In my opinion the difference is;

The fetus in utero did nothing wrong to deserve to be terminated. The decision to terminate is being made by someone else. Which is why so many people fight for the right of the unborn.

However; the man (or woman) made the decision to commit a crime that warranted the death penalty, like take another human beings life. So the decision to be put to death was theirs and theirs alone.

It’s easy to say you’re pro-choice, but until you’re the one making the choice, it’s difficult to understand.

Trust me, when someone tells you you’re pregnant, you realize you have another life inside of you and know your life will be forever changed no matter what choice you make.

I was 17, pregnant and on my own when I had to make that choice. For me, I know I made the right choice.

1. This is a tough one. My outlook and idealism was shaped by a comfortable distance to the whole topic until it was brought starkly into my face. Suddenly your airy liberal absolutism flies out of the window when your head is full of conflicting thoughts on what it is you actually want and the practical realities of the World.

I was always staunchly pro choice, but again this was from the standpoint of a man looking at the situation remotely with no real dog in the fight. I was also disgustingly judgemental of those who had to make that choice. So it was a case of "yeah, you should be allowed to do it, but I think you're a bad person for doing it". Basically an ill thought out version of "I may disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it" but applied to people.

Then reality hit, suddenly it was my offspring on the line and the clear lines and colours didn't seem so clear anymore. Suddenly the realities of a women sitting in front of you not wanting to have a choice brings the whole thing into focus. She asks you "what do you want to do?" and you see that it isn't as simple as her just flipping a coin and taking a trip. She's heartbroken, you're heartbroken and you're both there trying to decide about this life. Rest assured, when it's you sitting there scientific rationalisations suddenly hold little to no water.

Before that very point I would say zygote, embryo, collection of cells with all the affection a dentist shows a tooth, but in that moment when someone says to you "what do you want to do?" it becomes your baby. Try not to imagine a child. Try not to see you in the future playing with your child. We're having to make a decision by exploring our situation, our careers, our ability to provide the lives we wanted for our children and to do that you explore that future...you put a body and soul to that collection of cells and then you choose to end that life, no matter how imagined.

So I remain pro choice, but tinged with regret and a more thoughtful consideration for those who have to make that choice.

2. Again, it's easy when you're not at the frontline. No one I know or care about has been murdered. It's easy for me to sit here and wax lyrical about exacting the same barbarism on the criminal as they have on their victim and being no better and the state having no right to take life and blah blah blah, but now my I know to be a little more empathetic in my reading of situations. I can't speak as the family or friend of a victim but I can see that some of them may have that need. What I am sure of is that revenge should not be the concern of our authorities. I say that even if we are 100% sure the accused is guilty.

Which brings me to the main reason I oppose the death penalty. Nothing is 100%. I'd rather guilty people sat in jail than innocent people die.

I guess if I wanted I could be a dick and claim that I have more right to an opinion on right-to-life/right-to-choose/abortion than 90%+ of this thread.

Trust me, when someone tells you you’re pregnant, you realize you have another life inside of you and know your life will be forever changed no matter what choice you make.

This is New Age bullshit I don't buy into, and that's coming from a person who's had another life inside of her and made a choice about it.

I'm tired of plots where the character who's had the abortion just simply can't get over her abortion. Some part of her life is all screwy and she has to repent, somehow, with massive guilt and a screwy life (caused or not caused in part by her guilt) because she's Kilt A Baby. (Our firm's NEWEST DIY kit, "Quilt A Baby," is coming out next month! Keep your eyes peeled for this sew-n-stuff entertainment!)

On the other hand, in a plot, if you have a happy, adjusted character who's had an abortion, there's no point to the "had an abortion" part. Chekhov's gun, tightness of the narrative, only mention things that are relevant. IE: Well adjusted character? Morbid backstory that's been resolved, not relevant. Distracts. Takes up word count.

So I understand why the general trope exists & occurs. Still sucks, though. Makes people think there's only one or two routes away from an abortion. Makes people feel like if you have an abortion, you also have to be hung up about it for the rest of your life.

Don't get me wrong. An abortion is a big deal and not a decision to be taken lightly. But it's not a decision that has to screw you up for life.

