Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Between Life and Death

Well, I hope to shed some light on the link between my support of the death penalty and opposition to abortion.

At the heart of my opinion is my perception of human life. This is a tough definition, and obviously determines my opinion about abortion. I perceive human life to be a thing very similar to me biologically, and capable of affecting me metaphysically. These affects need not be direct; the biology I speak of is mostly genetic material.

At the moment of insemination, the fertilized egg satisfies my biological requirement for life. The blob contains genetic material very similar to my own, if not partially a copy of me when I am the biological father. It is interesting that this debate overlooks the very term physicians ascribed to the procedure, namely, the premature interruption of the natural cycles necessary for biological, humanoid maturation. However, I will demonstrate later how this biological condition is unnecessary.

My second condition, namely metaphysical affect, is problematic; I surmount it by defining the fertilized egg a potential humanoid lifeform existing within the body of another human. Please note that I grant neither the female egg nor the male sperm the status of "potential humanoid lifeform", nor any other matter, because it is only the fertilized egg that has the potential to become human. Since the blob has the potential to become human, it has the potential to affect me metaphysically, and thus satisfies my second condition.

Both the pro- and anti-abortionists should realize the necessity of the potential for the fertilized egg to affect other lives. If a replicating blob in another human had no potential to. let us say, make me laugh and cry, after it attains its own life, then there would be no need to abort the thing. It is my second condition of metaphysical affection -- ultimately my only condition -- that allows debaters to realize the complications of biologically defending or repudiating abortion.

I will now synthesize my definition of life and potential life with the deprevation of life and preemption of potential life.

Let us assume Locke's utopia protects Americans' life, liberty and property, since property fits in nicely with the feminist argument for abortion. Every citizens' life, liberty and property is protected by the state since the state merely operates on behalf of communal agreement that Locke's three tenants are necessary for America's welfare. A murder occurs when one human deprives another of their life; this is severe because liberty cannot be enjoyed and property cannot be attained. Liberty compliments life in that one is free do choose what to do with their life. Property is subordinate to liberty because one chooses what to attain in life.

The claims by mothers' that the fertilized egg is her property and that her liberty is violated by any infringement on her freedom to sever body parts are both valid. It is the potential life within that body that I believe predicates liberty and property because of its potential to affect members of society, including the mother. A quandary remains when society protects the potential life within the woman at the expense of the mother's life at birth. Should the infant be liable for the death of its mother?

I agree these cases are "capitol", seeing how death is the paramount and intractable change to a human being's life. Here is how I would respond as juror on behalf of the state in a capital case, according to the evidence provided: "I believe..."

1. defendant did not intend to take the victim's life, and the evidence suggests the loss of life was due to faulty mechanics, inhibited perception, etc. I suggest short-term incarceration or long-term community service.
2. defendant did not intend to take the victim's life, but the evidence suggests negligence, where the defendant knew of faulty mechanics that could terminally harm another, was aware of limited perception, etc. I suggest short-term incarceration and long-term community service.
3. defendant acted irrationally when taking the victim's life, that the loss of life was not premeditated, was initiated by a chain of events inducing primal behavior that negatively effected the defendant's normal behavior. I suggest medium-term incarceration and rehabilitation or psychological treatment.
4. defendant acted on behalf of another and took the victim's life in a contractual, verbal, or other agreement. I suggest long-term and rehabilitative or psychological treatment, or a life-long sentence without parole.
5. evidence clearly indicates the defendant intended to kill the victim, that the defendant considered the consequences and effect of the death, such as a future without the victim. I suggest a life-long sentence without parole, or the death penalty.
6. evidence clearly demonstrates the defendant shows no remorse for the victim, or believes the victim deserved death because of various, superfluous reasons. I recommend death.

#6 can be amend either #4 or #5. Basically, #6 is my response to "I hate people and they should die". “Ok, you'll be next then” the state should respond.
Also, #4 is a loophole so the state can bargain with hit-men who rat on their bosses and further reduce organized murder.

I also follow this rational in the severity of punishment for "potential human life." I suppose auxiliary or accomplices to the murder could be spouse or partner, medical professionals, etc.