U.S. State Connecticut Abolishes Death Penalty Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |
All the more reason for me to not trust you on a personal level. I grew out of my urge to return every slight, injury or wrong-doing tenfold when I was 16. I no longer feel the need to grant disproportionate retribution on those who have wronged me. Am I going to claim that I'm morally superior to you? No. Just more rational.
I swear if you derail this thread into yet another abortion debate, I will find a way to reach through the internet and slap you. I'm in way too good of a mood to deal with this shit today.
That would depend in part on how you feel about the execution, wouldn't you say? If, for example, someone would be the type of person to hear about an execution and smile about it, then I would not trust that person to hold a door open for me, nevermind hold public office. | |
Well it's not exactly nice to be called 'impossibly stubborn' is it? Particularly when the only real reason you're doing so is because I don't agree with you. I actually argued my point whereas Volf just parroted the same response over and over, yet because you agree with him I'm the stubborn one? If that's not intellectual dishonesty I don't know what is.
Why are you being so defeatist? Why don't you actually give it a try? The only conclusion I can come to is that you already know full well that I have a refutation for what you will say and that your arguments are horseshit.
What is the point of a religion and politics discussion board if people are just gonna take this attitude?
Well then actually discuss this issue with me. | |
Again this is but one example of a particularly gruesome murder. This is not the norm. Most murders are not like this. Every single state execution is done in this way however. | |
You made a comment about the origin of lethal injection, to which I pointed out how silly it was to reject lethal injection solely because the people who created it were part of the Nazi regime, because there are other things that the Nazi's created that people seem to have no problem using(see:rocket technology).
There is a difference in how they execution is carried out, there is a big difference from a drive by and a firing squad. | |
Me claiming that I'm Pro-Life has nothing to do with anything but... well, take a guess! Let me get this straight... You're for lethal injection when it comes to a fetus, in the name of women's rights. But you're against the lethal injection of adults who gang raped, tortured, burned, and murdered an innocent 18 year old woman... in the name of human rights? We're in two different worlds, you and I. | |
Your whole claim is the the state is somehow more morally wrong than the murder is, so if your going to make such a universal claim, then you must defend it. To do otherwise by pointing out how what Charles Manson did is somehow "different", is just a no-true-scotsman. | |
Well now if you truly believe you are right then it wouldnt be an insult to consider yourself stubborn. Its good to be stubborn if you are right. Of course I don't think you are but thats not the point, you think you are. Really though its the same as me and the existence of God. I might as well know I am right about that and nothing will convince me otherwise so there is no point in making the attempt. You have not shown any sign of consideration of any argument put forward to you. I know stubbornness when I see it and I see it with you. Note that stubbornness and being an immature ass hat are very different things. You don't see me calling <name withheld> impossibly stubborn now do you? You have already rejected many of the points I would make in a discussion with you and far from countering them you simply rejected them offhand and appealed to emotion. Ill save my time for people who are willing to be more reasonable on the subject. | |
So did I. But then I woke up to reality. Rational? I describe a horrific crime, in which an innocent 18 year old girl was gang raped, burnt, strangled and murdered, and you seem to be stating it was merely a "slight, injury or wrong-doing" and that my solution is "disproportionate." Please, don't even claim rationality. | |
How is it a no true scotsman fallacy? I didn't say that it's not a real murder or anything, I just said it's not the norm. Because it's not. You really mean to tell me that you hear news stories of pregnant women being murdered and the baby being ripped from the womb just as often as you hear news stories of driveby shootings? Let me clarify; what I mean is executions would seem more morally wrong to me than an 'average' murder like a shooting or something. It seems worse than most murders because of the calculated nature of every execution. A lot of murders aren't pre-meditated. I think what Charlie Manson did is worse than inflicting a lethal injection on someone but my point was that this isn't the norm. It just isn't. If I had to choose between a bullet in the head or a lethal injection I'd say 'give me the fucking gun, I'll do it myself'. | |
That's kind of why I hate bringing it up. People miss the "invented to kill prisoners who were considered subhuman so who cares if they suffer or not," part and just roll their eyes at the word, "Nazi" instead. The whole point is that lethal injection was invented as a way to kill political prisoners. Humanitarianism was not at the top of the inventor's mind. Saying you want to make lethal injection more humane is like saying you want to make a flamethrower that shoots friendship.
