citizens get for this incalculable debt? The highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world!  WTF? All we have to do is keep putting profits for the super-rich ahead of everybody else's human needs, and it won't be necessary to outlaw abortion. Babies will just die of malnutrition and disease like they did in the good old days when George Washington threw a cherry tree across Valley Forge, or whatever psychotic mythology the Right is always on about!
:D

The "tax happy left"?  As opposed to what? The "Debt Happy Right"? 

Thanks to our fascist government's new bankruptcy laws, YOU have to pay your debts even if that means selling your body on the street, but THEY can vote to raise their "debt ceiling" just as high as the f**king moon! And what do we the citizens get for this incalculable debt? The highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world!  WTF? All we have to do is keep putting profits for the super-rich ahead of everybody else's human needs, and it won't be necessary to outlaw abortion. Babies will just die of malnutrition and disease like they did in the good old days when George Washington threw a cherry tree across Valley Forge, or whatever psychotic mythology the Right is always on about!
:D


Yeah!  let's do away with taxes all together, as well as public sanitation, public hospitals(they're almost gone anyway), public schools,( why pay taxes if you don't have kids?  Well who the f*ck do you think payed for you!?), My Grandmother had (as much as we can figure) 10 brothers and sisters.  Her mother died giving birth at home, and only 4 of the children lived to adulthood, one of those died of the influenza epidemic during WW1, so only 3 made it to old age.  This was not unusual, especially the dying from childbirth part.  If you want to live for free, you better be prepared to watch you babies die for free.

Yeah!  let's do away with taxes all together, as well as public sanitation, public hospitals(they're almost gone anyway), public schools,( why pay taxes if you don't have kids?  Well who the f*ck do you think payed for you!?), My Grandmother had (as much as we can figure) 10 brothers and sisters.  Her mother died giving birth at home, and only 4 of the children lived to adulthood, one of those died of the influenza epidemic during WW1, so only 3 made it to old age.  This was not unusual, especially the dying from childbirth part.  If you want to live for free, you better be prepared to watch you babies die for free.

Exactly! And what's with this liberal provision in the SD law to "save the life of the mother." It's against God's law. And let's do away with that sinful Roman C-section too!  'Taint natrul! If both the mother and child should die, 'tis God's will! The LORD giveth and taketh away!
:D