Religion?

[HappyRock]

I have not followed the whole thread, but I decided to pop in and see where the religion conversation ended up after so many pages.

I think you guys are pretty close to figuring this stuff out.

Man I love pancakes.

You know - I have never been a fan of pancakes - too much carbs for me - they never seem to stick with me - perhaps if they have apples in them or something.

But give me a good Denver omelet - now that I really love.

Quadruple the amount of eggs you put in the pancake dough, add a splash of milk, and double the baking powder.  The pancakes magically turn into very tasty crepes (even tastier if you fry them in coconut oil).  Then when you've cooked 'em apply a copious amount of greek yogurt and blueberries on one side of the crepe and roll it into a tube.  They will keep you full.

LOL +1. I wonder if MMM has read any of this thread

[FIPurpose]

Oh man, I love this place. We actually managed to talk about religion and abortion and stayed civil for the most part. How awesome is that?

As to when life begins. ...or rather when a unique life begins, that isn't a question that religion or morality answers,  it is one of science.  And it happens at conception - it's the very definition of conception.   Our laws don't confer equal and absolute rights to everyone who is alive, particularly ones who are fragile and dependent,  and they never have. The law balances the needs and rights of one against another and it is always going to be imperfect.

I agree that the answer to the question is related to science, but the issue I have is that the actual issue is related to the legal system, which gives it an entirely different spin.

As far as gun control goes, I've always wondered what would happen if there was a marksmanship requirement for gun ownership.

Man I love pancakes.

You know - I have never been a fan of pancakes - too much carbs for me - they never seem to stick with me - perhaps if they have apples in them or something.

But give me a good Denver omelet - now that I really love.

Quadruple the amount of eggs you put in the pancake dough, add a splash of milk, and double the baking powder.  The pancakes magically turn into very tasty crepes (even tastier if you fry them in coconut oil).  Then when you've cooked 'em apply a copious amount of greek yogurt and blueberries on one side of the crepe and roll it into a tube.  They will keep you full.

As far as pancakes go, I'll just leave these Paleo Hazelnut Coffee Pancakes here. These are delicious.

You guys all rock!!

The recipe is a little carby for me, but I think I'll be making some crepes tonight. Any good paleo crepe recipes out there? I may try the coffee idea.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

(because initially fetuses are more strange aquatic animal than human)

And delicious served in a bearnaise or wrapped in bacon. Goes well with pancakes, too.

[libertarian4321]

I was an atheist, until I was touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), who so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

All Hail the FSM!

Hey, if you're going to have an imaginary friend God, why not make it a fun one? 

[sol]

Hey, if you're going to have an imaginary friend God, why not make it a fun one?

If you're looking through the list of invisible men who live in the sky, the christian god is probably above average on the fun scale.  His only son was always going to big parties, and he always brought enough booze for everyone else.  He thought that whole 40 days and nights of rain was a pretty good prank.  He made the platypus so you know he's got a sense of humor.  And if you can get past all that smiting and locusts and pillars of salt business, the new testament has lots of rejoicing and singing of the praises and such.  It gets to be kind of a downer towards the end though, fair warning.

[libertarian4321]

Hey, if you're going to have an imaginary friend God, why not make it a fun one?

If you're looking through the list of invisible men who live in the sky, the christian god is probably above average on the fun scale.  His only son was always going to big parties, and he always brought enough booze for everyone else.  He thought that whole 40 days and nights of rain was a pretty good prank.  He made the platypus so you know he's got a sense of humor.  And if you can get past all that smiting and locusts and pillars of salt business, the new testament has lots of rejoicing and singing of the praises and such.  It gets to be kind of a downer towards the end though, fair warning.

The Church of the FSM features strippers and a beer volcano.  It doesn't get much better than that.

BTW, those of us in the Church of the FSM are Christians.  But like the Mormons, we have not yet received full acceptance by so-called mainstream Christians. 

[jordanread]

Hey, if you're going to have an imaginary friend God, why not make it a fun one?

If you're looking through the list of invisible men who live in the sky, the christian god is probably above average on the fun scale.  His only son was always going to big parties, and he always brought enough booze for everyone else.  He thought that whole 40 days and nights of rain was a pretty good prank.  He made the platypus so you know he's got a sense of humor.  And if you can get past all that smiting and locusts and pillars of salt business, the new testament has lots of rejoicing and singing of the praises and such.  It gets to be kind of a downer towards the end though, fair warning.

The Church of the FSM features strippers and a beer volcano.  It doesn't get much better than that.

BTW, those of us in the Church of the FSM are Christians.  But like the Mormons, we have not yet received full acceptance by so-called mainstream Christians.

R'amen.

[frugalnacho]

Well, we've covered religion and abortion.  Can we cover gun rights in the US next as our next divisive topic?  :D

So - does gun rights cross religious lines?
I mean the arguments people make over guns sounds like a religious fight, but it seems that there are not strong dividing lines on run rights based upon belief.

And you know we have not covered the death penalty either, it seems that doesn't get as much press as it used to.
My question on that one is - why do we bother?  It seems we have the capability of locking people up for as long as we want to - so why have to kill them? 
Convenience? Spite? Revenge? Mercy? Advertising (showing others what happens if they do XYZ)?

From most pro-death penalty people i've talked to it seems to be some perverse sense of justice.  You did this terrible crime that warrants the death penatly, and that is what you deserve. 