For all practical purposes, not really. You still end up dying with hot chunks of metal lodged in your flesh and internal organs, possibly bleeding out rather than being killed instantly.
A conceit used by those who can't argue a point. Show me something good next time.
You described a horrific crime and then expressed the desire to re-enact it on the criminals themselves out of vengeance. You want to return to those men the pain they caused tenfold. I don't believe that's needed. I think wanting to do that makes you a sadist as much as they are. Lock them up and throw away the key. Let them sit in a prison cell and rot for the rest of their miserable existence. But I refuse to stoop to their level and become a torturer or a murderer just to satisfy my own juvenile desire for vengeance. As a sentient being, I like to think I can be more than just my base desires. You want to be that way? Fine. I'll just make it a point not to associate with you. | |
It's the 'impossibly stubborn' and 'hopeless' and all the other underhanded remarks I'm taking issue with.
Well then try and convince me otherwise instead of just calling me stubborn.
Let's not open that can of worms.
What part of this are you not getting? I haven't had an argument to be stubborn towards! All I've had is Volf saying it should be used as punishment simply because it should and that 'OMG Charlie Manson killed a pregnant woman!', or you calling me stubborn. What exactly am I being stubborn at? I haven't had a coherent argument presented to me! You're the one who's being stubborn, because whenever I actually ask you to provide an argument you just go 'nope! You're too stubborn!' It really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Again, no I haven't because I haven't actually had any points presented to me. Actually make a point. Go on. We'll see if I just offhandedly reject it, or are you gonna be a hypocrite and call me stubborn again?
The feeling is mutual. | |
Unless there's something unknown to other forum members, you've never killed or even been present at an execution, so that can't be true. Looked more like you were doing the typical 'but this example is so bad, let's lose ourselves and kill them in return' that proponents of the death penalty are so big on, while totally foregoing the arguments you're responding to. You responded to someone who correctly noted justice is not about revenge, let alone revenge bigger than the wrongdoing. Carefully what you're playing with with such sentiments. To name an example, if you tried to push someone into not having an abortion, and thus deciding over their body, you would have to be enslaved to satisfy the principle of equal vengeance that you're flirting with here. Additionally, equal revenge is a principle of radical Islamic sharia law. | |
No but it does make good vengeance porn. I'm just waiting for them to bring back drawing and quartering and put it on PPV. Edit: Not really of course | |
What exactly is wrong with vengeance? Putting someone in prison is a form of vengeance.
Removing someone's freedom breaks human rights. They deserve it, you say? Funny. Because that's what I'm saying, too.
Stoop to their level? What exactly says that torture or death is lower than imprisonment? In what way is it more animalistic? Less intelligent? Unhumane? (Specifically the death penalty, since this topic isn't about torture.)
Taken out of context.
Maybe I am. The difference would be 'innocent' and 'not innocent.' Obviously the person doing the torturing wouldn't hold up mentally, but that's not something I've been arguing. I'm arguing whether it's right or wrong, and whether they deserve it (well I'm actually trying to stick to the topic at hand.)
Revenge. Punishment. Call it what you like. The difference between removing someone's freedom through legal means or taking someone's life through legal means is slim at best. To me, prison is used for three things. Punishment. Rehabilitation. Deterrance. It's a question of 'to what extent.' Punishment: Do they deserve the death penalty or is life imprisonment sufficient?
Imprisonment is the same principle that man used to hold his daughter in the basement for 18+ years and rape her thousands of times, producing 7+ kids. What's that say about you, huh? I believe we have already had a discussion about imprisonment, and how someone can grow to love prison. Naturally, you ignored the evidence that proves this to be true (I'm pretty sure it was you.) Anyway... This would be counter-productive towards the first point of prison, 'punishment.' EDIT: What the hell is 'vengeance porn'? As I've already suggested, the difference between life in prison and death row is arbitrary. There's nothing to suggest the former is in any way morally better than the latter. Spending 40+ years locked away could very easily be seen as worse than death. It could easily be seen as more barbaric. I'm failing to understand the ground being stood on by those against the death penalty. Just like with the abortion argument, it should be legal if necessary, but ultimately used sparingly and with good cause. | |
Ostensibly our justice system is not supposed to throw someone in prison because fuck that guy. Prison is supposed to isolate dangerous elements until such time as they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. If that cannot be done, then keep them removed but give them something productive to do. If you think that's not good enough and there needs to be more blood, then I would argue that you need to temper your emotions a little before you continue this discussion.