I think a woman deserves the right to choose. If the fetus/egg/zygote isn't viable I don't believe its potential life should be taken into consideration as a reason to have the child. The quality of its potential life? Yes. What you as a potential part can give (or can't give) this potential child? Yes. Just simply the fact that in a few months it can turn into a child? No.

Sometimes what gets lost in this discussion is how much right a potential father should have to a zygote/embryo/fetus/I really don't care. It's the woman's body and I don't think a woman should be forced to experience something so physically stressful and demanding without being willing. That is, I don't think a man should be able to claim that because he impregnated a woman and half of that potential child is his, she has to carry it to term if he wants it. Do some fuckin' science-magic and take the egg and put it in someone else or something for chrissakes. But if a woman was willing to carry a baby but didn't want to raise it, and a man was, well that would be copacetic for me.

I agree that when a fetus is closer to term things become squishier morally even as they become less squishy in the womb. I don't know as it's possible to lay down a unilateral decision on this one. I'm against the wanton carrying-then-destruction of a would-be child, as in "I'll just make up my mind later," or "The father and I had a fight at the last minute and as an emotional reaction I am 'deciding' without thought that I don't want this child." I find it hard to believe, but not impossible, that the reasons for having a late-term abortion are not more complex. And perhaps incomprehensible to me. So the jury is out but loosely in favor of abortion in general including late term; of course it is always possible to find horrific examples to break my heart, there are exceptions to all rules and proposed rules.

As for capital punishment, I'm in general against it, although I like to point out to anti-abortion pro-capital-punishment opinion-holders that there is a perceived conflict between those two points of view.

We have too shitty of a justice system for anyone to sleep well in regards to capital punishment the way it is carried out in this country. In addition, the medical dilemma it presents for doctors is extremely problematic and prevents us from ensuring things such as painfree victim death. For those that wish pain upon those who receive capital punishment I say that you are not looking for punishment, you are looking for revenge, and revenge is not the business of a justice system.

I think we should rehabilitate our prisoners when, if at all, ever, possible.

For those who cannot or will not be rehabilitated, some sort of prison can be achieved, I'm sure.

Apologies if I don't know what I'm talking about. I've never been in a lived situation that had any relevance to either of these issues.

1. Abortion is an interesting topic because it remains illegal in Ireland except in cases where there is a threat to the mother's life. There have been some high-profile cases in the media in recent years - including the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012, who was refused an abortion alllegedly because this is a "Catholic country" and ended up dying of sepsis. More recently, a rape victim was refused an abortion and had to be given a Caesarean section (by the time she was assessed by a psychiatrist, it was too late to terminate the pregnancy).

It's a banal truism to say that abortion is a complex issue (as is capital punishment). Personally, I think it should be legal, and have participated in a few of the protests in Dublin precipitated by the Halappanavar case. What others have already said rings true for me, I suppose - that it is better to abort a foetus than to bring an unwanted child into the world, and that women should have control of their own bodies.

There remain, however, some interesting issues in the life v. choice debate; either side stems from fundamental beliefs about personhood that are ultimately irreconcilable. Deciding when a foetus is a person deserving of life strikes me as fairly arbitrary - some people think it begins at conception, others after a certain number of weeks, and others at birth. These seem to me like a priori beliefs that do not, and possibly cannot, have any real justification. And it's from this that the whole notion of murder arises; a pro-choice person can say that abortion is not murder, because the foetus is not a person; a pro-life person can argue that it is murder, because the foetus is. These ideas are so fundamental to either side that they seem impossible to resolve, for me. What I take from it is simply that it is insufficient for either side to argue that abortion is or is not murder, because the argument is reduced to people shouting at each other about their own ideas of personhood.

It's important to acknowledge that cultural ideas about what constitutes personhood are extraordinarily varied, and more importantly, I don't think it's possible to argue that one constitution of "personhood" is more valid than another.

Which brings us to what galen is hinting at below - the problem of infringing on another person's rights because of your own beliefs, and the problems that poses for any democratic system. We do not allow people to commit murder - and that's the rub, because for pro-life people, foetuses are people and abortion is murder.

I think it is also important to consider that religion is embedded into society, rather than existing as some sort of separate stratum.

2. Capital punishment is a big issue, though not a salient one in Ireland (where execution is no longer carried out as a means of punishment). It seems reasonable enough to suggest that executing someone is a better idea than imprisoning them for the remainder of their life, whether for economic reasons or moral ones (is imprisoning someone for decades really better than killing them?) Naturally, it seems clearer in cases (possibly imaginary) in which the criminal has committed multiple heinous crimes (like a recidivist murderer rapist). Sort of what bioemerl is saying.