The death penalty should be abolished.  It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.  It also doesn't work as a deterrent.  The type of person that commits a crime so heinous that it is punishable by the death penalty is the type of person that is not going to be deterred by the death penalty.  The only person that would be deterred by the death penalty is someone that would also be deterred by a much lower sentence of incarceration.   The death penalty has also been used on wrongly convicted people, which is about as great of an injustice as you can have, and there is no going back once you figure out how bad you fucked up by convicting him.

[jordanread]

And you know we have not covered the death penalty either, it seems that doesn't get as much press as it used to.
My question on that one is - why do we bother?  It seems we have the capability of locking people up for as long as we want to - so why have to kill them? 
Convenience? Spite? Revenge? Mercy? Advertising (showing others what happens if they do XYZ)?

From most pro-death penalty people i've talked to it seems to be some perverse sense of justice.  You did this terrible crime that warrants the death penatly, and that is what you deserve. 

The death penalty should be abolished.  It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.  It also doesn't work as a deterrent.  The type of person that commits a crime so heinous that it is punishable by the death penalty is the type of person that is not going to be deterred by the death penalty.  The only person that would be deterred by the death penalty is someone that would also be deterred by a much lower sentence of incarceration.   The death penalty has also been used on wrongly convicted people, which is about as great of an injustice as you can have, and there is no going back once you figure out how bad you fucked up by convicting him.

I'm torn on understanding people who support the death penalty, but fully support getting rid of it (now), but primarily only for fiscal reasons. I haven't actually thought about it in a long time, as I thought it was primarily Texans offing each other (/joke...kindof). It just wasn't something that was in my Circle of Concern. Totally selfish, as I do strive to make society a better place, but it just didn't hit me in any particular way. However, seeing as how today is November 4th, my Circle of Control has widened a lot, at least until tomorrow. And since earlier this year, I saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E
It was actually on my mind. I had done a bit of research on the points that he brought up, and found myself mostly confused as to why it's such a divisive topic. I started trying to see it from the point of the victim's family, but I saw two general responses: "I thought it would feel different, but my so-and-so is still gone" and "So-and-so can rest easy now".

I don't actually think justice plays as huge a role in it as it seems. I think it's vengeance or impotence hiding behind justice. Vengeance because someone did this horrible thing, and they MUST PAY, or the fact that there wasn't anything a given person or society did to stop them, and nothing messes up people like feeling powerless.

[Sid Hoffman]

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

[arebelspy]

It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.

It's only more expensive because of the long drawn out crazy appeals process.  Cut that from decades down, and it'll be much cheaper.

Regardless, I don't think money should be the determining factor for morality.

I'm against the death penalty though because mistakes are unacceptable, and I just don't trust the government, or juries, to get it right all the time.

[jordanread]

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

Are you for real here, or just trolling? While I agree with what you said regarding ebola, the rest of your comment seems to me to have some type of failure in understanding how things actually work.
You mentioned lightning strikes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, murders, cigarettes, and alcoholism. One of these things is not like the other...I'll give you a hint: it's the one that we have absolute control over, in which modifying one's behavior without impeding on the choices of others will prevent. It's not about saving lives, it's about not fucking killing people. Especially when it turns out that some of those we (as a society) killed are innocent. When it's that freaking easy to stop, how is even 1% okay? We can prevent them from doing more damage, so what is the big deal?

[VirginiaBob]

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

Are you for real here, or just trolling? While I agree with what you said regarding ebola, the rest of your comment seems to me to have some type of failure in understanding how things actually work.
You mentioned lightning strikes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, murders, cigarettes, and alcoholism. One of these things is not like the other...I'll give you a hint: it's the one that we have absolute control over, in which modifying one's behavior without impeding on the choices of others will prevent. It's not about saving lives, it's about not fucking killing people. Especially when it turns out that some of those we (as a society) killed are innocent. When it's that freaking easy to stop, how is even 1% okay? We can prevent them from doing more damage, so what is the big deal?

Yes, correct, it is about not killing people, including unborn babies.

Hehe - and back to the abortion issue we go!  Oh crap, I think we are out of order.  We are supposed to go back to Christian bashing first, then abortion.  My bad!  Lol!

Or was it pancakes?  I don't even know anymore.

[jordanread]

Yes, correct, it is about not killing people, including unborn babies.

Hehe - and back to the abortion issue we go!  Oh crap, I think we are out of order.  We are supposed to go back to Christian bashing first, then abortion.  My bad!  Lol!

Or was it pancakes?  I don't even know anymore.

Yes, it was pancakes.

So, here is something I didn't mention because you all seemed to be doing pretty well with the discussion before. We were arguing about the morality of abortion, which is dependent on the beliefs of a person. You want to compare this to the death penalty, and you just made this an issue with the legal system, which is a bit different. Fun fact: "people" is a collection of "persons", which is a legal term. And persons have a specified set of rights. So who should decide when that is granted?

[jordanread]

Also, as I get ready to sleep, I realized that something from my above comment may have been overlooked... I can't quote from my phone, but I think it was something to the effect of "without impeding on the choices of others".

[Sid Hoffman]

Are you for real here, or just trolling? While I agree with what you said regarding ebola, the rest of your comment seems to me to have some type of failure in understanding how things actually work.
You mentioned lightning strikes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, murders, cigarettes, and alcoholism. One of these things is not like the other...I'll give you a hint: it's the one that we have absolute control over, in which modifying one's behavior without impeding on the choices of others will prevent. It's not about saving lives, it's about not fucking killing people. Especially when it turns out that some of those we (as a society) killed are innocent. When it's that freaking easy to stop, how is even 1% okay? We can prevent them from doing more damage, so what is the big deal?

