See, there are just too many inconsistencies and qualifications on your definitions and your choice of application of death to humans. Now you are saying innocent lives is murder, but not presumably non-innocents. If you were in a war zone and came across a highly injured person whose chances of survival are zero, and they asked you to shoot them, what would you do? I know what I'd do.
This subject of innocence is highly subjective and I know where you get your notions, but even they are inconsistent. We are born into sin, so even the baby is not without sin. What about non-combatants near war zones, the infamous "colateral damage" in war parlance? What about the death penalty applied to the wrong person? All these apply to fully formed people who are presumably innocent by some definition. No, Greg, you can't sway me with the "abortion is murder" unless you admit that the death penalty is murder, war is murder and a highly risky surgical procedure is murder when it turns out badly.
All these involve the taking of an innocent life or at least the highly likely taking of a life. There is really no discernable difference between the humanity of my appendix and the humanity of the shrimp-like fetus for me.
I don't like eating shrimp though I prefer eating them to cows or pigs. Abortion is invasive and an ugly birth control measure and should not be generally used that way. I haven't seen anyone advocate that practice as a first choice.
Your belief that rich white murderers have the same opportunity for the DP is not born out by the empirical data or any reputable study of the issue. It is almost certainly not applied even handedly to rich and poor. Just look at Klaus von Bulow or O.J.
As for my opinion on the DP, I used to be a proponent of it but I cannot in good conscience allow the people who run the DMV to do it incompetently. It is pretty much a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. It lacks imagination, innovation or efficacy. |