But the death penalty has its own problems, namely that of sufficiently ascertaining guilt, without which innocent people can and have been executed. That, or the extreme cost of keeping someone on death row, because the process isn't exactly quick (that's today; in England a hundred years ago, it usually took about three weeks for someone to get hanged, rather than twenty years). Consider the Japanese man who was on death row for decades before being released - and in Japan, they apparently don't tell you when it's coming, so for him every day could have been his last.

Then, of course, there are the logistical matters of the execution itself, although I think they're secondary to the moral justification of capital punishment in the first place. Naturally, I think it's best if it's quick and painless. I remember hearing about a recent execution in the US in which it took two hours for the victim to die, which is quite horrific. Maybe bring back the guillotine?

Capital punishment, to my ill-informed mind, seems like too much of a headache, really.

I did have an interesting conversation about corporal punishment recently, though, in which the other person claimed that whipping would in many cases be preferable to a prison sentence. It's extraordinarily painful, yes, but after the healing period the criminal can integrate back into society, instead of going to prison, or "crook college", and building up a network of criminal contacts for when they're back on the streets. I actually think it's a very interesting idea.

We do have to think about the purpose of imprisonment, which I think has a hell of a lot more to do with attempting to remove people from society than it does to reform them or even to act as a deterrent (which I think 25 lashes probably would do), and, in the States at least, with feeding money into private companies.

OftenBen mentions the problem of granting a particular body (i.e. the judicial system) power over human life, when perhaps they are not to be trusted. I haven't given any thought to this before.

I think I can only do one big, bad, ugly topic at a time. The abortion debate first, i guess.

I think the biggest misunderstanding in the "pro-life" "pro choice" debate is that NO ONE wants people to have an abortion. Abortion is a last-resort decision and should never be taken lightly. "Pro choice" is not the equivalent of "Pro death", and no one's going "AW YEAH, I WANNA KILL ME SOME MUTHAFUCKIN' BABIES TODAY!" Come on, give me a break, right?

Abortion should be the end of a line of educated sexual choices. First (even though pro choice people think it's a shit tactic, and they're not completely wrong), letting people know that the only way you're 100% not going to get pregnant is abstinence (or at least the absence of PIV sex). HOWEVER, once sex education gets that out of the way, people need to be informed about the next level of protection: Male condoms, female condoms, dental dams, etc and how to use them effectively, how to store them effectively and so on. What are the pill and other contraceptives and how do they work?

I thought about putting this even before the contraceptives, but then a long, lengthy talk about consent is paramount. How a lack of refusal is not implicit consent, how you should NEVER say yes if you're not 100% comfortable, how you should not "test" your significant other and say one thing but mean another. CLEAR Communication is paramount and being anything other than crystal clear with your intent is a recipe for complete disaster and a breakdown of trust inside the relationship

After this comes an understanding of childbirth, Plan B, adoption and abortion. Knowledge is power, and knowing the ins and outs of all of these options, which run the gamut from chemical to governmental is important. I could keep going here ( a cultural shift on how we view men and women who have been raped for example), but i think you get what i'm talking about here.

Now, some people are opposed to abortion for religious reasons, or believe that life begins at conception. Okay, fine. whatever. I have an alternative for you.

The exact same thing, but remove abortion and plan B from the last step. THEN, add onto it much more robust funding for adoption organizations, scholarships for adoptive children, benefits for adopted children and their newly adopted parents. In America alone there are 397,122 children in the adoption system. a lot of those children go to group homes where, even when the people running them are doing the best they can, many of their needs are not met.

these children need funding and education support. 25% of those who age out of the adoption system without having found an adoptive family do not obtain a High school diploma or GED. I can keep quoting statistics, but basically if you follow the link i just posted you'll see that .1% of America's 313 million people need a lot more help than they're getting.

If you are going to force a woman to carry a baby to term, EVEN IF the conception happened under extenuating circumstances (condom failure, incorrect dosage of birth control, rape, any number of reasons) then you, YOU who have decided with your infinite knowledge that you know what is best for people you have never met, had damn well better see that anyone involved in the care of that child (blood relation or adoption) is getting all of the funding and support that they need so that that child can succeed in whatever they decide to do. You don't get to just make that decision and not suffer the fallout.

