|
I too am firmly pro-choice and relatively firmly anti-capital punishment, although this has to do more with personal sentiment than a life of book digging.
Why am I pro-choice? I do not believe that a 1 month old fetus qualifies as a human. It is on the path of being a human, like a sperm, or an egg. A fetus is not a dangerous parasite to be deposed at a whim, but neither is it an actual baby. When the baby hits the 6 month mark, I consider it too advanced as a fetus, and much closer to being a baby than it is to be a primitive fetus. I personally wish abortions to be limited to the 8-week mark. Some pro-lifers may jump at this as hypocrisy, as a sort of "go all the way or not at all" attitude, because they know they'll win at this one. However, that is not the case. Pro-choice is not really pro-abortion to the max. It's not my pro-choice attitude wants the most abortions possible. It's the opposite. The ideal world would have no abortions because every conception would be planned, expected, and wanted. However, that is not the case. And whether or not we personally believe in having abortions, there will always be desperate and impoverished people who will. And who are we to impose our almost purely philosophical beliefs on those people? The fact is that with illegalized abortions, alley clinics will perform unsanitary and unsafe abortions, resulting in the deaths of many women. People who see this as an acceptable sacrifice to save some fetus are in direct opposition to my beliefs.
Not to mention that some of most important Catholic theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, never mentioned about a fetus having a soul upon conception. Augustine opposed abortion purely on the fact that sex was only for procreation, and Aquinas believed the fetus got its soul upon quickening, which occurs about 6 months into the pregnancy.
Abortion is almost a purely philosphical issue. Data and research are usually obviously swaying one way. Study shows that a fetus can feel pain anywhere from 7 weeks, to 7 months, depending on the scientists. Not to reliable IMHO. And in a purely ideological issue, it's best to take the libertarian side of letting the people choose.
As for the death penalty, the fact that an execution costs more than life imprisonment is enough for me. And the fact it's non-reversible, and the fact that it seems like cruel revenge don't make it too appealing for me. But I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme of criminals, like terrorists like bin Laden or insane dictators like Hitler. But like that happens so often it's really an issue.
As for the drugs and guns... Marijuana laws are bad because it impedes the whole war against drugs by sucking up funds and prison space. Most pot users are relatively harmless people doing a relatively harmless subtance, a substance no more potent than your average liquor or cigarette. Marijuana laws simply distract the whole purpose of shutting down drug operations. It focuses too much on the small fish.
Guns should only be used for self-defense purposes, and hopefully with the development of non-lethal weapons like tasers and tranquilizers, that too will no longer serve as a reason to own a gun. Things like assault weapons with long barrels, big clips, and scopes are NOT self-defense weapons. They're either for assault or for compensation. Therefore, they pose an unnecessary risk and danger. It's true that only 1% of gun crimes are actually assault weapon crimes. However, just because we've yet to see a 100-man slaughter with a AR-15 doesn't mean we should wait for it to happen before coming to the obvious conclusion that assault weapons don't share the pistol's partially redeeming quality of providing ideal self-defense. I mean, think about it. A man protecting himself against a home invader would much rather have a small, easily wieldable handgun than a big ass rifle he can't get through the doorway.
On drugs, there should be some leniency until you reach a boundary. That leniency area is pot, and everything harder is past the boundary. Same with guns. Handguns, the self-defense weapon, is in the leniency zone. Everything deadlier and more sophisticated, go beyond the basic necessity for self-defense and are simply overkill for the job. Again, hopefully with the advent of non-lethal weapons, families can protect themselves non-violently.
A gun itself isn't dangerous. A murderous person is dangerous. But the latter becomes a helluva lot more dangerous with the former, than with any other weapon. A crack addict who's out of his mind running at you is dangerous, but imagine how much more dangerous he'd be with a gun, instead of a short-range knife.
PS The paranoid delusion that we need to arm ourselves against our government is a mockery of a civilized democracy. With us potentially purging bad officials every 4 years, is it really possible to have suddenly a dictator rise up, without even evoking the slightest bit of international alarm, or care? Isn't Nixon about the worst president you can get, one who's willing to obstruct and sabotage justice for personal gain? Well, look how he turned out, and I don't think any sane person felt the need to cause an uprising against the Nixon administration with AKs and grenades. Same with Bush. He is one of the more openly hated presidents in awhile. Yet none of us would dream of creating a violent uprising, instead, trusting the election process and free speech. This fantasy scenario of a need to violently purge the government is unrealistic and overly paranoid.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