Actually they are all related because they are all ways to die that can have the risk of death reduced by some form of action.  Cancer, lightning strikes, ebola, murder and executions are all methods of death that could be reduced by some form of action.  When people smoke a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years, their chance of having health problems and premature death goes way up versus somebody who does not smoke.  Murders can be reduced through improved education, doing rehabilitation instead of punishment in jail, promoting improved community relations, and so on.

You seem pretty worked up to call me out as a troll, which I'm not sure I understand.  Everybody dies, and some die well before they otherwise would have due to some form of complication.  Smoking, cigarettes, inattentive driving, or whatever you want to list.  If the main goal of an organized society is to reduce the number of people who are dying prematurely then you approach it the same way you approach a budget deficit: look at the areas which are the worst first.  We do a ton of research in the field of cancer, yet tobacco products are totally legal and very affordable.

Alcohol is likewise a common killer in a variety of ways since it has the ability to damage multiple organs and can potentially lead to accidental deaths in many forms, whether it's choking on your own vomit, taking a fatal tumble down stairs, or getting in a major car wreck.  Yet alcohol is still widely available at every store in town.  No background check needed to buy it, just a photo ID based on age.  You could do things like what some states and counties have done where alcohol is only available at government run stores and you need to show your ID to buy.  That ID can then only buy a certain amount of alcohol or cigarettes a week and if you've had a DUI conviction in the last year you are denied access to alcohol.

Now I'm not saying such things would likely pass, but we're at an odd crossroads where we are spending over 15% of all the money in the US economy on healthcare, but still blissfully permitting totally dangerous substances that are known to cause health problems to be purchased in unlimited quantities by anyone who wants it.  Where spiritualism or religion can play a role is to help determine how much you stand back and watch the world burn in the name of free will, versus stepping in to stop a society from self-destructing under the banner of hedonism.  Everyone dies, but you don't have to all die of preventable causes at age 50-60 anymore now that we have learned so much about how to live longer and healthier lives well into the 70's and even 80's.

Does that make sense?  Maybe I just wasn't very clear in my first post.  I tend to get rowdy in other discussions for the sake of fun, such as harassing people over daylight savings time in a different thread, but I'm certainly not trying to troll or just beat up on people.  I think all of us would be mentally healthier to regularly have all our assumptions and beliefs challenged so we must seek out the truth and expand our knowledge and understanding.

[jordanread]

Are you for real here, or just trolling? While I agree with what you said regarding ebola, the rest of your comment seems to me to have some type of failure in understanding how things actually work.
You mentioned lightning strikes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, murders, cigarettes, and alcoholism. One of these things is not like the other...I'll give you a hint: it's the one that we have absolute control over, in which modifying one's behavior without impeding on the choices of others will prevent. It's not about saving lives, it's about not fucking killing people. Especially when it turns out that some of those we (as a society) killed are innocent. When it's that freaking easy to stop, how is even 1% okay? We can prevent them from doing more damage, so what is the big deal?

Actually they are all related because they are all ways to die that can have the risk of death reduced by some form of action.  Cancer, lightning strikes, ebola, murder and executions are all methods of death that could be reduced by some form of action.  When people smoke a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years, their chance of having health problems and premature death goes way up versus somebody who does not smoke.  Murders can be reduced through improved education, doing rehabilitation instead of punishment in jail, promoting improved community relations, and so on.

You seem pretty worked up to call me out as a troll, which I'm not sure I understand.  Everybody dies, and some die well before they otherwise would have due to some form of complication.  Smoking, cigarettes, inattentive driving, or whatever you want to list.  If the main goal of an organized society is to reduce the number of people who are dying prematurely then you approach it the same way you approach a budget deficit: look at the areas which are the worst first.  We do a ton of research in the field of cancer, yet tobacco products are totally legal and very affordable.

Alcohol is likewise a common killer in a variety of ways since it has the ability to damage multiple organs and can potentially lead to accidental deaths in many forms, whether it's choking on your own vomit, taking a fatal tumble down stairs, or getting in a major car wreck.  Yet alcohol is still widely available at every store in town.  No background check needed to buy it, just a photo ID based on age.  You could do things like what some states and counties have done where alcohol is only available at government run stores and you need to show your ID to buy.  That ID can then only buy a certain amount of alcohol or cigarettes a week and if you've had a DUI conviction in the last year you are denied access to alcohol.

Now I'm not saying such things would likely pass, but we're at an odd crossroads where we are spending over 15% of all the money in the US economy on healthcare, but still blissfully permitting totally dangerous substances that are known to cause health problems to be purchased in unlimited quantities by anyone who wants it.  Where spiritualism or religion can play a role is to help determine how much you stand back and watch the world burn in the name of free will, versus stepping in to stop a society from self-destructing under the banner of hedonism.  Everyone dies, but you don't have to all die of preventable causes at age 50-60 anymore now that we have learned so much about how to live longer and healthier lives well into the 70's and even 80's.

Does that make sense?  Maybe I just wasn't very clear in my first post.  I tend to get rowdy in other discussions for the sake of fun, such as harassing people over daylight savings time in a different thread, but I'm certainly not trying to troll or just beat up on people.  I think all of us would be mentally healthier to regularly have all our assumptions and beliefs challenged so we must seek out the truth and expand our knowledge and understanding.

