Minor rant...
Nov. 22nd, 2003 09:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
I hatehateHATE the phrase "pro-life". Hate it with a vengeance. Many people who call themselves "pro-life" actually support the death penalty, and apparently don't see the hypocrisy. To my mind, unless the phrase is "pro-human-life", the only people who should be allowed to call themselves "pro-life" are antiwar, antideathpenalty, antiabortion VEGETARIANS. Possibly vegans, as all those animals get killed eventually. Still, reasonably, I'll allow them to pretend that pro-life means just humans. Guess what? They still shouldn't use that unless they're anti-war/deathpenalty. Anti-abortion works just as well and is less misleading, and it doesn't create a false sense of moral superiority. That attitude only works unless there isn't a moral dilemma, such as "is the mother's life at stake?" (unbelievably, some activists would not support abortion in such cases) or "does the fetus have some invariably fatal/painfully incurable disease?". Or even "can the mother afford to take care of the child?" Very few of the self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" are willing to adopt children to prevent them from being aborted. There are a few organizations which do do that, and they are to be commended.
Now, mind you, when I talk about "a false sense of moral superiority", I dislike "pro-choice" on the same grounds. However, I am less antagonistic towards it because 1. choice is not as strong a moral term as life and 2. I can't think of any good alternative. Pro-life could be anti-abortion, but it's absurd to call pro-choice pro-abortion, as many pro-choicers are against abortions, but feel that it is not society's place to condemn them. If somebody can come up with a good alternative name for "pro-choice", I'll gladly adopt/promote it.
Now, mind you, when I talk about "a false sense of moral superiority", I dislike "pro-choice" on the same grounds. However, I am less antagonistic towards it because 1. choice is not as strong a moral term as life and 2. I can't think of any good alternative. Pro-life could be anti-abortion, but it's absurd to call pro-choice pro-abortion, as many pro-choicers are against abortions, but feel that it is not society's place to condemn them. If somebody can come up with a good alternative name for "pro-choice", I'll gladly adopt/promote it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 06:49 am (UTC)I don't have any problem with the term pro-choice. I'm not against abortion (and should I get pregnant and abortion were somehow impossible to get, I'd eat a bullet clean and simple). Basically, I'm for someone choosing whatever they want. Keep the baby? Great. Abort it? Cool. There's a spectrum among all pro-choicers, but I think I fall into the category. I'm really against pro-lifers because they take away choices-- and anyone that does that is BAD. That doesn't mean I'm anti capital punishment (I'm all for it-- it ensures serial murderers don't get back on the street), because I think people are capable of relinquishing their right to choose. Like by killing or raping. But pregnancy is not some kind of punishment for expressions of love. But by the same token, there's a lot of pro-choicers who aren't at ALL for choice. "You should have an abortion sister! You can't have that baby, nuh-uh!"
There are also pro-lifers I have met who are, deep down, pro-life. Vegan passivists and extremely left wing. It really depends on the person before you can paint a group a certain color. I personally like "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" but pro-abortion has been taken up by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement crowd so it makes you look like a total nutso.
Yeah. Just... rambling. I just had to say something because I kind of agree with you on semantics.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 07:48 am (UTC)If only it did... well, I still would be against it. I'm definitely an anti-murder person, and to me, it doesn't matter if the state sanctioned it or they desereved it or what.
1. First off, it doesn't get serial killers off the street, no more than prison terms.
2. There have been many, many cases recently which were overturned because the death-row inmate was not, in fact, guilty... That alone turns me against the idea. We're not telepaths. We have no way of knowing for sure, ever, if the person convicted is actually the guilty party. At least you can let somebody out of jail... how do you bring a dead man back to life?
3. Apparently (law class back in high school), one of the bigger groups against the death penalty is prison guards. How do you keep control over somebody who knows he's gonna die? And, unlike the guy who might get parole, the guy on death row is more desparate, and therefore more likely to take some sort of extreme measures
4. The death penalty is used disproportionately against nonwhites, even in similar cases. That is not in argument against the death penalty itself, but it is a reason I wouldn't support it.