Again, you seem to believe prison is there to make you suffer. I don't.
Me. What could I possibly have to gain by giving the nod to torturing a man who's already in prison? And if I take any kind of pleasure in his punishment, I'm no better than he is. The only difference being that I didn't have the stomach to do the deed myself. And also the fact that the law of the land clearly states, "no cruel and unusual punishment."
No, the possibility of getting caught is. This has been established. Repeatedly.
You can't keep pointing to the worst examples and acting as if that is typical of all criminals everywhere. Sorry, but I'm not scared into sacrificing my values so easily. Personally, I'd be more interested in keeping that guy under judicial psychiatry so we can find out what exactly made him think that was a good idea. An ounce of prevention, etc. | |
im pro life, i support the death penalty. the government in incompetent and cannot be trusted, i support the death penalty. we need to cut spending, defense cant be cut and screw saving 100's of millions by removing the death penalty, instead we can cut social services and education. you gotta love republicans | |
All the more reason why research should be put in to develop a form of lethal injection that is more humane, or better yet use a more painless form of execution.
Repeated shots to the head would kill a person rather quickly. | |
You are probably correct, but even so, I'm betting the annecdotes that article describes are true and alarming.
1) You are right and I worded that wrong. Not "entry" level but minor.
Second degree murder is engaging in an act with "depraved indifference" to whether or not your actions will be deadly, like beating someone with a baseball bat. This sounds more like negligent manslaughter, differeing from the slipper case. This guy did something that isn't his job, did it badly, and a death results. Differs from slipper case in that his action was not designed to cause physical harm, while slipper lady did want to cause a physical harm (just not much of one... but thin skull doctrine applies, which is tragic in your described case.)
Depends. Could be 1st degree (pre-meditated).
Only possibly in the 3rd case.
Without disagreeing with your stat, I chose a specific period: 1960-1990 during which homicide rates more than doubled. I have read that crime started dropping after that and the drop is attributed to a number of factors.
I read a lot about that one.
Were I to suggest that we imprison people found to have such disorders pre-emptively, I'd probably be spanked for, among the reasons, such disorders are not a causal link to murder. Many people with such disorders never harm someone else.
Since you asked nicely, I'm old and have a doctorate degree. You on the other hand are arguing like a scar that has never felt a wound. | |
I forgot 'isolation', but that's more on a societal level than the criminal in question. If they can't be reintegrated into society, you don't "give them something productive to do" and let them continue enjoying life.
Again. The difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty is arbitrary. Life imprisionment could be less humane due to the nature of being denied any normal life for such a long period, or the criminal could begin to enjoy prison, thus eliminating any punishment they deserve. The death penalty could make a society seem more barbaric, or less intelligent, but nothing I've seen suggests that.
It is. Hence 'punishment'. It's not the only reason, but it is one reason. It'd be fairly barbaric and unintelligent for a society to use prison simply as a rehabilitation platform. In theory, no one truly 'chooses' to do what they do, so in theory it probably is a rehabilitation platform and nothing else. But when you put into the context of a society, it is needed as a form of punishment, among other things. Because in any sort of proper-functioning society, you must pay for your crimes. Or else, chances are, said society would have destroyed itself not long after it begun. This concludes back to my "people are simply neurons, and society is one functioning super-brain" thoery I have going. Said criminals are rogue-cancer cells. These cancer cells are detrimental to a functioning society, thus they can, and arguably should be eliminated. The very idea of allowing the death penalty could be detrimental to society, too. I have yet to see this argument used efficiently, although to be fair, I haven't read many replies to this thread. I guess that's the main (decent) argument against the death penalty. It's "barbaric and unintelligent." Although it doesn't convince me one bit. Because, again, that's fairly arbitrary and subjective compared to the alternative of life imprisonment. I'd prefer to die than rot in jail, which I guess makes me more biased in regards to all of this. All those who have commited suicide in prison back up my argument quite well, actually. Is spending life in prison really a good thing, as you seem to believe. It's not. Therefore, to say it is okay, but the death penalty isn't, is a rather counter-productive stance to have. In terms of what is right for the criminal in question, neither option is. The only morally right alternative in this regards would be to somehow wipe the persons memory and give them a second chance at life.