That did clear up your point. It seemed to me that you were comparing choices people make about themselves (smoking, drinking, driving, etc) to the death penalty, and it just doesn't compare. I see now you were merely mentioning them.
I also see your point, and kind of agree, although not completely. Once I'm at an actual keyboard, I'll go onto a bit more detail.

[matchewed]

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

The problem isn't the number or specifically about saving lives. It is more about tyranny and what a government should be allowed to do to individuals. One single death by deliberate choice by the state that is done when someone is innocent has two major factors which are intolerable. First that it is the most final violation of their rights and secondly that there is no recourse. Trying to compare it to actions that are based on free will is an apples to oranges comparison.

[GuitarStv]

The problem isn't the number or specifically about saving lives. It is more about tyranny and what a government should be allowed to do to individuals. One single death by deliberate choice by the state that is done when someone is innocent has two major factors which are intolerable. First that it is the most final violation of their rights and secondly that there is no recourse. Trying to compare it to actions that are based on free will is an apples to oranges comparison.

ROFL . . . applying that same logic draws some disturbing conclusions related to US involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

[matchewed]

The problem isn't the number or specifically about saving lives. It is more about tyranny and what a government should be allowed to do to individuals. One single death by deliberate choice by the state that is done when someone is innocent has two major factors which are intolerable. First that it is the most final violation of their rights and secondly that there is no recourse. Trying to compare it to actions that are based on free will is an apples to oranges comparison.

ROFL . . . applying that same logic draws some disturbing conclusions related to US involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

-ish. We don't have a social contract w/ individuals in those other nations. I should have talked about being a citizen instead of just a person. But I also feel, and I'm sure I'm not the first to think this, that war has its own moral quandaries not too dissimilar.

[frugalnacho]

I don't actually think justice plays as huge a role in it as it seems. I think it's vengeance or impotence hiding behind justice. Vengeance because someone did this horrible thing, and they MUST PAY, or the fact that there wasn't anything a given person or society did to stop them, and nothing messes up people like feeling powerless.

That's pretty much what I mean by a perverse sense of justice.  You did something bad, and you MUST PAY.  As if killing that person will somehow serve justice.

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

One major difference is that we have absolute control over capital punishment.  We could collectively say "no more capital punishment".  We can't say the same for ebola, or lightning strikes.  A much more apt analogy would be if the government was intentionally infecting people with ebola, but only like 5 people a year.  Yea 5 people isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but it's absolutely outrageous that they would choose to intentionally and unnecessarily do that.

It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.

It's only more expensive because of the long drawn out crazy appeals process.  Cut that from decades down, and it'll be much cheaper.

Regardless, I don't think money should be the determining factor for morality.

I'm against the death penalty though because mistakes are unacceptable, and I just don't trust the government, or juries, to get it right all the time.

And yet even with that crazy drawn out appeals process they still end up executing innocent people.   If you really want to save money why not just skip the whole due process altogether? 

Money should not be a determining factor for morality, I was just trying to nip that argument before it was brought up, as it seems to be the #1 reason given by uninformed people.

[frugalnacho]

You seem pretty worked up to call me out as a troll, which I'm not sure I understand.  Everybody dies, and some die well before they otherwise would have due to some form of complication.  Smoking, cigarettes, inattentive driving, or whatever you want to list.  If the main goal of an organized society is to reduce the number of people who are dying prematurely then you approach it the same way you approach a budget deficit: look at the areas which are the worst first.  We do a ton of research in the field of cancer, yet tobacco products are totally legal and very affordable.

Alcohol is likewise a common killer in a variety of ways since it has the ability to damage multiple organs and can potentially lead to accidental deaths in many forms, whether it's choking on your own vomit, taking a fatal tumble down stairs, or getting in a major car wreck.  Yet alcohol is still widely available at every store in town.  No background check needed to buy it, just a photo ID based on age.  You could do things like what some states and counties have done where alcohol is only available at government run stores and you need to show your ID to buy.  That ID can then only buy a certain amount of alcohol or cigarettes a week and if you've had a DUI conviction in the last year you are denied access to alcohol.

Now I'm not saying such things would likely pass, but we're at an odd crossroads where we are spending over 15% of all the money in the US economy on healthcare, but still blissfully permitting totally dangerous substances that are known to cause health problems to be purchased in unlimited quantities by anyone who wants it.  Where spiritualism or religion can play a role is to help determine how much you stand back and watch the world burn in the name of free will, versus stepping in to stop a society from self-destructing under the banner of hedonism.  Everyone dies, but you don't have to all die of preventable causes at age 50-60 anymore now that we have learned so much about how to live longer and healthier lives well into the 70's and even 80's.

Does that make sense?  Maybe I just wasn't very clear in my first post.  I tend to get rowdy in other discussions for the sake of fun, such as harassing people over daylight savings time in a different thread, but I'm certainly not trying to troll or just beat up on people.  I think all of us would be mentally healthier to regularly have all our assumptions and beliefs challenged so we must seek out the truth and expand our knowledge and understanding.

That's not the point at all though.  It's not about trying to reduce the overall amount of premature deaths.  It's about stopping the government from murdering innocent people because it is wrong.  Whether that is 1 person, or 1,000 people, it is still wrong and should be stopped.   

[VirginiaBob]

You seem pretty worked up to call me out as a troll, which I'm not sure I understand.  Everybody dies, and some die well before they otherwise would have due to some form of complication.  Smoking, cigarettes, inattentive driving, or whatever you want to list.  If the main goal of an organized society is to reduce the number of people who are dying prematurely then you approach it the same way you approach a budget deficit: look at the areas which are the worst first.  We do a ton of research in the field of cancer, yet tobacco products are totally legal and very affordable.