5. The death penalty does NOT seem to reduce crime. The US is one of the few industrialized countries with the death penalty, and one of few countries anywhere which executes retarded, mentally ill, and child criminals. But we also have one of the highest crime rates in the western world. While this is not an argument against the death penalty, it refutes one argument for it.
6. As for your argument that "it gets serial killers off the streets"... That may be so. But if that is the main concern, why are death row inmates put on suicide watch? If they're gonna die, why does it matter at whose hand it is? I don't know, that seems so... wrong to me.
7. I also worry about potential emotional problems in the ones responsible for the execution, and the family of the victims... I know I would not rest easily if I were in any way responsible for somebody's death.
8. Lastly, it has always simply seemed too hypocritical for my tastes. To be pithy about it, "we kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong".
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:07 am (UTC)The reasons you stated are why I don't fight for it, I was just pointing out that while I believe choice is right, I also believe it's possible to give up one's rights.
As for getting them off the street... that's the utiliterian bit. You can't get all the bad guys off the street or even close. I'm not so much a utiliterian that "oh, just kill any guy after the murder so people sleep better" but I just hate this idea that "oh you killed someone, but that's okay. We're just going to put you in jail now." It just seems pointless to rehabilitate some of these people. If they're disturbed put them in a mental ward. Not that jail's a fun trip, but to some people, jail's not that big of a deal.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 02:51 pm (UTC)to give a few examples of people wrongly executed as well:
1950: Timothy Evans is executed for the murder of his young daughter (after admitting killing his wife and daughter) on 9 March at Pentonville Prison. It is subsequently discovered that the real murderer was his landlord John Christie (a sexual serial killer) who was later executed for the murder of his wife. Evans received a posthumous pardon in 1966. See the article on 10 Rillington Place.
1950: George Kelly, who was hanged for murder, had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in June 2003.
1953: On 28 January Derek Bentley is executed as an accomplice to a murder of a police officer by his 16 year old friend Christopher Craig. Craig as a minor was not executed and served 10 years. Derek Bentley was granted a posthumous pardon on 30 July 1998.
taken from http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom
as for anti-abortionists...i think that it's wrong to force a mother to have a child after rape or incest, if the child could not be brought up in a secure (financially or emotionally) home, if the mother is too young or if the mother's life would be in danger and many other reasons. i do think, however, that abortion should not be used as an emercency contraception and there should be a reason for it.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 03:45 pm (UTC)On the abortion note: I don't need to know about a woman's reasons, and I don't really care either. I just fight to make sure women have the option there. Because there's people like me that use the pill, condoms with spermicide and everything you can think of and keep an emergency $600 for an abortion stash (yes, I'm that paranoid), and still consider going to lesbianism as the perfect BC. But that's probably more information than most folks need, and this LJ isn't the place for a debate! Heh.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 02:52 pm (UTC)There's prolly tons more, but I wasn't searching specifically for star wars icons, so I dunno.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:17 pm (UTC)I'm not where I stand on the death penalty. I believe in it, because half the time people who kill are insane, and it would not be cruel to "Put them out of their misery". I also believe in revenge. Not all the time...that really is in your heart to decide. If someone killed someone out of pure greed, that's wrong. And hurting someone, say, molesting a child, is wrong.
However these are the reasons I would be against it. It's biased, higher class people/celebrities tend to escape the punishment they deserve. That's wrong. It's our whole law system screwing up. And as Ulyyf pointed out, a person who is not white is more likely to get the death penalty. How is that fair?
This is just how I think. I realize it's a little different from other opinions, and that's fine.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:28 pm (UTC)*stares*
Okay, I have to say, I completely disagree. Nothing against you, but you're about to get my reasons why I think that's wrong.