Who said it would be pleasurable? Is that your entire stance behind whether or not it is right to give equal or more punishment to one who has done such punishment to an innocent person? This is done through a court of law, and the decision is not made lightly. You seem to be confusing mob-justice/creepy guy in basement with an actual legal system set up by a governing power with rules and regulations. The law of the land also clearly states "not to take human life", but we bend that rule when it benefits ourselves.
And the difference being? Oh, I remember. Nothing. Being caught =/= punishment.
I wasn't using it as an example. Blah was apparently implying I have some sort of connection with Sharia Law, so I thought I'd use a similar counter-argument. Even if I was, what's wrong with using extreme examples? I'm only arguing for the death penalty in extreme cases. So it actually makes sense to use said examples. | |
At one point did I suggest preemption? Seriously, tell me at what point I said we should do that? And I didn't say that we should apply this rule to people with, for example, bipolar disorder. I said we should apply it to people like Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, and Richard Ramirez. These guys felt a compulsive urge to bring harm to other human beings. Wouldn't it be beneficial to find out what exactly causes that?
A doctorate in what, if you please? A doctorate in archaeology for example doesn't automatically translate into expertise in criminal justice.
In that case I'm done talking to you. Either read the whole thread, or don't open your mouth at all. I'm not going to waste time debating someone who can't even bother to do the most cursory reading before joining in. It's not worth the headache. My experience has been that any person who is too impatient to read the whole discussion before firing off their opinion isn't worth my time. | |
So, you either have the option of retaining the death penalty, costing billions and still killing innocents every now and then, or you have the option of making it cheaper by removing waiting times, appeals, by making everything more stream-lined, which will very probably lead to a cheaper but much more murderous system with more innocent victims than ever before. | |
Cut and run. Smart move. But unfortunately, the reasoning behind it is poor. I replied to the OP, thus my first comment only required me to read the OP. You replied to my post, thus I continue. In no way am I required to perform any form of "courtesy read" to make my points valid in this discussion. Beyond the OP, I feel I'm only required to read direct reply's to myself (in which I intend to reply), or any said comment in which I intend to reply to (whether it was specifically directed towards myself or not.) If you no longer wish to discuss this with me, do not reply, and I will not reply back. Unless, of course, I have further input directed towards any future comment of yours. In which case, if you no longer wish to discuss this with me, do not reply. ;) | |
American culture is buried within punishment over rehabilitation and reconciliation. Though I agree with your sentiment, it does help to know where it's coming from. | |
You're writing implies that if you can find something you think caused John Wayne Gacy to be murderous, why wouldn't society, to protect itself, pre-emptively lock up people with the same factor. In High School psych we were taught that virtually no one is fully "self actualized." Anyone, that commits murder for any reason, including profit, is suffering from a mental/ personality defect of one sort or another. Liberty demands people be given the benefit of the doubt. As we all go through life with our various quirks, we are still expected to behave within certain legal boundaries. All of us. And when someone doesn't, society has a right to expect its crime and social control measures to respond accordingly. And you're still writing of "compulsion" as if JWG were a like an automoton or wild beast, with no conscious control of his actions. JWG's plans and the methodical way he carried them out makes that position sound absurd.
I shouldn't have even mentioned my doctorate as my credentials and yours don't matter. Our arguments do. So far, your arguments took a major nose dive when you decided to write about me (and I do appreciate my anonymity) rather than address the issues. | |
Wasn't the argument that no punishment is a deterrent for crimes of compulsion? It doesn't matter how methodical he was. | |
My argument is that it is wrong to use the term "compulsion" with regards to Gacy, and he should face punishment. | |
This isn't Minority Report. Do not twist my argument like that. I want to find a cure for this disease. Prison is not a cure. It addresses the symptom, not the cause.
Are implying that punishment is superior to prevention?
Doesn't matter how methodical they are. These people still feel the compulsion to dominate and kill other human beings. In interviews with these killers, it's the thread that ties them all together. Some try to fight it, others embrace it. Son of Sam tried to fight it. Richard Ramirez didn't. Doesn't matter because they both felt that compulsive urge. It's still coming from the same place. Unless this is one of those cases where you're just going to dismiss science altogether because it doesn't conform to your opinion?