Alcohol is likewise a common killer in a variety of ways since it has the ability to damage multiple organs and can potentially lead to accidental deaths in many forms, whether it's choking on your own vomit, taking a fatal tumble down stairs, or getting in a major car wreck.  Yet alcohol is still widely available at every store in town.  No background check needed to buy it, just a photo ID based on age.  You could do things like what some states and counties have done where alcohol is only available at government run stores and you need to show your ID to buy.  That ID can then only buy a certain amount of alcohol or cigarettes a week and if you've had a DUI conviction in the last year you are denied access to alcohol.

Now I'm not saying such things would likely pass, but we're at an odd crossroads where we are spending over 15% of all the money in the US economy on healthcare, but still blissfully permitting totally dangerous substances that are known to cause health problems to be purchased in unlimited quantities by anyone who wants it.  Where spiritualism or religion can play a role is to help determine how much you stand back and watch the world burn in the name of free will, versus stepping in to stop a society from self-destructing under the banner of hedonism.  Everyone dies, but you don't have to all die of preventable causes at age 50-60 anymore now that we have learned so much about how to live longer and healthier lives well into the 70's and even 80's.

Does that make sense?  Maybe I just wasn't very clear in my first post.  I tend to get rowdy in other discussions for the sake of fun, such as harassing people over daylight savings time in a different thread, but I'm certainly not trying to troll or just beat up on people.  I think all of us would be mentally healthier to regularly have all our assumptions and beliefs challenged so we must seek out the truth and expand our knowledge and understanding.

That's not the point at all though.  It's not about trying to reduce the overall amount of premature deaths.  It's about stopping the government from murdering innocent people because it is wrong.  Whether that is 1 person, or 1,000 people, it is still wrong and should be stopped.

The point of an organized society is not trying to reduce the overall amount of premature deaths?  I believe most organized societies make this a top priority.  Some degree of nationalized health care, medical research, FDA, traffic laws, etc.  And don't forget pancakes as well.

[arebelspy]

It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.

It's only more expensive because of the long drawn out crazy appeals process.  Cut that from decades down, and it'll be much cheaper.

Regardless, I don't think money should be the determining factor for morality.

I'm against the death penalty though because mistakes are unacceptable, and I just don't trust the government, or juries, to get it right all the time.

And yet even with that crazy drawn out appeals process they still end up executing innocent people.   If you really want to save money why not just skip the whole due process altogether? 

Money should not be a determining factor for morality, I was just trying to nip that argument before it was brought up, as it seems to be the #1 reason given by uninformed people.

Right, that's what most people in favor of the death penalty would advocate, a year or whatever for appeals, then done.  They're as against the 20+year appeals process as the other side is against the death penalty.  They tend to accept that sometimes (though they will say it's quite rare) a mistake is made.  So the money issue is really on their side, if you're willing to accept those consequences.  But again, morality > money.

Trying to nip a bad argument in the bud by bringing up another bad argument and then having them discussed doesn't seem to be the way to go here - don't be the one to bring up a bad argument at all, just let it die.

[frugalnacho]

The point of an organized society is not trying to reduce the overall amount of premature deaths?  I believe most organized societies make this a top priority.  Some degree of nationalized health care, medical research, FDA, traffic laws, etc.  And don't forget pancakes as well.

That's not what I meant.  It's like if I tell you to stop buying a $4 latte each morning when you are spending $5,000/mo on rent.  Yea your $120/mo latte habit is small compared to your $5,000/mo rent, but that doesn't mean you should simply dismiss the latte habit because it is smaller in comparison.  And if for some weird reason you don't have the ability or the means to tackle both problems simultaneously then you should focus on the one that will give the most benefit to your bottom line. Of course that is bullshit though because you certainly have the ability to stop your latte habit without deflecting any time or resources from your high rent problem.  Just like we have the same ability to stop capital punishment without deflecting resources from other programs that benefit society.  As a society we could easily end capital punishment, if that's what people wanted.  The reason the capital punishment is still used and has not been abolished is because of flawed logic and reasoning. 

[jordanread]

That's not what I meant.  It's like if I tell you to stop buying a $4 latte each morning when you are spending $5,000/mo on rent.  Yea your $120/mo latte habit is small compared to your $5,000/mo rent, but that doesn't mean you should simply dismiss the latte habit because it is smaller in comparison.  And if for some weird reason you don't have the ability or the means to tackle both problems simultaneously then you should focus on the one that will give the most benefit to your bottom line. Of course that is bullshit though because you certainly have the ability to stop your latte habit without deflecting any time or resources from your high rent problem.  Just like we have the same ability to stop capital punishment without deflecting resources from other programs that benefit society.  As a society we could easily end capital punishment, if that's what people wanted.  The reason the capital punishment is still used and has not been abolished is because of flawed logic and reasoning. 

Well said. I think everything I was going to bring up is now out there. Only thing I would add is that action would be required to address those other issues, while (and I'm simplifying here) stopping a specific action would address this one. It actually takes additional effort to implement the death penalty, so getting rid of it by just stopping makes it different to me, and makes more sense.

Also, I'd reiterate the point arebelspy made in that when mistakes are unacceptable, people and government should not be the ones to implement it. Shit, for every 12 new people I meet, at least 7 of them don't know their ass from their elbow.