1. On "putting them out of their misery"... Unless you're mentally ill, you have no place to be saying that they would appreciate that. They may not want to be "put out of their misery". That reminds me strongly of Hitler's view of "lives unworthy of life". He actually went after the mentally ill and retarded first, I'm told. It also creates a dangerous precedent... so you kill only the insane who commit crimes. Now what? Then do you kill the insane who don't commit crimes? And how does one define insane, does it include mentally ill but curable? Does it include mentally disabled? Or different (some people might call aspies insane, we certainly aren't quite neurotypical!). Also, your assertation that half the time, those who kill are insane is, sadly, not the case. *le sigh* The insane deserve treatment and compassion, not death.
2. I don't believe in revenge either. I have found in my own experience that revenge and anger are flat. You don't get anything out of them. On a personal level, it costs less, and has greater benefit, to forgive. I am also uncertain that revenge should be a precedent for the law... that seems, mihi, to lead to a risk of mob law and lynch teams. Not good.
There's actually a document online (which I need to find again) you can print out and sign as a legal document, saying that if you are, perchance, killed by someone, you are requesting that they do not, under any circumstances, seek the death penalty. Or you could just add that statement to your will, I suppose... *goes to write a will so she can do just that*
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 06:49 am (UTC)I don't have any problem with the term pro-choice. I'm not against abortion (and should I get pregnant and abortion were somehow impossible to get, I'd eat a bullet clean and simple). Basically, I'm for someone choosing whatever they want. Keep the baby? Great. Abort it? Cool. There's a spectrum among all pro-choicers, but I think I fall into the category. I'm really against pro-lifers because they take away choices-- and anyone that does that is BAD. That doesn't mean I'm anti capital punishment (I'm all for it-- it ensures serial murderers don't get back on the street), because I think people are capable of relinquishing their right to choose. Like by killing or raping. But pregnancy is not some kind of punishment for expressions of love. But by the same token, there's a lot of pro-choicers who aren't at ALL for choice. "You should have an abortion sister! You can't have that baby, nuh-uh!"
There are also pro-lifers I have met who are, deep down, pro-life. Vegan passivists and extremely left wing. It really depends on the person before you can paint a group a certain color. I personally like "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" but pro-abortion has been taken up by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement crowd so it makes you look like a total nutso.
Yeah. Just... rambling. I just had to say something because I kind of agree with you on semantics.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 07:48 am (UTC)If only it did... well, I still would be against it. I'm definitely an anti-murder person, and to me, it doesn't matter if the state sanctioned it or they desereved it or what.
1. First off, it doesn't get serial killers off the street, no more than prison terms.
2. There have been many, many cases recently which were overturned because the death-row inmate was not, in fact, guilty... That alone turns me against the idea. We're not telepaths. We have no way of knowing for sure, ever, if the person convicted is actually the guilty party. At least you can let somebody out of jail... how do you bring a dead man back to life?
3. Apparently (law class back in high school), one of the bigger groups against the death penalty is prison guards. How do you keep control over somebody who knows he's gonna die? And, unlike the guy who might get parole, the guy on death row is more desparate, and therefore more likely to take some sort of extreme measures
4. The death penalty is used disproportionately against nonwhites, even in similar cases. That is not in argument against the death penalty itself, but it is a reason I wouldn't support it.
5. The death penalty does NOT seem to reduce crime. The US is one of the few industrialized countries with the death penalty, and one of few countries anywhere which executes retarded, mentally ill, and child criminals. But we also have one of the highest crime rates in the western world. While this is not an argument against the death penalty, it refutes one argument for it.
6. As for your argument that "it gets serial killers off the streets"... That may be so. But if that is the main concern, why are death row inmates put on suicide watch? If they're gonna die, why does it matter at whose hand it is? I don't know, that seems so... wrong to me.
7. I also worry about potential emotional problems in the ones responsible for the execution, and the family of the victims... I know I would not rest easily if I were in any way responsible for somebody's death.
8. Lastly, it has always simply seemed too hypocritical for my tastes. To be pithy about it, "we kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong".
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:07 am (UTC)The reasons you stated are why I don't fight for it, I was just pointing out that while I believe choice is right, I also believe it's possible to give up one's rights.
