As much as I hate to bump down the Marmot’s fine post (be sure to scroll down and check it out), I think this is of interest to readers.
It seems that our man at the UN still has some learning to do (Yahoo/AP):
At the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ran into trouble on his first day of work when he failed to state the U.N.’s official stance opposing capital punishment and said it should be a decision of individual countries.
“Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against Iraqi people and we should never forget victims of his crime,” Ban said in response to a reporter’s question about Saddam’s execution Saturday for crimes against humanity. “The issue of capital punishment is for each and every member state to decide.”
His ambiguous answer put a question mark over the U.N.’s stance on the death penalty, although Ban’s spokeswoman said there was no change in policy.
Ban is an especially tight spot on the death penalty because it is still on the books in Korea, although no convicted criminals have been executed in the past nine years.
This is in context of a leaked video of Saddam’s execution.
For the record, I am against the death penalty. However, if you are going to have it, it should be public. That is especially true in a case like Saddam’s (in the spirit of Sic semper tyrannis and all that).
In related news, Italy plans to use its seat on the Security Council to push for a worldwide ban on the death pentaly, a move that will get at least two vetos.
85 Comments
Ban made a common sense/true statement rather than a (UN) politically correct one. Good.
As for some Italians wanting to use the UN to make such legal changes in the U.S. (among other nations) – not very smart. That’s exactly the sort of thing (if it picked any actual momentum) that turns Americans off even more concerning the UN.
I’d like to see Italy and France and Germany bring it to a vote and the US talk the other veto nation Andy had in mind into abstaining from the vote along with America.
Let it pass.
And then tell Italy and others to enforce it.
It would drive home a point that was the final straw for my esteem of the UN: it doesn’t matter if you are a petty third world dictator or the most powerful nation on earth ——– everybody tells the UN to stick up its bum and exposes the UN’s virtual impotence.
Of course China would veto. There’s money to be made in organ ‘donation.’
Ban is a Korean and an embassador and a politician to boot. He knows how to play both sides. He has been doing that for last 30 years.
He will be an excellent UN secretary. After all, as the head of UN, all he has to do is to say things that represent both sides.
And, when things backfire he can always make excuses, saying English is not his native language and he misspoke.
Overall, he will make an excellent UN SG. He is a Korean and I am proud of him.
His statement worries me. Where does his true allegiance lie?
It’s not a matter of being politically correct, Richardson. There’s just no point in killing someone that isn’t a threat to others anymore. Besides, no justice system is infaliable. This can be seen in the fact that wrongfully convicted people are often released.
You’d think that Ban, as a South Korean, would be aware that dictatorships often make use of the death penality to suppress their opposition.
Ban did good with his statement. Death penalty should be up to each individual countries. I hope he shakes up the UN.
The point on being politically correct referred to stating the official UN line rather than the true reality of the situation, which is what Ban actually stated (individual nations decide for themselves).
I disagree completely; some truly deserve it. For what he did, not what he might do.
I support Schwarzenegger in that he did not succumb to the fake or transcient public opinion.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.....6216426395
What I mention is not the righteousness of the execution.
As for Korea, Korean courts rarely sentece to death and government seems to have no mind to execute the death sentenced by the court. I think that we Korean people had better accuse President of Korea and the head of Mininstry of Justice as dereliction of each’s duty.
This is what the Justice Ministry said on the subject a couple of years ago:
“In recent years this ultimate sentence has been handed down primarily upon those who have murdered several people, such as the serial killer Yoo Young-cheol. While his trial was taking place there was a movement in the National Assembly to abolish capital punishment. Yoo was sentenced to death, and his sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court. A few days after his sentencing the Korean Justice Ministry sent an official message to the National Assembly chiding them and warning, ‘If brutal murderers are not condemned to capital punishment, then it will go against the public’s feeling of justice and victims’ grudges, and their feeling of private revenge will increase.’”
As I told my high school students a couple months ago — no matter how heatedly each side holds its position, when opinions are split fairly evenly (or even with one side having a slightly comfortable majority) — it is obvious there is more than one viable point of view on the subject.