[frugalnacho]

It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.

It's only more expensive because of the long drawn out crazy appeals process.  Cut that from decades down, and it'll be much cheaper.

Regardless, I don't think money should be the determining factor for morality.

I'm against the death penalty though because mistakes are unacceptable, and I just don't trust the government, or juries, to get it right all the time.

And yet even with that crazy drawn out appeals process they still end up executing innocent people.  If you really want to save money why not just skip the whole due process altogether? 

Money should not be a determining factor for morality, I was just trying to nip that argument before it was brought up, as it seems to be the #1 reason given by uninformed people.

Right, that's what most people in favor of the death penalty would advocate, a year or whatever for appeals, then done.  They're as against the 20+year appeals process as the other side is against the death penalty.  They tend to accept that sometimes (though they will say it's quite rare) a mistake is made.  So the money issue is really on their side, if you're willing to accept those consequences.  But again, morality > money.

Trying to nip a bad argument in the bud by bringing up another bad argument and then having them discussed doesn't seem to be the way to go here - don't be the one to bring up a bad argument at all, just let it die.

I didn't bring up another bad argument, just the original bad argument, which I don't think can be ignored.  It's counter-intuitive, but the fact of the matter is that it costs more to execute someone than permanently incarcerate them.  I also don't think we should do away with the appeals process.  The process is in place to prevent, in your own words, an unacceptable mistake, and even with that long and drawn out appeals process those mistakes still get made. I don't understand how anyone could argue that we need to shorten or remove those safe guards and deny rights to people, even once they have been initially convicted of a crime. 

[Malaysia41]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

[jordanread]

It is more expensive than life long incarceration, so it doesn't save any money.

It's only more expensive because of the long drawn out crazy appeals process.  Cut that from decades down, and it'll be much cheaper.

Regardless, I don't think money should be the determining factor for morality.

I'm against the death penalty though because mistakes are unacceptable, and I just don't trust the government, or juries, to get it right all the time.

And yet even with that crazy drawn out appeals process they still end up executing innocent people.  If you really want to save money why not just skip the whole due process altogether? 

Money should not be a determining factor for morality, I was just trying to nip that argument before it was brought up, as it seems to be the #1 reason given by uninformed people.

Right, that's what most people in favor of the death penalty would advocate, a year or whatever for appeals, then done.  They're as against the 20+year appeals process as the other side is against the death penalty.  They tend to accept that sometimes (though they will say it's quite rare) a mistake is made.  So the money issue is really on their side, if you're willing to accept those consequences.  But again, morality > money.

Trying to nip a bad argument in the bud by bringing up another bad argument and then having them discussed doesn't seem to be the way to go here - don't be the one to bring up a bad argument at all, just let it die.

I didn't bring up another bad argument, just the original bad argument, which I don't think can be ignored.  It's counter-intuitive, but the fact of the matter is that it costs more to execute someone than permanently incarcerate them.  I also don't think we should do away with the appeals process.  The process is in place to prevent, in your own words, an unacceptable mistake, and even with that long and drawn out appeals process those mistakes still get made. I don't understand how anyone could argue that we need to shorten or remove those safe guards and deny rights to people, even once they have been initially convicted of a crime.

Now I'm confused. I think you guys are arguing the same points. Unless the "Get rid of due process" wasn't actually sarcasm.

[frugalnacho]

Now I'm confused. I think you guys are arguing the same points. Unless the "Get rid of due process" wasn't actually sarcasm.

Yea I think we are, I was just reiterating on why I think they (those who favor shortening the appeals process, and are pro death penalty) are wrong.

[arebelspy]

Now I'm confused. I think you guys are arguing the same points. Unless the "Get rid of due process" wasn't actually sarcasm.

Yea I think we are, I was just reiterating on why I think they (those who favor shortening the appeals process, and are pro death penalty) are wrong.

It's fine that you think they are wrong, but they clearly don't agree.

I know plenty of pro-death penalty people that want to shorten the appeals process such that executing someone is cheaper than life in prison. The actual execution is MUCH cheaper, it's the appeals that make it more expensive, so they want to shorten that process.  And yes, admit there will be mistakes due to this.

But simply saying it's cheaper to keep them in prison isn't, IMO, a winning argument, because they'll argue that it's actually cheaper to execute if you reduce the appeals process to something reasonable.

I would just ignore any money arguments, as morality > money.

[arebelspy]

Now I'm confused. I think you guys are arguing the same points.

We're agreeing on the overall point, that neither of us are in favor of the death penalty.

We're disagreeing on the effectiveness of the "cost" argument against it.  I think cost is in favor of the death penalty, he thinks it's in favor of incarceration.

The death penalty is cheaper, incarceration is more, 20+ year appeals makes the death penalty more expensive.  Shortening that would make it cheaper.  What are you willing to give up?  Most in favor of the death penalty accept there will be mistakes, so having, say, a 5 year appeal process and still allowing some mistakes might make the death penalty cheaper and be acceptable in terms of error rate.

To me any error rate is unacceptable, but if you're in favor of the death penalty that clearly isn't true, so you're likely willing to shorten the appeals process and accept some error rate there as well, which makes the death penalty cheaper.

That's where we're disagreeing.  I say because of the above, money isn't an effective argument against.  He thinks it is, because you shouldn't shorten the appeals process.  That's only because he's anti-death penalty though.

[jordanread]

We're disagreeing on the effectiveness of the "cost" argument against it.  I think cost is in favor of the death penalty, he thinks it's in favor of incarceration.