You were the one who brought up, "I've taken classes in this." Don't blame me for you shooting your own mouth off.
If someone commits a murder, they still have to pay their debt to society. I never said they didn't. That was your own assumption.
So because you believe it's hard to tell who has this mental disease, we shouldn't even bother? I want to find a cure, and you're solution seems to be, "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out." Sorry, but I cannot morally go along with that. I want to find a cure so that we can prevent more of these crimes from ever happening. | |
I honestly think, in the effort to do so, murderers are going to be declared cured, released, and innocents are going to be murdered. It wont be a merciful death and the vicitms won't have a chance to say good bye to loved ones, have a last meal, make their peace with G-d. They will die in agony. Other, while being "studied" will escape and do likewise. Some really will never again murder anyone, but pull the wool over someone's eyes and not pay a just penalty for their crime. This just has fail written all over it, with unacceptable consequences.
I'm writing that innocent people will die horribly if you are allowed to dink around with monsters rather than kill them.
And how do you know that out there isn't someone with the same "condition" who did "fight it" successfully?
Oy. Futher descent. This is what I wrote: "The classes I've taken on crime and social control and alternatives to corrections lead me to think for a real, hard core recidivist, only "aging" him is going protect society." I'm giving you a source of my thinking, not pulling rank and writing my creds are better than yours, so you don't count. Someone wants to write, "well I have a doctorate in this so I know more than you and you cannot be correct", yeah, go ahead and spank them.
That's nice. Good news piece on 60 minutes or 20/20 few years back. Guy goes to bar, gets drunk, goes to a good spot along highway and, using a rifle, murders 9 travelers. He tells the court he heard voices telling him to do it. He is sent, rather than to prison or death, to a mental facility. Because he goes to the facility and they cannot find a diagnosable mental disorder. They have to let him out. Even if he never kills again, that is unacceptable. | |
No, that is what you imagine will happen because you mistakenly believe that Ted Bundy is the standard for all serial killers. Ed Gein was kept under judicial psychiatry from 1968 up to his death in 1984. He never escaped, nor did he kill anyone while in custody. Son of Sam never escaped custody. Richard Ramirez never escaped custody. Jeffrey Dahmer never escaped custody. Albert Fish never escaped custody. Ian Brady never escaped custody. The list goes on. In fact I can think of only two that ever escaped or were released and killed other people: Ted Bundy and Graham Young. That's it. Besides, they aren't going to declare someone cured if they don't even know what the cure is. Kind of an important distinction to make. Graham Young only got out because he had never been diagnosed in the first place and was a model prisoner. It wasn't until he was arrested for poisoning his co-workers with thallium that people put two and two together and thought, "Jesus burger-flipping Christ! This guy's nuts!" Mind you, he wasn't a compulsive killer either. He was a sociopath, which is actually much more dangerous. Compulsive killers generally aren't very bright and get caught very quickly. One of them failed to kill his first and only victim and then tried to act as his own defense in court, blatantly trying to intimidate the girl he raped and tried to kill. He got life without parole. A sociopath on the other hand is harder to spot. And a lot of them are very good at passing off as normal in society. Even worse, a lot of them seek positions of wealth and power, which makes it harder to punish them because both of those things are very good for evading the law.
Why the quotation marks? And why are you still trying to scare me into compromising my morals? We've already established that doesn't work. Anyway, it doesn't matter. If we don't find a way to cure this sickness, it's not a hypothetical but a guarantee that more people will die because we won't know how to prevent this from happening.
So you admit that you don't care about criminology or psychology preventing these crimes in the future, you just want the debt of blood to be repaid in blood and you want it now?
No. You're pointing to Ted Bundy and claiming that is the norm rather than the exception. You're trying to scare me into compromising my values.
Because you can't. Ask someone with OCD if they can suppress their compulsions without the aid of medication. Spoiler alert: they can't. You didn't think they were calling it pathological just for shits and giggles, did you? There is no proof that people with this condition can suppress it indefinitely. If you want to make the claim that you can conquer this sickness through sheer force of will, then produce the evidence.