In fact, what seems to make for the most passionate argument is an issue where both sides cannot agree with each other / find common ground due to the nature of the issue — but — the issue is not clearly loppsided in favor of the other.
@Robert Neff
I had difficulty in finding out who’s the author.
Pooh, there is no proof that capital punishment does not prevent serious crime, but the abolishment of death penalty will give the latent heinous would-be murderer the feeling of safety that they will never be killed in spite that they would kill people cruelly.
I urge Korean government or any Korean organizations not to give subsidy or grant to the Korean branch of Amnesty International.
I cite some of you at this,
http://www.law4u.net/tech/boar.....&no=25
Already on day one no less, the UN is already slowly beginning to suck the life out of Ban Ki-moon.
Glad to hear that UN general secretary is a pragmatist.
Some people really give liberals a bad name. Imagine they capture Kim Jong Il, “..it’s never right to execute anyone…” I would like to bitch-slap the first person who says that to me in person.
I’m probably where virtual wonderer is.
I do not support the US versio(s) of the death penalty. I think it should be reserved for rare moments for the most horrible, unimaginable crimes, and it should be done federally with the same rules for every state.
I would reserve it for only people like Jeffrey Dalmer (sp?) who ate people and those two in the NW - I think it was - the one white and one asian guy who sadistically video taped their victims they held for days and days at a time, molesting them and other things, before they killed them.
I have no moral problems with the death penality. I believe a person can forfeit the right to life.
But, even in the best of nations, the court systems are too flawed to make the death penalty something common or not withheld for the very worst of the worst.
If capital punishment gets Banned, then shouldn’t abortion also be Banned?
The death penalty exists in all countries. The only difference is that where the state has denied itself the death penalty, it has been handed over to the criminal class as a tool for impune use against their victims.
What does this mean? Are you referring to first-degree murder? With one of the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, I’d say our criminal class uses “capital punishment” rather freely across the country regardless of whether the state employs the death penalty.
Sonagi, I agree with your last sentence, but in jurisdictions which prohibit the death penalty, the criminal class has the security of knowing that no matter what acts they commit, they are immune from being put to death. I would argue that the fear that this engenders, makes it more difficult for prosecutors to line up witnesses against them. The second highest murder rate in the U.S. is in Puerto Rico, which does not have a death penalty. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to put anyone away for more than 20 years. (Oh, and prisoners also vote in commonwealth elections, and their families have associations to press their issues, like passes and family visits. And, they get free in-house medical care far superior to that afforded the common citizen.)
The death penalty takes murderers out of circulation one slime ball at a time. It may be slow, and imperfect, but that’s one less on the streets. And one less that has to be housed, fed, and medically treated for the rest of his/her sentence.
I saw this article too and even looked for the UN’s official stance on the issue and as far as I can tell, he didn’t make a mistake at all because there doesn’t seem to be an official stance on the issue. Can anyone specifically point out for me what the UN’s official POV on capital punishment is? I looked through the UN’s homepage and could not find a definitive answer to my question.
His ambiguous answer seems to reflect the UN’s ambiguous position on the issue.
What the public/media wants is a clear-cut stance from the UN regarding the death penalty and as far as I can tell, one does not exist.
Death penalty advocates and foes argue on about this, but I’ve seen no evidence that hardcore criminals give any thought to the existence of the death penalty when they are planning to kill someone.
“No snitches” is a nationwide problem.
I did not bother including any statistics in my previous post because there are all kinds of studies and statistics to support both sides. Canada does not have the death penalty. Korea does. Both are much safer than the US for many reasons. There are clear correlatiosn between latitude and violent crime and poverty and violent crime. Puerto Rico is tropical and poorer than most of the US.
I am against the death penalty but would be willing to tolerate it if we could be certain that every single criminal put to death was indeed guilty. Of course, that’s not possible, and since all those conflicting statistics and studies do not yield any clear conclusions about the deterrent value of capital punishment, I cannot support it.
As far as Saddam’s execution, I have a weak stomach for violence but watched the entire unauthorized video. It wasn’t as graphic as I expected because of the poor lighting. Saddam died instantly, unlike the hundreds of thousands of his victims, so I don’t feel bothered about his death, even though it appears to have been tribal justice at the hands of his enemies. BFD. He killed not only his enemies real and imagined, but their entire families, so it is fitting that he died at their hands. The other interesting thing I observed about the video is that he did not look scared. He argued back with those taunting him and breathed his last breath while uttering a prayer.