The death penalty is cheaper, incarceration is more, 20+ year appeals makes the death penalty more expensive.  Shortening that would make it cheaper.  What are you willing to give up?  Most in favor of the death penalty accept there will be mistakes, so having, say, a 5 year appeal process and still allowing some mistakes might make the death penalty cheaper and be acceptable in terms of error rate.

To me any error rate is unacceptable, but if you're in favor of the death penalty that clearly isn't true, so you're likely willing to shorten the appeals process and accept some error rate there as well, which makes the death penalty cheaper.

That's where we're disagreeing.  I say because of the above, money isn't an effective argument against.  He thinks it is, because you shouldn't shorten the appeals process.  That's only because he's anti-death penalty though.

Gotcha, that makes more sense. I lost something on the way there. :-)

[arebelspy]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

I love how you put that.  Well said.

[frugalnacho]

Now I'm confused. I think you guys are arguing the same points. Unless the "Get rid of due process" wasn't actually sarcasm.

Yea I think we are, I was just reiterating on why I think they (those who favor shortening the appeals process, and are pro death penalty) are wrong.

It's fine that you think they are wrong, but they clearly don't agree.

I know plenty of pro-death penalty people that want to shorten the appeals process such that executing someone is cheaper than life in prison. The actual execution is MUCH cheaper, it's the appeals that make it more expensive, so they want to shorten that process.  And yes, admit there will be mistakes due to this.

But simply saying it's cheaper to keep them in prison isn't, IMO, a winning argument, because they'll argue that it's actually cheaper to execute if you reduce the appeals process to something reasonable.

I would just ignore any money arguments, as morality > money.

That's an entirely separate argument though.  The fact is we live in a country with a constitution, and people have rights to appeals, and that's just the way it is.  Any financial argument for/against the death penalty must be first and foremost built on that basic fact.  I've heard the argument basically boiled down to: A bullet to the head is 2 cents, therefore the death penalty is (or should be) cheaper.  But again, that is completely irrelevant to the death penalty debate in america.

[arebelspy]

Now I'm confused. I think you guys are arguing the same points. Unless the "Get rid of due process" wasn't actually sarcasm.

Yea I think we are, I was just reiterating on why I think they (those who favor shortening the appeals process, and are pro death penalty) are wrong.

It's fine that you think they are wrong, but they clearly don't agree.

I know plenty of pro-death penalty people that want to shorten the appeals process such that executing someone is cheaper than life in prison. The actual execution is MUCH cheaper, it's the appeals that make it more expensive, so they want to shorten that process.  And yes, admit there will be mistakes due to this.

But simply saying it's cheaper to keep them in prison isn't, IMO, a winning argument, because they'll argue that it's actually cheaper to execute if you reduce the appeals process to something reasonable.

I would just ignore any money arguments, as morality > money.

That's an entirely separate argument though.  The fact is we live in a country with a constitution, and people have rights to appeals, and that's just the way it is.  Any financial argument for/against the death penalty must be first and foremost built on that basic fact.  I've heard the argument basically boiled down to: A bullet to the head is 2 cents, therefore the death penalty is (or should be) cheaper.  But again, that is completely irrelevant to the death penalty debate in america.

I disagree.  There's nothing in the constitution about "due process" == "20-30 years of appeals".  The courts literally interpret what due process is, and could decide that a certain amount of due process is "enough."

[VirginiaBob]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

Technically, I don't think the government murders anyone, but they pay employees and others to murder people.  For example, the government should not subsidize abortions by funding doctors through insurance to kill babies.  Or pancakes for that matter.

[frugalnacho]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

Technically, I don't think the government murders anyone, but they pay employees and others to murder people.  For example, the government should not subsidize abortions by funding doctors through insurance to kill babies.  Or pancakes for that matter.

Hiring someone to commit murder is on par with murder itself. 

[VirginiaBob]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

Technically, I don't think the government murders anyone, but they pay employees and others to murder people.  For example, the government should not subsidize abortions by funding doctors through insurance to kill babies.  Or pancakes for that matter.

Hiring someone to commit murder is on par with murder itself.

How about hiring someone that hires someone that commits murder?  That would be you and me.  Murderer!

[frugalnacho]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

Technically, I don't think the government murders anyone, but they pay employees and others to murder people.  For example, the government should not subsidize abortions by funding doctors through insurance to kill babies.  Or pancakes for that matter.

Hiring someone to commit murder is on par with murder itself.

How about hiring someone that hires someone that commits murder?  That would be you and me.  Murderer!

I think there has to be some original intent.  Like if I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, and he decides on his own to take a contract out on my wife, I don't think i'm responsible for that. 

[VirginiaBob]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

Technically, I don't think the government murders anyone, but they pay employees and others to murder people.  For example, the government should not subsidize abortions by funding doctors through insurance to kill babies.  Or pancakes for that matter.

Hiring someone to commit murder is on par with murder itself.

How about hiring someone that hires someone that commits murder?  That would be you and me.  Murderer!

I think there has to be some original intent.  Like if I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, and he decides on his own to take a contract out on my wife, I don't think i'm responsible for that.

This can be fun.  Ok, so what if you hired a plumber who took at a contract on your wife, then you remarried and hired the same plumber, he took out a contract on your second wife, then you remarried again, and hired the same plumber?  Are you still not responsible? 

[GuitarStv]

I suspect at the least that you have exorbitant plumbing bills.