However, I have never met someone who is "pro life" who is okay with that arrangement. Once that child is outside of the womb it's no longer their problem. Can't get support your child? man, you should just get a better job, or make more money. Another chapter in the ongoing saga of how americans (especially poor americans) hate poor people.

"I'm down on my luck, I was raped by a relative after my husband died and I can't support my kids. I need this government support. But that Lazy fucker behind me in line? They just need to get a job, that's all!!! Just work harder and you'll succeed!"

But I digress.

1. I cannot have a meaningful opinion on this one. I am male, and have never been in a position where this has been even a remote possibility. I will say this. I believe that there are too many damn people on the planet, and no one should be forced to raise a child they don't want. I also believe that it's an intensely personal choice, and that those who do have abortions should not be viewed as pariahs or outcasts, and that their procedure should definitely be something mourned. A life is taken, and that should always be a solemn and somber thing. That said, there are cases where it is, in my opinion, necessary.

2. I was pretty certain about this one, being pro death penalty for a long time. However, someone brought up a really good point not long ago that there is probably no group on the planet that I would be comfortable granting the authority to decide who lives or dies.

In general, I think that people who are pro-life, as they say, should also be for large government in the form of social welfare, but they usually aren't. Conversely, those who are most likely to advocate for a womans right to choose, also would take better care of that infant once it's born. A strange dichotomy. I make a point to ask wealthy Christians about that stuff often now. The whole, camel through the eye of a needle thing and all. It's fun to hear people rationalize so quickly. If I'm feeling extra-inflammatory I'll call jesus a proto-marxist and watch the steam rise. On that topic, has anyone else ever read about some of the super early christian communities? A lot of them functioned like communes, and also included psychedelic plants in their rituals and prayer. Cool stuff.

1. Going slightly against the grain here - philosophically I am pro-life, but I recognize that outlawing abortion creates a host of new problems arguably worse than abortion itself. Conception seems to be the most logical 'marker' for the beginning of life for me, but I know many others here will argue that it is birth.

2. I am anti capital punishment, as I think it is far too easy for us to make mistakes when it comes to condemning people. There's the saying "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be killed", and I agree with that.

With regards to your anecdote, I think the contradiction diminishes if you consider him to value only innocent life. If the convict has been condemned, barring error on part of the justice system, then he is not innocent.

1. I'm going to go with the rights of the actual person over the rights of the potential person: since the woman must be subjected to great risk and consequences, she should be able to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses.

If people really don't want pregnancies to be terminated, they should make sure that all people (including teens) have access to reliable contraception, and good education on how to use it properly. Further, there should be targeted education about consent, and shame-free resources for anyone experiencing sexual violence or abuse. All of these things should be provided free of charge.

But I've found that many people who claim to be "pro-life" do not support these ideas, and in reality are really just "anti-women-having-sex."

And, of course, the massive contradiction in ideas that you experienced with this gentleman--once that fertilized egg is fully cooked and out in the world, if it's poor and has few opportunities and a lack of familial or social support, then fuck that kid, s/he is a menace and a drain on society and deserves to be locked up or gotten rid of.

2. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on capital punishment. I would say I'm probably 98% against it. Logically, I do not support it at all; it doesn't work as a deterrent, it's not fiscally responsible, it's inhumane, it's awful. I hate so many things about our "justice" system, which is just totally broken (United States).

Emotionally...there are people in the world of whom I am VERY afraid, and it's possible I would sleep easier knowing they were gone. But that's a shitty reason for something as barbaric and terrible as capital punishment. And with the issues our society has about "us vs. them," I'd rather we not have executions as a tool to use against one another.

1. Philosophically I'm pro-choice. I also see the practical aspect of providing legal services in order to pre-empt a much more dangerous black market system. I don't judge people who've made the choice. Except for my aunt, who had two abortions but remains a rabid and very vocal social conservative. And even then, I don't begrudge her her choices, I just resent her hypocrisy. However. I couldn't imagine having a hand in making that choice in regards to my own family. Just couldn't do it.