Facts&Figs:
Of the world’s 197 countries:
88 have abolished the death penalty
11 only use it for exceptional crimes (eg.war crimes)
29 are abolitionist in practice (it’s on the books, but not applied, includes S.Korea)
for a total of 128, or 65% of countries, leaving a third of the world’s nations where the DP is legal and practiced. Of which, in 2005:
China: 1770
Iran: 94
Saudi Arabia: 86
USA: 60
World: 2148
Top 4 nations, share of World total: 94%
But the 1770 represents Amnesty’s minimum conservative total for China, where the real number is an official state secret and organ peddlers offer guaranteed turnaround times (only possible if you have an inventory of pre-typed organs). AI thinks it’s really between 3,000 and 10,000 per year, other sources predict as high as 15,000. The range equates to between 5 and 40 executions per day in PRC.
Multiple ways to go:
Hanging and firing squad are possible methods in a few US states.
“I disagree completely; some truly deserve it. For what he did, not what he might do.”
I’m all for revenge and making him suffer, but capital punishment is state sanctioned murder.
Linkd,
Amnesty is just not with it. Those numbers are way off when you consider that you’ve got thousands of people being sent to concentration camps in North Korea–where they stay until they slowly die–and prisons in Russia where most prisoners contact HIV and tuberculosis.
“Imagine they capture Kim Jong Il, “..it’s never right to execute anyone…” I would like to bitch-slap the first person who says that to me in person.”
Kim Jong Il? Killing him would be too easy. For starters, I’d throw him in a very cold cell and put him in a 1200 calories a day diet (all potatoes that he’d have to dig out of the frozen soil with his bare hands). I also heard he ’s afraid of flying…
Serious question: Should George Bush be executed as a Class A war criminal?
Which war crimes should he be charged with?
Quite right, Someguy, but the numbers in #21 relate to the ‘death penalty’ as a sentence handed out and executed according to judicial process, which is what Ban Ki-moon was talking about.
Of course people die of neglect and mistreatment while in state custody without being ’sentenced to death’, and Amnesty is also very much active in such matters, but there are good reasons to apply stricter definitions. The definitions of ‘political prisoner’, ‘terrorist’, etc. are notoriously hard to agree on, and also, many states are unlikely to report accurate data on the number of people who die in custody.
For people who actively oppose and campaign against the DP, they are at least aided by relatively clean data from most countries, and can focus their lobbying efforts on the legislators who have the power to change the relevant laws. If they had mixed up their efforts with campaigns on behalf of all prisoners of conscience, etc. they wouldn’t have made nearly the progress they have in the past few decades.
its not right to kill someone who isnt a threat to people anymore is really a weak argument as well is the fact that you say torture them for their crimes as we all know he will sit in a nice jail cell for the remaining days he lives which is a load of BS
give me a break most people who are against the death penalty would change their minds if say their kid was molested or murdered by some psycho pedophile
whatever your opinion is on the DP its water under the bridge
Ban said the right thing as richardson pointed out of course our left wing buddy Kofi Annan would have danced that question with a politically correct BS answer
serious answer to that stupid question: you should be executed for being a dumb@SS
I know there are problems with the criminal justice system in Canada and the US, but why not execute animals like Clifford Olson? He’s a psycho who killed a dozen children in BC in the ’80s and continues to taunt and haunt the victims families who have to suffer through parole hearings every few years.
“give me a break most people who are against the death penalty would change their minds if say their kid was molested or murdered by some psycho pedophile”
No, I’d slit his throat with my own two hands while knowing and expecting to be punished for it. Again, capital punishment is state sanctioned murder.
“capital punishment is state sanctioned murder”
Actually, capital punishment is state sactioned killing. The difference between the two words is not a quibble and I think that use of the word murder in this context is demagoguery.
As I said in the post, I am against capital punishment. But it is not murder.
