Baron Josef von Kronen's posts with tag: abortion
 | Category: | Books | | Genre: | Nonfiction | | Author: | Ann Coulter |
I haven't yet finished it, but I'm very near. It's great so far! 
I'm going to do a case example of someone, who, in my mind deserves the death penalty (assuming his confession is true and there is proof beyond all doubt.) Let's call it a follow-up on " The Fallacy of Fatality, on Abortion and the Death Penalty" Father Of Murdered Baby In Houston Confesses
The father of a 3-month-old boy who was found murdered near the Galveston, Texas, seawall turned himself into police in Pennsylvania, saying he intentionally murdered the boy by repeatedly stomping on him.
Travis Mullis told Pennsylvania investigators he repeatedly stomped on the 3-month-old until he felt his skull collapse, according to an official Galveston Police Department document.
Mullis turned himself in Friday afternoon, where his bond was set at $1 million, police said at a Friday night news conference.
(Emphasis mine.)
Do you see? He confessed, telling PA investigators that he stomped on the skull until he felt it collapse! That's unspeakable. It's just... inhumane.
I saw this on my friend Mav's blog. He first blogged about it when they found the baby. He did a follow up when they caught this man. I just could not believe what the man said about stomping until he felt the skull collapse... that is just too much for me. I can't even imagine doing that to a dog or a cat...
Things like this just make me wonder... where, if not in a case like this, is the death penalty appropriate?
It's all fine and dandy when we're talking hypothetically about abortion and the death penalty. Now, when there is a dead baby that needs burying and a baby-stomping man, both real people, it makes the discussion all too eerie. It adds a new dimension to the discussion.
This man obviously has no conscience. Things like these justify my cynicism.
-Ze Baron
Or, On Abortion and the Death Penalty
I had been thinking for quite some time what to title this blog. I had been wondering when I was going to do it. I had initially thought it up on New Years Eve, but I decided it would be too morbid to post on such a night. So, here we are. Today there is a pro-life march in DC, so I figured that now's better than ever. Before reading this, to any woman who has had an abortion: Please understand that this is not directed at you. This is not a rant on the morality of the act. This is a piece that is to try and understand people's position on the matter, whether they be voters or elected officials. I am not chastising you.
People confuse me. Let's get that straight out of the way. The liberal left has been constantly hammering presidential candidate Mitt Romney for changing his position on a few issues to jockey in with national opinion and that of his base. I'm not sure what issue it was on (ironically, I think it was abortion) but the point remains the same: These people, notably the left, were criticizing him for changing his position. We're not here to argue why he did it, though, or any of that stuff.
The left platform, in general, is pro-choice for women, meaning that they choose to uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, but they are against the death penalty. I'm citing Wikipedia because for something like this, a general consensus as per the masses seems like reliable data. This is clipped (using a fancy add-on for Firefox) directly from Wikipedia. This is part of a long list of "Positions Associated With Modern Liberalism."
The belief in a woman's right to abortion by Roe v. Wade standardsGovernment role in alternative energy developmentGovernment responsibility to supervise ports and infrastructure in the public interestA spirit of international cooperation and strong alliancesThe elimination of the death penalty So, it's not like I'm making this stuff up. Entertain my train of thought for a few moments.
Liberals do not have a problem with a innocent human who has not yet even breathed air, let alone committed an act, be executed, but they are against a human who has been convicted through our legal system of a heinous act being executed. This does not seem to add up for me.
Now, I understand that liberals are supposed to really exemplify individual liberties, so that villain has a right to live and that woman has a right to choose about that child's future. The thing is, the villain has willingly committed the act, and presumably he knew the consequences. The baby, however, has no say in the matter, and the woman is sometimes just looking out for her own good.
I couldn't find a source on Wikipedia that explicitly stated the conservative position, but I know it to be pro-life, pro-death penalty. This means that, with the exception of incest or rape, abortion should be forbade. It also means that in cases warranting it, the death penalty should be on the table, and exercised if decided as such.
Innocent babies will be allowed to survive, convicted criminals will be tried to the full extent of the law. Of course, for an executioner, that poses all sorts of mental damage of having to execute a living developed human. I'd also like to point out that no one with much of a medical background are allowed to administer the drug cocktail in the lethal injection. The Hippocratic Oath, penned by Hippocrates in the 4th century BC, explicitly states:
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
It states that the doc can't give a deadly drug to anyone, or help a woman with an abortion. Some modern additions to the Hippocratic oath state:
To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably Oregon[2] and the Netherlands[3], a doctor can perform euthanasia, by both his and the patient's consent.
I would call Roe v. Wade almost a decision that had to be made the way it was. Did you know that the only constitutional amendment that limited our freedoms was Prohibition, which was repealed with another amendment? Limiting another freedom would have had repercussions that echoed for a long time. However, the defined legality of it in Roe v. Wade is not a point in this article.
I personally think that abortion is a bad idea. It is the holiest of all holies in the church of instant gratification. Sleep around now, write off the consequences 9 months later. What really bothers me is that being responsible about their sexual habits, and understanding that when he puts his in hers, it makes a baby not just a good time, would go a long way. Other forms of contraception (either the latex or the pills) are also available. What messages does this send to young people about their sexual habits? That there is no consequence?
Ultimately, I think a respect for life is necessary. That means understanding and accepting the consequences of actions, be them having unprotected sex or knocking off a few coworkers. The consequences of those, respectively, are a baby (that's why those body parts are there) and a death sentence. I think that the pro-choice, anti-death penalty position is wrong. There's no consequence.
-Ze Baron
| |
