Women have a choice now. Abortion is legal. That's not the issue. The issue is that they also want you to pay for it, at their local drive-thru clinic.
So using this guys logic....if you are pro death penalty that also means you are pro murder because both ends the life of another person...correct?
Huh? I think the guy was just pointing out that "pro-choice", as defined by the abortion crowd, could be used on other issues. And on what issues should the government say you can choose, and which ones you can't. Are you pro-choice when it comes to cigars? Most of us would say yes. But what about when the government says it is bad for you and restricts it for "your own good"? There's no end to this argument. Not only do I think its' my body and I'll smoke if I want, I also demand that non-smokers be forced to pay an insurance premium for it in case I get sick from using it. Pro-choice all the way.
Thanks, and for the record, my position on abortion is exactly the same as my position on the death penalty - they both should be legal, and they both should be rare; used only under narrow, specific, limited circumstances. I would prefer that the overwhelming majority of convicted criminals get life without parole in capital murder cases, and I would prefer that contraception and adoption prevented the overwhelming majority of abortions. I am also convinced that life should be legally defined as begining at birth, outside the womb. If life begins at conception, then every woman who has a miscarriage will come under criminal investigation, and I fear that many will go to prison, or even face the death penalty. Additionally, if life begins at conception, then many will argue that contraception is equal to abortion.
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer.
actually costs the tax payer more in appeals from death row per prisoner then to live the rest of life in jail.
I just don't understand the thought behind "just lock em up for ever". The price tag on this is horrible, and as I'm to understand it the prison system is intended to rehabilitate criminals so they can be intergrated back into society. How does this apply to someone who will serve the rest of their life in jail?Violent offenders who will never be able to return to society serve no purpose, and are just a burden on the taxpayer.
actually costs the tax payer more in appeals from death row per prisoner then to live the rest of life in jail.
I think this is accurate in some states, but others have some pretty good limits on the appeal process.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
I remember reading something about either texas or florida saving lots of money with the death penalty but I could be wrong it's been a while since I read it.
Kuzi is right. At least everything Ive read there is no state where death row is cheaper than life in prison...often exponentially more expensive.
I remember reading something about either texas or florida saving lots of money with the death penalty but I could be wrong it's been a while since I read it.
As far as I'm concerned, the State of Texas is a mass murderer.
Comments