2. Not keen on capital punishment, for the following reasons: A) the whole "more expensive to society than life in prison" thing. B) Not clear if it actually works as a deterrent. C) I don't believe in the notion of justice as an eye for an eye. I believe in justice as a restoration of balance. There's a difference. Not many things worse than taking a life. But killing a murderer doesn't restore the life lost, it just adds a tally mark to the side of the dead. In a just system, the response to loss of life would be, what, an addition of something of equal or greater value to the world. That's pretty philosophically nebulous, but there you go. Here's an example of what I mean:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-would-like-you-to-know-my-nam/Content?oid=9434642

And then:

http://proxy.bellstrike.com/about

I heard an interview w/ Hopper a few months ago on our local NPR affiliate. She displayed not only strength and bravery on a level I know I wouldn't be capable of, but also an overwhelming amount of empathy for other victims, her partner, her assailant's family, and even her assailant. She took something unspeakably horrible, and she leveraged it into a social movement for healing. She's sort of a superhero in my book.

Anyhow. I'm not convinced that capital punishment can provide that level of justice, or any level of justice. There are exceptions- only one I can think of right now is in the case of I dunno a serial killer- in which case maybe cap punishment is as much a service to the killer as it is to the survivors of his deeds. Still not even sure about that, though.

Man, you're going straight to the heavy stuff tonight. What ever happened to pubski. Think it's implied in your post, TNG, but where do you stand on these matters more specifically?

Man, I was hoping for some religion with my politics. Oh well.

1. I'm pro-choice. IMO it just doesn't make sense to define the starting point of a life as anything other than birth.

2. I can't say without a doubt that no crime is worth capital punishment, but what I definitely believe is that we can never be sure enough of a given person's guilt to kill them. The death penalty is 100% final, so it seems like the only way to justify it is if you're 100% sure of someone's guilt-- and that's just not possible.

1. I'm pro-life, but I don't think, especially under the US Constitution, you should be able to impose your belief system on other people. Especially since much of the pro-life movement in the US is based on religious arguments, which is obviously bogus. I think since it's so difficult to draw a line and say where life truly begins after sperm hits egg, the line should be drawn at the moment where sperm hits egg. Boom. You got life. End of story. So in a perfect world I'd be pro-life, but in reality I'm pro-choice.

2. I guess under current circumstances I'm against the death penalty in the US. Only because putting someone to death is a vastly less efficient process than just putting someone in prison for life. But I think, really, if you're going to put someone in prison, why not just kill them? As bad as it sounds, they're just taking up valuable resources. So make the process to kill someone more efficient in this country and let's have at it.

1. I am pro-choice, and believe where there is disagreement between the parents on whether to bring to term, the parent carrying the baby in her body gets the final word. I believe that an abortion kills a living thing, but that the living thing shouldn't and doesn't automatically have the same value as a birthed baby. I believe that the later along the pregnancy is the harder it is to justify ending it, and that this is a grey area that cannot even be theoretically settled in the best of universes. I personally find it hard to get worked up against abortion restrictions past the third trimester, and may be fine with them with the exception of cases where the mother's health may be in jeopardy, or rape/incest/etc.

2. In no circumstances should this be legal. I feel that good reasons for this are so far beyond obvious that it offends my sensibilities to even articulate them at this point. Really.

Credit to mk for my line of thinking on capital punishment. It's not complicated, and it has nothing to do with moral judgement. Capital punishment is wrong, because the government shouldn't have the power to kill people. Who knows where they'll use it. We might think we're better than china or Iran, but it wouldn't take a sea change to fix that. They shouldn't have the option. Period.

1. As OftenBen said, I, too, cannot have a meaningful opinion on this one. I am also male, and have also never been in a position where this has been even a remote possibility. However -- I think the 'right to life' or 'free choice' should rest on the mother -- which means I am essentially rooting for 'free choice'. The reasoning here is that if the mother has an opinion on the matter that lies contrary to 'free choice', i.e. 'pro-life', then there is no interference by law, because her 'free choice' then becomes 'I choose life for my baby'.

I also root for a separation between church and state as much as possible, and most people say 'pro-life' due to religious believes (or so I understand -- please please please correct me if I'm wrong) so I don't want to push any one religious belief or choice against the mother's wishes -- so if a mother believes strongly in 'pro-life', she has the opportunity to exercise that belief while a mother who isn't ready to have children can choose abortion.