If you’re a leftist you support the right to exterminate the most helpless and innocent of humans — unborn children, and the medically damaged — on the basis of inconvenience, but at the same time abhor the killing of sane, rational adults who commit heinous crimes, and oppose all use of war to achieve political objectives of undoing evil. It’s warped. I regret ever having given any money to these Amnesty clowns in the past, and denounce them now.
Mr. Carr,
Don’t forget putting the rights of animals above humans. G-d forbid a modern day Hitler swing for his atrocities but kill a mink to make a nice coat, F no!
OK, I think the demagoguery is now in full swing.
Let ‘er rip, boys and girls!
Andy,
Had he died on the battlefield or while fighting with his guards, that would have been ’state sanctioned killing’.
Here, here, Brendon.
This is the second time a Marmot commenter has written here, here, so I feel compelled to make a spelling correction - hear, hear, as in “everybody hear this person out.”
Sonagi, I thought it was used as a supportive gesture, as in “Here, here, well said.” But hear, hear would make more sense.
I almost prefer pondering GBevers fate to pursuing this thread.
This is the second time a Marmot commenter has written here, here, so I feel compelled to make a spelling correction - hear, hear, as in “everybody hear this person out.”
Another public service announcement, next elocution lessons right here on the marmot’s hole!
Ooops!!!
Another public service announcement. Next, elocution lessons right here on the Marmot’s hole
Mark from United States your flag
Posted January 4, 2007 at 8:14 am | Permalink
If capital punishment gets Banned, then shouldn’t abortion also be Banned?
Answer:
No, Sadam was a late-term abortion.
Andy is correct; it is killing, not murder. There is no legal or moral requirement for state sanctioned killing to be on a battlefield.
If the evidence against Saddam was found to have been purposely altered to make him appear guilty when he was in fact, for the purpose of this hypothetical situation, innocent of those charges for which he was executed, then the person who altered said evidence would indeed be guilty of “murder.” But that’s not the case.
Next, electrocution lessons right here on the Marmot’s Hole.
Only reason why I’m against DP in US is becauase it costs me a lot of money and doesn’t reduce crime. But I’m for it in principle because it gives me joy to see certain people fry.
In cases like China where DP is used as a political tool against dissidents, it’s nice to support anti-DP stance. But in an organization where permanent security council member have a veto, it makes no sense to have a unenforeceable policy. I think if you asked a typical Chinese what they think of DP, they would think it’s necessary to execute really corrupt officials. ironic?
I don’t believe that the Abortion issue is in any way comparable or relevant to the DP, Brendon & others — that’s just a strawman/smokescreen some right-wingers throw up. If the State were forcing women to abort (as in China), THAT would be a comparable issue…
I also note that restricting State police-powers from interfering with private child-bearing questions is not at all a “leftist” stance, it is Libertarian and, these days, solidly middle-of-the-road and majority-opinion in America (and other “advanced” nations). It is in fact a far-right or far-left (take your pick, little diff) stance that the government’s police & courts have any business dictating the most personal decisions made between a woman, her mate, her family, her chosen doctor(s) and chosen religious advisor(s).
“Force” or “allow” makes no difference - it would still qualify as state sanctioned killing. But I guess it’s not “murder” if they don’t have their Social Security Number yet, eh? But it is murder. Funny, in a WTF sort of way, how abortion is ok to some, but the death penalty is not.
While we are on the subject, I would say that what the King of Persia did in the book of Ester would count as state sanctioned killing (we are basically seeing a repeat of that in the Sudan these days).
For those not Bible literate, the king said that anyone who was so minded was allowed to legally kill Jews on such-and-such date. Nobody was forced by the state to kill Jews, mind you. They were just given the right to make a private decision about what to do with their bodies (in this case, their sword arms). Luckily, Ester was such a super-babe that she got the king to allow the Jews to legally kill their enemies on the same date (Yes, she was that hot.). So there was a lot of killing that day but it was all nice and legal.
Funny how you guys think that if a government doesn’t make some action illegal and prosecute people for doing it, just leaves the choice up to them to make, then that government is somehow positively advocating that it be done… So many Republicans don’t really believe in Liberty anymore, which is why i stopped supporting the Republican Party.