[frugalnacho]

Wait, why would you get married three times?  Once is enough man.

[Sid Hoffman]

I suspect at the least that you have exorbitant plumbing bills.

Oh man, I just laughed so hard.  This is why internet discussions are so absurd, yet so unpredictable.  I click on a thread on a finance website titled "Religion?" and all the latest posts are about who is responsible and what the financial implications are when somebody gets married repeatedly and keeps hiring the same plumber who keeps killing the customer's wife.  It's like Mad Libs, but for discussion train of thought.

[HappyRock]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

I love how you put that.  Well said.

Except that by definition, the death penalty is not murder. Many people don't even consider it morally wrong.

Honestly though, so many aspects of the U.S judicial system need to be overhauled, including capital punishment.

[johnhenry]

I don't want my government murdering people.  Simple as that.

Amen.  The sooner we all start calling our government "we" instead of "they" the better off we will be. 

[HappyRock]

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

Are you for real here, or just trolling? While I agree with what you said regarding ebola, the rest of your comment seems to me to have some type of failure in understanding how things actually work.
You mentioned lightning strikes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, murders, cigarettes, and alcoholism. One of these things is not like the other...I'll give you a hint: it's the one that we have absolute control over, in which modifying one's behavior without impeding on the choices of others will prevent. It's not about saving lives, it's about not fucking killing people. Especially when it turns out that some of those we (as a society) killed are innocent. When it's that freaking easy to stop, how is even 1% okay? We can prevent them from doing more damage, so what is the big deal?

Yes, correct, it is about not killing people, including unborn babies.

Hehe - and back to the abortion issue we go!  Oh crap, I think we are out of order.  We are supposed to go back to Christian bashing first, then abortion.  My bad!  Lol!

Or was it pancakes?  I don't even know anymore.

We aren't bashing, we are questioning/discussing/learning about things that we disagree with, and for good reason. That was the reason for this thread. So far so good.

Just wondered for you personally VirginiaBob, :

Do you honestly believe abortion shouldn't be allowed in the U.S?
Do your Christian beliefs about life and god influence your feelings on the idea of abortion?
Do you think Christianity is the "correct" religion and accurate as to what god wants for us?

[VirginiaBob]

I still can't quite understand why capital punishment is an issue in the first place.  It's like the Ebola of the justice system: we can document it has killed someone in the last year, but the number of lives it has claimed is fewer than die of stupid things like lightning strikes.  I'm being serious too!  There were 39 executions in 2013 and about 73 people a year die of lightning strike.  Meanwhile you have some 2.4 million people dying in USA every year and about half of those are considered to be premature in some way, usually from cancern, heart disease, or other big ones.  Accidents take 100,000, murders take another 20,000.

But executions?  Really?  That's like saying that Ebola is something that you need to worry about in America.  The argument of people being executed for false crimes is even more astonishing, as it's nearly impossible to get somebody executed in the first place, but even if it's 1%, that would mean that only 1 out of every 3 years would have one single American executed who was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.  Again, 1 death in 3 years is pretty minimal compared to cancer, alcoholism, accidents, murders, and so on.

If we really cared so much about saving lives we would be restricting the purchase and production of alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, and high risk activities that commonly result in death: I'm looking at you, motorcycles.

But alas, nobody really cares about capital punishment because 39 people a year, at least 99% of whom were absolutely guilty, is a tiny number.  It's just a political football that gets kicked around for show in order to distract from all the aforementioned REAL killers like cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  Since nobody wants to do anything about all the preventable deaths of all those other types, they talk about strawman arguments instead.

Are you for real here, or just trolling? While I agree with what you said regarding ebola, the rest of your comment seems to me to have some type of failure in understanding how things actually work.
You mentioned lightning strikes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, murders, cigarettes, and alcoholism. One of these things is not like the other...I'll give you a hint: it's the one that we have absolute control over, in which modifying one's behavior without impeding on the choices of others will prevent. It's not about saving lives, it's about not fucking killing people. Especially when it turns out that some of those we (as a society) killed are innocent. When it's that freaking easy to stop, how is even 1% okay? We can prevent them from doing more damage, so what is the big deal?

Yes, correct, it is about not killing people, including unborn babies.

Hehe - and back to the abortion issue we go!  Oh crap, I think we are out of order.  We are supposed to go back to Christian bashing first, then abortion.  My bad!  Lol!

Or was it pancakes?  I don't even know anymore.

We aren't bashing, we are questioning/discussing/learning about things that we disagree with, and for good reason. That was the reason for this thread. So far so good.

Just wondered for you personally VirginiaBob, :

Do you honestly believe abortion shouldn't be allowed in the U.S?
Do your Christian beliefs about life and god influence your feelings on the idea of abortion?
Do you think Christianity is the "correct" religion and accurate as to what god wants for us?

I'm guessing I'll be heavily judged on these responses, but:

Not in all cases.  I'm ok with abortion for cases of rape and incest, and possibly some critical medical issues for the mother.  I am not ok with abortion for convenience purposes. 

Maybe - my thinking is that I would think killing is bad whether I was a Christian or not.  Along the same lines that I wouldn't go out and rape somebody, steal all their stuff, etc. if I were not a Christian.

Yes, I do, but I'm not interested in the field of Christian apologetics, if that is what you are getting at.

[GuitarStv]

What is your solution to unwanted babies produced by the lack of the option to have an abortion?

[VirginiaBob]

What is your solution to unwanted babies produced by the lack of the option to have an abortion?

More pancakes!