As for getting them off the street... that's the utiliterian bit. You can't get all the bad guys off the street or even close. I'm not so much a utiliterian that "oh, just kill any guy after the murder so people sleep better" but I just hate this idea that "oh you killed someone, but that's okay. We're just going to put you in jail now." It just seems pointless to rehabilitate some of these people. If they're disturbed put them in a mental ward. Not that jail's a fun trip, but to some people, jail's not that big of a deal.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 02:51 pm (UTC)to give a few examples of people wrongly executed as well:
1950: Timothy Evans is executed for the murder of his young daughter (after admitting killing his wife and daughter) on 9 March at Pentonville Prison. It is subsequently discovered that the real murderer was his landlord John Christie (a sexual serial killer) who was later executed for the murder of his wife. Evans received a posthumous pardon in 1966. See the article on 10 Rillington Place.
1950: George Kelly, who was hanged for murder, had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in June 2003.
1953: On 28 January Derek Bentley is executed as an accomplice to a murder of a police officer by his 16 year old friend Christopher Craig. Craig as a minor was not executed and served 10 years. Derek Bentley was granted a posthumous pardon on 30 July 1998.
taken from http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom
as for anti-abortionists...i think that it's wrong to force a mother to have a child after rape or incest, if the child could not be brought up in a secure (financially or emotionally) home, if the mother is too young or if the mother's life would be in danger and many other reasons. i do think, however, that abortion should not be used as an emercency contraception and there should be a reason for it.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 03:45 pm (UTC)On the abortion note: I don't need to know about a woman's reasons, and I don't really care either. I just fight to make sure women have the option there. Because there's people like me that use the pill, condoms with spermicide and everything you can think of and keep an emergency $600 for an abortion stash (yes, I'm that paranoid), and still consider going to lesbianism as the perfect BC. But that's probably more information than most folks need, and this LJ isn't the place for a debate! Heh.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 02:52 pm (UTC)There's prolly tons more, but I wasn't searching specifically for star wars icons, so I dunno.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:17 pm (UTC)I'm not where I stand on the death penalty. I believe in it, because half the time people who kill are insane, and it would not be cruel to "Put them out of their misery". I also believe in revenge. Not all the time...that really is in your heart to decide. If someone killed someone out of pure greed, that's wrong. And hurting someone, say, molesting a child, is wrong.
However these are the reasons I would be against it. It's biased, higher class people/celebrities tend to escape the punishment they deserve. That's wrong. It's our whole law system screwing up. And as Ulyyf pointed out, a person who is not white is more likely to get the death penalty. How is that fair?
This is just how I think. I realize it's a little different from other opinions, and that's fine.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:28 pm (UTC)*stares*
Okay, I have to say, I completely disagree. Nothing against you, but you're about to get my reasons why I think that's wrong.
1. On "putting them out of their misery"... Unless you're mentally ill, you have no place to be saying that they would appreciate that. They may not want to be "put out of their misery". That reminds me strongly of Hitler's view of "lives unworthy of life". He actually went after the mentally ill and retarded first, I'm told. It also creates a dangerous precedent... so you kill only the insane who commit crimes. Now what? Then do you kill the insane who don't commit crimes? And how does one define insane, does it include mentally ill but curable? Does it include mentally disabled? Or different (some people might call aspies insane, we certainly aren't quite neurotypical!). Also, your assertation that half the time, those who kill are insane is, sadly, not the case. *le sigh* The insane deserve treatment and compassion, not death.
2. I don't believe in revenge either. I have found in my own experience that revenge and anger are flat. You don't get anything out of them. On a personal level, it costs less, and has greater benefit, to forgive. I am also uncertain that revenge should be a precedent for the law... that seems, mihi, to lead to a risk of mob law and lynch teams. Not good.
There's actually a document online (which I need to find again) you can print out and sign as a legal document, saying that if you are, perchance, killed by someone, you are requesting that they do not, under any circumstances, seek the death penalty. Or you could just add that statement to your will, I suppose... *goes to write a will so she can do just that*