You have a religious-based belief that fetuses (and maybe even zygotes?) qualify as “human beings” and thus abortion is “murder”. I say fine, more power to ya, carry out that belief in your own personal and family life to your heart’s content. But if you say that your own religious belief must become the law of the land and be enforced by police-powers on everyone else (regardless of what beliefs they may hold on the subject) — in that case i can only say “sic semper tyrannis!”…
There are indeed similar religious arguments against the death penalty, but i have no use for them. The major arguments against using the death penalty are based on practical and civil-rights issues — so many innocent people ending up on death row, way too many where we’re not really sure if they were guilty or not, the only thing that’s for certain is that they didn’t receive an adequate defense, because they couldn’t afford one…
Anyway, that was my main point — that religion-based objections to abortion vs. its freedom-of-choice civil-rights issues has nothing much to do with the practical and civil-rights issues that dominate controversy over the death penalty, and using them in comparison is nothing but a ’strawman’ argument-fallacy.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my opposition to abortion predates my ‘getting religion.’ It is a human rights issue. None of us should be able to arbitrarily decide which human beings can be denied the right of the protection of their humanity. That is a power none of us should have over others. If advocate legal abortion, then you have made a choice that a certain class of homo sapians (Call them fetuses if that helps you keep some clenical detachment.) should be denied that right.
Of course, if we as a people think that killing in some situations is justified (for example, shooting someone who breaks into your home), fine. But you can’t advocate something and then pretend that you have nothing to do with it.
That is one of the scarier things I have heard anyone say in a while.
Are you saying that, in a democratic society, some views have to be left at the door when considering the law of the land? Who is the gatekeeper who decides which views (be they religious, ideological or whatever) are acceptable for consideration and which are not?
I find it more than a little strange that someone would think that my views on abortion might be worthy of debate (since they are based on humanistic civil rights arguments) but my views on the death penalty are not (since they come mainly from my religious beliefs).
The thread has moved abit beyond Ban’s statement but so far it seems to have stayed civil, and that’s nice, especially considering the direction (abortion) that it’s taken. If I might reach back for a moment and comment on what Ban said, I was pleasantly surprised with the way he postured his statement. I admit he has a fine line to walk, to consider both national sovereignty and UN authority, especially considering the level to which that body has strayed from its original function. But, what he said was aboslutely necessary in these times and it seems he might even be looking ahead to a time when he needs to dissuade the US of any infringement on their sovereignty in this or any other issue since he knows the UN is completely impotent without US involvement, relative to now while it’s only mostly impotent. If I am correct, than his statement could be prescient.
Meanwhile, I have become more in agreement with the death penalty in theory over the years, though there is too much chance for error in practice that I’m not comfortable with. Hence, I side with those in opposition to it…usually. It’s only the one in a billion cases like Saddam Hussein where practicality comes in line with that theoretical agreement and says, yes, this is the right thing to do. To leave Saddam Hussein alive, whether in jail for another 50 years or not, would have been to leave in place an element of danger. The stability of Iraq is not such, I don’t think, that Saddam would never have been free again to rally his strength, and his past left no doubt in my mind that a chance of his repeating his crimes was too great a chance to take.
The problem with equating the death penalty to abortion is, I believe, one of philophical difference. The debate over the death penalty revolves around whether a person “retains” their rights as a human being in committing capital crimes while the debate over abortion revolves over the moment one becomes a human being first recieves those rights. I don’t like the way I just worded that but I can’t think of another way to put it. Some argue a point of viability while others argue extremes of 1. either conception or 2. full-term, complete birth. The former, I believe, demands a level of religious belief that in today’s society will mostly be construed as an attempt to force religion while the latter presents an equally dangerous stance by some which leaves open the path to declare any group of persons subject to “our” determination of their worth. I’m not comfortable with abortion of any kind but I would much rather see a philosophical debate take place in the legal sphere to determine a specific point at which the law will begin to protect the life of a baby, hence recognizing its full rights separate from that of the mother. At least that way we can accomplish something, I hope, in protecting who we can instead of flailing madly in the wind with vain accusations of murder and “ungodlessness.”