TL;DR: 'free choice' because free choice allows for the mother to decide, even if her personal belief lies along 'pro-life' lines.

2. I'm honestly not sure. There are too many false convictions, yet there are some people who are genuinely disgusting. What we should do, if people keep complaining on overcrowded prisons, is stop racial profiling and arresting people for possession of weed -- this would obviously require federal policy change, but it would certainly lessen the overcrowding.

I'm pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. It isn't fair to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body and for capital punishment, similar to what galen said there is very little chance to be 100% sure of someone's guilt. There has to be a better option through some sort of rehabilitation type program, reintegration, something...though I understand just some people are unable to change.

As a side note my views on this have changed wildly since high school four years ago. I was pro-life, pro-capital punishment, anti-immigration. I fit the whole Don't Tread On Me and Tea Party persona pretty well. Honestly very glad I grew up and moved away from those beliefs.

1. Where do you stand on the "right to life" or the "free choice" debate?

I wholly believe in a women's right to choice. I don't think that a person should be forced to have a child if they don't want one. I was nearly aborted because I was a result of teenage pregnancy, so it's hard to still be of the opinion that choice trumps.

2. Where do you stand on capital punishment?

No. Too many innocent people are sentenced to death. Capital punishment is a magnification of the problem with our justice system, that is that it revolves around punishment and not rehabilitation. I am absolutely against capital punishment, trading one crime for another doesn't help anybody.

1. Pro-choice. In my opinion, to believe otherwise, you need to start granting citizenship rights to the unborn, and allow their rights to trample the rights of the person carrying that unborn. It leads to unacceptable state power over the baby-carrier. Personally I care not about how late-term it is; if the mother's okay with it, why not? As long as she's not obviously incompetent (and possibly even if she is), I see little societal harm in leaving the decision entirely up to her.

2. Anti. There are too many mistakes made, to justify allowing the state to take anyone's one-and-only life. Again, to believe otherwise is to (in my opinion) grant the state more power than it ought to have.

I didn't want to join this chat, but it's 2:36 in the morning and as we know, hubski never sleeps.

Absolutely pro-choice because I believe the life of the living takes priority. It's sad but individuals have to have agency over their own body. If late in the pregnancy, a woman wants to abort her baby, but the baby is capable of surviving ex-utero, I would permit the abortion but once aborted, the fetus would become a ward of the state. So yes, to late-term abortions. No one except the mother can know what this pregnancy means to her.

Absolutely against capital punishment. We must be compassionate - we are all on a difficult journey.

1. Where do you stand on the "right to life" or the "free choice" debate?

I will take pro-lifers' ethical position seriously when they start trying to ban removing people from life support or refusing to use it in the first place. Until then it all reads as misogynists punishing women for having sex to me.

2. Where do you stand on capital punishment?

I think a prisoner should be allowed to choose it; I would consider execution more merciful than life or a very long sentence if I had to choose between them, and we could use more mercy. I don't think it should be imposed, because retributive justice doesn't belong in this century, and if we insist on being barbaric then we should choose something less irrevocable to get our tough on crime boners, because neither judges nor juries are omniscient.

On abortion?

Let people do it, I honestly don't care. Babies, especially pre-birth, are not something I get too incredibly torn up about hearing the death of. They don't have personality, they don't have life, etc. Especially when the babies mom doesn't even want it.

I mean, of course, I wouldn't look kindly on anyone killing babies, and I do consider them human, but on a scale, I weigh them less than I would even the average criminal. There is the whole "innocent beings" argument, or the "babies don't deserve to have no chance at life" but the world isn't, and never will be about what you deserve, what is fair, etc. You get what you get and you don't get upset, unless you are getting upset means you fix your problems through however you go about doing that.

2. I think capital punishment should be reserved for those unable to be psychologically... brainwashed.... into being a productive and good human being.

If you are going to continue to be criminal, to hurt people, etc. Society holds no reason to care for you in a prison, or to release you where you will do more harm. Off with the head.

I do think we should stop with the whole "if you killed you are a monster and should die" stuff, because that's not what really determines what is good or bad. A person who kills inherently bad, they were brought up to become that person, and if they can be changed, we should change them.

Side Question for those interested. DOES ABORTION REDUCE CRIME?

see this article from Steven Levitt of Freakenomics and feel free to discuss.....