Same difference as far as I'm concerned.
Those are the exceptions, not the norm. And you fix those be revising the justice system to allow a commute of the sentence to prison rather than judiciary psychiatry. Holy shit, I'm a genius! You have allowed yourself to be scared shitless by news headlines and now you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I on the other hand want to find out how we can prevent these things from happening in the future. | |
No, we was murdered behind bars by another convicted murderer. Just because they're not famous and you've never heard of them doesn't mean this isn't happening at an unacceptable level.
If you dink around with these monsters rather than kill them, through lack of general and specific deterence, innocent people will die.
I don't want the gullable allowing monsters to kill again, or have the wool pulled over their eyes and obstructing justice, or removing a valuable crime and social control tool, the death penalty, from utilization.
These killers are supressing it long enough to carry through a plan in the hopes of not getting caught and at least extending thier spree. There is apparantly a lot of differences between them and OCD.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I am almost always asked where I get my ideas from. I didn't mention 60 minutes below because I want you to think I watch TV better than you. I just want you to know, if you'll believe me, there is a source for my thinking. (I have had people write to the effect that I never saw such a show. What can you do? Not everything has an Internet link.)
In the USA, what you're describing sounds like double jeopardy. He had already been tried and a judgement rendered based upon support from Defense expert witnesses. He was in a mental institution and they're not declaring he was never sick, and there for not entitled to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. They're just finding after a brief stay and "treatment" he isn't sick now (cured!) There is a standard called, "insane but guilty" closer to what you describe. It's not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. | |
Oh? A man who was executed on evidence softer than my dick around an anglerfish was guilty as sin? And what are you basing that on? The questionable testimonies? The lack of physical evidence? Seriously, back up your claim. The death penalty needs to be abolished. Not only is it not morally or ethically sound, people who are obsessed with criminal punishment and who think punishment equates justice are rampant and cannot be trusted. The U.S criminal justice system is a disgusting mess of stupid policies and bigotry, but doing away with the death penalty is a good start towards improving things. A good positive step would be amending the three strikes rule, drastically reducing punishment for drug possession and focusing more on rehabilitation than punishment. | |
I'm giving you names you would recognize. Most compulsive killers aren't identified until after they've been caught, tried and sentenced and usually with only one or two victims confirmed. Nevertheless, they're still very rare. Bipolar disorder is more common than serial killers.
You still haven't answered why you put "studied" in quotation marks. Is there a reason you won't tell me? Anyway, the death penalty doesn't deter compulsive killers because the existence of a death penalty is not enough to override a compulsion. David Berkowitz actually cooperated with the police and pleaded guilty when he was caught. He believed that the demons commanding him to kill wouldn't let him turn himself in, but once the police caught him, they could keep the demons away from him and he wouldn't hear the voices telling him to kill anymore. Like I said, not only are these guys crazy, most of them aren't very bright either. They get caught because they're bad at covering their tracks or they get sloppy. Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character and not representative of what serial killers in general are like.
So I'm gullible now? And you describe execution as social control. Do you believe that human beings are inherently evil?
My point is that you cannot suppress these urges indefinitely. People with OCD fight it, but they eventually cave in. The more you fight the compulsion, the worse it gets over time.
I don't question whether or not you have a source. Just whether or not it's enough.
Something like that, yes. If doctors can determine that no illness exists, then they are transferred to prison. | |
Good thing. Seriously, fuck the death penalty. Backwards, barbaric form of punishment that modern societies should have gotten past by now. | |
Imprisoning people for life doesn't necessarily end their influence. For example, a cult leader (think Charles Manson) has used his "flock" to commit horrible crimes like murder, rape, etc. He is charismatic, and has a nasty habit of indoctrinating others very easily. Even the warden is worried that he is even in his prison. Now it may seem harmless when he indoctrinates regular people. However, he is now near hardened criminals. For this reason alone, I would seriously consider the death penalty for the cult leader. For regular criminals? No, but specifically for those absolute cases that happen once every 1-200 years where even prison can't contain them. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |
And I saw them, but "calculating" an execution of one man to receive lethal injection is not worse than a man ordering a pregnant women to be murdered and the baby ripped out of her. To suggest that the actions of the state would be more morally wrong than the actions of Charles Manson and his followers, is irrational at best.