With that said, if the authorities were to determine a full-term, complete birth as that point then woe be unto those, for the self-centeredness that is necessary to make such a ridiculous excuse to commit murder for one’s convenience is no different than robbing and murdering a store clerk for the convenience of getting enough money for another drug trip.
Andy stated exactly my position - opposition to abortion has nothing to do with religion, in my case. Simple logic; heartbeat, yes or no? Yes? That person is alive. Just cause to end that life, yes or no? No? That’s murder, not just killing. There is a big difference.
I believe the comparison to DP vs. abortion was in reference to state sanctioned killing.
It is completely illogical for someone to sanction killing a complete innocent (abortion), but oppose killing a convicted murderer (1st degree). The murderer has given up their rights to live, while the fetus has does what?
It’s quite interesting to read men debating the morality of abortion. You cannot really know how you stand on the issue until you’re faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I had a scare when I first arrived in Korea as a fresh college graduate. I skipped my period for two months in a row, very unusual since I have regular cycles. Even though I had been taking birth control pills and my then boyfriend used condoms, I was terrified I might be pregnant - alone in a foreign country, brand new job, no money. If I were to give birth, I’d surely have been fired from my job and deported. I confided in a colleague, who gave me a home pregnancy test. With negative results, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Apparently, the stress of moving to a new country had disrupted my cycle.
Is a fetus human? Well, yes. It’s alive and every living thing can be classified as belonging to a species. A human fetus is not a dog or cat. It is human, and one need not be religious to acknowledge that fact. However, a month-old is physiologically little more than a clump of cells. It cannot even feel pain, much less think. A majority of Americans seem to feel that the degree of development of the fetus is important in judging whether abortion is acceptable nor not, supporting unrestricted legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Please remember, guys, that there are TWO humans involved in a pregnancy - the woman and the child. Prior to the legalization of abortion, poor or single women were maimed or killed by illegal abortions. One cannot blame married women since they could not refuse sex with their husbands. As I recall, the first case of marital rape was not prosecuted until the 1970s. Maternal deaths from pregnancy and childbirth used to be common in this country and still are in the developing world. Those who demand a complete ban on abortion show zero regard for the life of the mother.
Hmm, a few notes;
Your argument is still that it’s more convenient. It’s still killing an innocent, which is by definition murder.
The law is sometimes decided by majority, but morality is not.
A one month old fetus has a heartbeat.
There are actually at least 3 people involved in every pregnancy, btw.
Also, it’s now the 21st century.
Yes, but no man ever died or suffered health complications from pregnancy. It is the 21st Century, but that does not change the fact that pregnancy takes place inside a woman’s body.
Yes, indeed. Morality is individual.
I would not call an abortion undertaken when the mother is facing serious health complications as “convenient.”
An abortion by a woman whose pregnancy threatens her livelihood is no more “convenient” than the deaths of innocent people in wars, especially non-defensive wars.
Earlier in the thread, someone challenged the contradictory positions of supporting legal abortion and opposing the death penalty. I cannot understand how anyone can oppose legal abortion yet support the invasion of a foreign country.
…but that does not change the fact that pregnancy takes place inside a woman’s body.
And;
Save the strawman arguments for someone who doesn’t know better.
No, that IS for convenience. You could do a lot of things (get another job, go back to your home nation, say your husband in X nation, etc.), but abortion does not have to be one of them; it’s an excuse.
Correction; the italics should have been a block quote.
Does this mean that you support a woman’s right to have an abortion when her health is jeopardized by the pregnancy? It’s no strawman argument because some abortion foes want a complete ban with no exceptions. Thus far, you have called abortion murder without making any exceptions.
An unborn human is unique in that it lives inside another human being and its life is literally joined to that of the mother. I do not need an “excuse” to have an abortion because I do not give the same value to an eight-week old fetus as I do to a born human. I am not religious and do not believe in a soul.
Hmmm.
It’s no more about death penalty but about abortion, and I side with Sonagi .
They were strawman args as I had not argued the points you protested. What someone else did or did not argue has no bearing on what I said.
Baseline: Alive, yes/no? Yes? Killed for convenience or cause? Convenience? That’s murder.
I see. For you it’s ok to murder a fetus b/c you have power over it. Got it. However you want to rationalize it.
