I am pro-choice but anti- dp. I do not believe it is right to kill ANY SENTIENT, KNOWING, THINKING person for ANY reason. This does not make me a hypocrite, as a fetus or embryo cannot think, is not sentient, cannot provide basic functions for itself. A e/f cannot CHOOSE either. A woman can think, choose, is sentient, can breathe, feed, exist without using someone else's resources, just as a criminal who has done heinous things can.

I don't actually see any relationship between abortion and the death penalty. One is a medical procedure, and the other is a criminal sanction. The only way in which they relate is that there are far too many people on this planet. Abortion stops more being born. The death penalty is one way of culling some of the surplus.

My objection to the death penalty is entirely pragmatic: too many people are wrongly convicted. Also, one crime does not make a criminal. If there was a way of being absolutely CERTAIN that someone was an anti-social, dangerous and undesirable person, I would have no objection. And limiting the death penalty to homicide is far too restrictive: rapists, wife beaters...heck, get me on a curmudgeonly day and you can hang chronic litterers!

I'm pro choice and pro death penalty, women should have the right to kill their fetuses and government should have the right to kill those who have killed other members of society. All murderers should get the death penalty I don't like that it takes so long to get carried out and that some innocent people die in both situations.

Sorry, apparently there are censored words in my post, but I don't know what they are. I can't spot them.

I am pro-choice, and undecided regarding death penalty.

There is always a chance an innocent person could be killed for a crime they didnt commit. This chance, however small is not worth taking at the cost of someone's life. I do not believe in an-eye-for-an-eye, although that no more than they deserve - if a murderer is to be executed, it should be in the most humane, quick and pain-free way as possible. They have already paid the ultimate price, their life, for the life they took, they should not be made to suffer as well on top of that.

I also believe that death penalty should only be used in the most severe of cases, ie, it should not be used for people who killed because they are mentally unwell and unable to control their actions, or people who killed in self defence.

Regarding abortion, I do not have a problem with it because in my opinion, a fetus does not become a person until it is sentient and capable of feeling pain (around 20 weeks i think). Before this stage I consider abortion to be acceptable. Only after this stage will I consider a fetus a person, and abortion homicide (unless it is completely necessary such as possibly killing the mother, should the pregnancy be allowed to continue).

I view the two as dealing with two different situations, so I do not see it as hypocritical.
In my opinion, abortion deals with an unwanted pregnancy, the death penalty deals with a sentient, living, breathing person.

The censored word is "*urder" in any form. I don't know why. It is a legal term! I found that out that this word was censored a few posts ago.

I had just written a post to this topic and I replaced every "M" word with killer, killing, and homicide. I lost my post though. I was, for some reason, logged out even when I know I was logged in.

Abortion kills a fetus who has never killed another sentient human being while the death penalty kills someone who would gladly kill (AGAIN) another innocent sentient person, usually in a very sadistic way. I don't see how anyone could think its horrible to give Ted Bundy, who mercilessly killed and raped women for kicks and giggles, a lethal cocktail in leiu of years in jail on tax payers money plotting his next move or possibly escaping and doing it again. Funnier still, ost anti-death penalty and certianly most of the death row groupies are people who could eat a sandwich in peace (some gleefully) while discussing someone shoving scissors up the brain of a third trimester fetus who never raped or killed anyone in its entire existence. Neither has a right to stay alive, but in my opinion killing someone is a much more compelling reason to be killed.

I think it would be better to keep all killers in jail for the rest of their life, without the possiblity of parol because it takes away their chance to hurt an innocent person again. It also forces them to remember what they did. Keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives will show them that they do not get to decide that another human life is not valuable enough to live and that killing is wrong. The death penalty does not teach that killing is wrong! It is hypocritical.

PS. I'm not including those who kill in self-defense or those who are mentally disabled or ill. I'm talking about those who know exactly what they did (planning, etc.)

Neutral I would agree if killers weren't sharing cells with serious but non violent criminals and killing them, raping them or hurting them in prison. There are people amongst us that have lost all touch with humanity and the value of human life. They would just as soon kill someone who advocates for them as they would a person they have never met a day in their lives simply because it may be amusing, entertainting or simply something to do for them.

In a perfect world the death penalty wouldn't be needed because such criminals worthy of the death penalty wouldn't exist and women couldn't get pregnant until they really really really wanted to be mothers and fathers would love all their children and everyone would be born healthy.