-
Website
http://thegreatplainsobserver.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://thegreatplainsobserver.blogspot.com/2006/08/poster-child.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
You try to equate giving innocent unborn children a chance to live with preserving the life of an admitted and convicted murderer? What kind of demented logic is that?
You assume that because a child might be unwanted, that the parents will automatically abuse it and that it'll grow up to be a degenerate. What a low opinion of humanity and human potential you have.
The only thing Elijah Page's sad childhood calls for is greater protection from abusive parents. Yet plenty of abused children grow up to be fine people.
Human beings, regardless of their background, all possess free will. They can choose to be good people or they can choose to be bad people. Neither genetics, poverty or abuse force a person into a set of actions. Each of us chooses for ourselves what we'll do. Elijah Page chose to murder his "friend," and in doing so, made the statement to society that he doesn't value human life. In doing so, he forfeited his own right to live.
Punishment should be commensurate to the offense committeed. Page not only tortured Chester Allan Poage, but robbed him of the rest of his years of life. He robbed Poage's mother and other loved ones of all that he brought to their lives. How can Page pay restitution for that? He can't make full restitution; the closest he can come is to pay with his own life.
I am not saying that this is the result of all unwanted children, yes many grow up to live wonderful productive lives, but the point is this issue isn't as black and white as you and many others make it out to be.
I applaud the efforts to protect "innocent" life but I just wonder where the outrage from many leading this effort is when it comes to preventing situations like Elijah Page's.
If the pro-life movement (and society in general) spent as much time and effort on those already born facing deplorable lives, this debate wouldn't exist.
Some people are just born evil while others have a lot of help. The needle in the arm is just the end result.
Bob, you make interesting points and I would like to hear more from you, which is why I am taking the time to comment.
Could you clear something up for me?
In one sentence you say:
If the pro-life movement (and society in general) spent as much time and effort on those already born facing deplorable lives, this debate wouldn’t exist.
Now, If I am reading you correctly, this implies that "time and effort" will make all death-penalty-eligible crimes disappear.
Is that correct? It seems that you are taking the familiar "tabula rasa" approach to Sociology, which says that humans only become evil as a result of negative influences in society - that when we are born, we are a blank tablet (latin: tabula rasa).
If you believe this, then your very next sentence is very confusing; you said:
Some people are just born evil while others have a lot of help.
This is confusing on two levels.
1) Could you state which scenario is correct?
A) Are we born neutral, and victims of conditioning? Or
B) Are some of us born evil and victims of nobody but our own evil nature?
Because if some are born evil, it implies all sorts of things - for example, that some are NOT born evil.
Should evil people have the same rights as non-evil people? What about punishments?
Is someone who is disposed by nature to be hateful and intolerant as culpable as someone who deliberately goes against their own conscience and chooses to be hateful and intolerant?
Which one should be punished worse: the one who 'follows their heart' even though it is the heart of someone who was 'born evil'? or someone who chooses to violate their own conscience say, for greed, and does the same bad deed as the one who 'followed' their evil heart?
2) What do you mean by Evil? How do you define it without appealing to Religion? And if you are appealing to Religion, which one?
Now, If I am reading you correctly, this implies that “time and effort” will make all death-penalty-eligible crimes disappear.
Not what I was talking about exactly. The pro-life movement spends all their efforts on the unborn and not on those already born. Many unwanted children that are born live in horrible conditions and this will only get worse if abortion is outlawed. What I was referring to is their work stops at birth and if they were to expend as much energy on these children, the women facing the decision to abort and our society that in many cases gets tasked with caring for them would have better options knowing that these children would face better lives.
The evil I was referring to was not in any religious context, it is in reference to someone that has no regard for human life and doesn't think twice about taking it.
Thank you for clearing that up.
But it raises other questions.
About the general charge of hypocrisy:
Are you as hard on PETA and other groups whose work stops at lovable animals?
When was the last time PETA opposed inhumane treatment of fleas?
Or Lice
Or E-Coli?
Or the organism known as the AIDS Virus?
Or Mosquitos? - wait... Rachel Carson did a stunning bit of work defending Mosquitos by banning DDT (at the cost of 50 Million preventable human deaths in India from Malaria), so nevermind about Mosquitos.
Also with regard to "Animal Rights Groups" in general and PETA in particular, their ENTIRE rationale for preventing Animal Suffering is that animals feel pain (Yes, I have called them and spoken with an official and confirmed this.)
but the hypocrisy is that "their work stops at" human fetuses - who CAN FEEL PAIN! The Human Animal is the only one that can feel pain that they don't protect. And, speaking as a Human, I find that type of discrimination to be intolerable.
There are examples of such hypocrisy everywhere.
The reason that Pro-Life types disregard charges of hypocrisy about their position is that they have never been accused of it by anyone who was not a hypocrite.
Back to the accusation that Pro-Life groups don't care after birth: There are other groups for that! The Salvation Army runs many orphanages worldwide, there are Many Catholic charities that also run orphanages.
Also, remember that there are MANY more unwanted pregnancies than unwanted children. Meaning: Women bond with their unborn babies over the course of the pregnancy and the natural instinct to care for one's young usually kicks in at birth. Killing the child before birth aborts this instinct and deprives the mother of the joys she might have experienced, joys which come occasionally regardless of how hard the circumstances are. "Tis better to have loved..."
The fact of the matter is that I have never heard a pregnant woman say "my baby would be better off dead."
I have, however heard several say "I can't care for my baby right now and I can't stand the thought of someone else raising it."
The motive is SELFISHNESS in such cases and the odium of it leaves a stench on the entire pro-choice movement.
On the subject of Evil: If you are defining it "not in any religious context," then please provide a completely secular reason why someone SHOULD have a "regard for human life" and that one SHOULD "think twice about taking it."
I am not trying to be facetious, but I have NEVER HEARD ONE.
I have been asking this question for 15 years and NOBODY has ever been able to answer it. Please give it a shot.
Oh, and please don't appeal to my own beliefs because you don't know them. Also, don't appeal to consequences or punishment because we are talking about a reason not to do it, not about a reason to regret having done it.
Just provide a completely rational, non-religious, internal reason for not unnecessarily taking human life.
This isn't an accurate statement on any level.
Aborting an undeveloped fetus before "birth" is often not depriving the mother of anything, but protecting the life that would have been unloved in the end anyways.
What's better, to bring a unwanted child into the world, or to clean out a group of cells that haven't yet developed into someone that can be tortured yet?
Lots of people have already discerned the answer to that question. That's why abortions need to be done in a safe, medical environment. Banning them will only reduce women to visiting dark alleyways, or using a coat hanger in the bathroom.
We need to keep our women safe...
As for Page, he deserved to drink the toxic cocktail. He was a danger to the world at large. No one could be safe with him walking the Earth, or even using up space in a prison. I wouldn't suggest torture for him, but as is generally the case with murders, he got out a lot easier then he allowed for his victim's demise.
Sad.
For the people left.