As I’ve stated once already, my position has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It’s about murder being wrong, and taking responsibility for ones actions, period.
Well, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and plants are alive, but I presume you do not consider farmers and slaughterhouse workers murderers because these living things are not human.
Webster’s Dictionary defines “murder” as “the unlawful killing of a human being by another.” Laws vary by state, and there is no national consensus on the legal status of an unborn fetus. Abortion may be murder according to the moral standards of you and others, but not everyone agrees with you, and legally, every state allows abortion with some restrictions.
What bothers me is not that you morally object to abortion and call it “murder” but your arrogant, fist-thumping “I’m right! You’re wrong!” attitude. What the death penalty, abortion, and war all have in common is that good and intelligent people can disagree about the morality of these actions that all result in a loss of life.
Richardson,
I’ll ask you directly: Do you think abortion is justified when the health of mother is at stake?
Well, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and plants are alive, but I presume you do not consider farmers and slaughterhouse workers murderers because these living things are not human.
Your Webster’s quote covered this. What part of, “the unlawful killing of a human being by another” isn’t getting through?
Pot-kettle.
As I said, however you want to rationalize it.
Yes. It is killing for the sake of convenience that I find to be murder. Most generally (not always, but mostly), if the mother does so does the baby. Saving one is better than losing two. Once caveat; if possible to save both (premature delivery, etc.) that should be tried.
Richardson,
Unlike you, I have acknowledged that there is much room for debate and disagreement on the issue of abortion. I disagree with you, but I do not think you are “wrong.” You’re the one labeling legal abortion as “murder.” You failed to include the word “human” in your baseline, so that is why I cited Webster’s definition of “murder,” which includes the word lawful. What part of lawful don’t you understand?
If you abhor “killing for the sake of convenience,” how do you judge actions like the invasion of Iraq, a country which has never attacked or even threatened the United States?
Are you John Kerry?
Context. No one has been talking about animals having abortions. Pretty solid strawman territory, again.
Depends on how you define “convenient,” “threat,” and probably a lot of other words.
http://www.dprkstudies.org/doc.....eapons.pdf
By the statement “I disagree with you, but I do not think you are “wrong,” I mean that my views on abortion are not unshakeable, and whether or not abortion is a murder is not an indisputable fact. Webster’s first definition of the word “wrong” is “not in conformity with fact or truth.” Our differing views on abortion are opinions, although we have each used, and challenged each others factual support for our views.
Christians and Muslims believe that humans have souls, and Buddhists believe that all sentient beings have souls and therefore extend the concept of murder to animals, although some Buddhists justify killing animals for food. I do not believe that humans or animals have souls, but it is only my belief, and I might be wrong. If I believed humans were endowed with souls from conception, I would view abortion very differently. As I said before, people can disagree. I understand your views but do not agree with them.
give it up, Sonagi; he ain’t listening to you. Arrogant disdain seems to be the only tool in his belt…
meanwhile, back on topic for just a moment:
the NYT editorial guys weigh in on Ban’s disappointing startoff:
A Status Quo Secretary General
January 6, 2007
The big powers in the United Nations Security Council chose Ban Ki-moon as secretary general because they wanted a low-key bureaucrat who wouldn’t rock the boat. Judging by Mr. Ban’s early moves, the world has gotten exactly that.
Expect no Kofi Annan-style exhortations to live up to the values of the U.N. charter. In commenting on the sordid execution of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ban even managed to forget that the U.N. opposes the death penalty on principle. Expect no shift from patronage to selection based on merit for key staff positions. The top jobs in peacekeeping, political affairs and humanitarian relief are already being doled out to the favored candidates of London, Paris and Washington (three of Mr. Ban’s backers).
And expect no serious drive for much-needed administrative reform. The top management job, previously held by a reform-minded American, has now been given to a long-serving insider, Alicia Bárcena Ibarra of Mexico.
more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....amp;emc=th
We’re not really going to take our moral guidance from Webster’s Dictionary, are we?
there must be some kind of vortex at the hole these days. think i’ll have to stay away for awhile hoping the flotsam and jetsam clear out.
“We’re not really going to take our moral guidance from Webster’s Dictionary, are we?”
Come on Brendan, you know Sonagi’s reference to Websters was guidance on language use, not morals.
I’m all for the death penalty.
If someone killed another person for his own selfish reasons, and if it was proven in court beyond doubt that he was the committer of said crime, then I think he deserves to be executed.
In most cases, though, people aren’t executed for killing just one person, which sucks from the point of view of family members of the victim.
Sanshinseon, it’s not “arrogant disdain,” but a clear postion on abortion for the sake of convenience is murder. I see no need to be politically correct or to into gray areas when it comes to murder.
People these days aren’t used to being told something is morally wrong, since most often society tells them if it’s ok with them, it’s ok ~ moral relativism. When faced with someone who will throw down the BS flag, some will throw out the “arrogant” label. Whatever.
There is of course some (justified) disdain for repeated and ridiculous strawman arguments, but that should be differentiated from the main argument.
Korean society is more advanced than American society in
1)Death penalty: Kill the bad sob who has done the deed. Three judges. No stupid jurors who get manipulated. Sometimes, the police tortures the suspect(the old school) and they kill an innocent man. So what? 90% of time, they are right. It is ridiculous to let 9 bad sobs go to save one. Just kill these rotten socio-misfits.
2)Abortion: Free to choose by women. However, Korean society is into prevention. Most kids are controlled by parents, especially girls. No dating till they graduate from college. No sex they get married. After one or two kids, men get fixed up. No need for abortion. Very christian. Very correct.
3) Gun: No guns. No easy killings. Have to use knife or other blunt instruments. However, no street cleaning with submachine guns. Very ideal. Very reasonable. Very sophisticated.
Isn’t Korean society better than the US? I think the US should learn from Korea and follow these Korean advancements.
Baduk,
That was 100 percent sarcasm, right?
Whenever people talk about the UN, they say either a) I don’t want someone else telling me what to do, or b) hey, that guy’s not listening to what we at the UN said. By its very nature, the UN does not have the ability to enforce anything because nobody wanted to surrender any sovreignty to a higher power. The UN is the basis of modern international law, but all international law has to be signed by member states in order for it to enforced. North Korea is no longer bound by the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty because it withdrew its signature. The US withdrew its signature from the International Criminal Court and never signed the Kyoto Protocol, and there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that.
Let Ban say whatever he wants and the Italians say or do whatever they want. Even if they did pass something like a ban on capital punishment in the UN, all a country would have to do is NOT sign whatever legislation they passed, and they don’t have to go along with it. The US went to Iraq without a green light from the UN, didn’t they? I haven’t seen Bush extradited for “crimes against peace” yet.
The UN is a great idea, but because everybody’s afraid of everybody else having power over them, the UN cannot do anything except administer humanitarian aid (if member states contribute) and shake scolding fingers at places like Sudan.
It is so funny that in America and even in Canada, a highschool student can bring his gun into a school and shoot teachers and students. Or, even bomb the whole school.
In a modern and so-called sophisticated and advanced society. Yet, these savaged acts happen. WTF!
In Korea, if that type of thing happens, the whole country will be mad. Mad as mad cows. Korean people will kill not only the person, but his parents, his co-conspirators and anyone who sold the weapon.
They will make sure that these kinds of thing will never, never happen again. They will stop selling any gun, not even BB Guns.
Yet, in America, nothing. You tell me, which country is more advanced?
4) Drugs: Korean police just lock’em up. Even Marijuana smokers. Heavy, heavy sentences for dealers, 10 years or more.
5) AIDs: Lock’em up. No more spreading.
Isn’t this a better society?
Sorry, I can’t tell if you’re pulling my leg or are really insane.
Brendon wrote:
No, but if we are going to use the same terms, we had better agree on what they mean. The first order of business is the rectification of names.
Richardson wrote:
The problem with teaching morality is that not everyone shares the same moral values. The law is the law, but morality is individual. We must respect the law, but we are free to develop our own moral values, which may change through our life experiences.
Back to the original topic, how is that the UN has condemned the death penalty when it remains legal in a majority of member states, and two Security Council members actively carry out the death penalty?
Sonagi, see comment 78 to answer your UN question