I just answered a question about the Senator from MI supporting abortion and opposing the death penalty and was shocked by the comparisons made by the people that answered that question. They stated the same way a "Neo-con" can support the death penalty and opposs abortion. I had no idea that an unborn child was anything like a mass murderer or seriel rapist that was tried and found guilty and is now being put to death. Wow thanks libs for opening my eyes. Anyway any thoughts.
2006-09-06 02:51:10 · 14 answers · asked by fire_side_2003 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The only level you can compare these two issues is on the risk to the society and the danger of the mother's physical life. In the instance a mothers physical life is in imminent danger I think abortion to be an appropriate option. When it comes to mass murderers & or serial rapists, society is at risk by not eliminating these extremely dangerous people. If a dog is rabid or any other animal kills a human being they put it down to avoid further harm being doine. This is not personal, just self preservation for our kind.
The vast vast majority of all abortions are not only done on healthy babies but also to mothers who are not in danger of dying. This is the greatest distinction between the two.
On a karmic level a violent criminal has done things in which violence can be an appropriate response. When it comes to the unborn what karma have they yet done in this life to deserve such a cruel fate?
If you feel strongly about anything I have just written answer my question about the South Dakota ban at:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060906060832AAQG9Q4&r=w
Also know that there are Pro-Lifers that are sincerely against any kind of violence including the death penality and the killing of animals. Here are two sites related to such.
http://madprof.home.mindspring.com/ethic.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-vegprolife.html
2006-09-06 03:03:25 · answer #1 · answered by Love of Truth 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Human life begins at the moment of birth. That is sound Biblical doctrine. Proper study of the original languages will show that beyond a shadow of a doubt. That does not necessarily mean abortion is right or wrong, but it is truth and the choice should remain for the individual's convictions to determine their decision on the matter.
That being said, no they are not even in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even the same sport. For the government the rule is eye for an eye. For the individual the rule is turn the other cheek. Since crime and sentencing are left to the government then the death penalty should stand. If someone murders your family it is up to the individual to forgive and up to the government to convict and punish. It's very simple really. Certain Biblical principles are for government and others are for the individual. It takes a dedicated student of the word to find a teacher who will study the original languages to determine the difference and teach it to the student.
2006-09-06 10:03:40 · answer #2 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
These are probably two, and really seperate items amongst a handful, of the most argued, by the political and morally involved. Each, apparently doomed to never actually being settled. Not in any civil manner, anyway.
I can't help but feel quiet confidently they will someday prove to be a blackeye in America's history.
These are very gray area subjects trying to be solved with black and white answers. Impossible.
Anyway, for me, to start off with, I have a question.
How and why is it under the guise of government, condem anyone to death and be able to justify it when the taking of a life is both legally and morally, on all levels, (other than in an actual,and extremely violent, personnel, life threatening situations. And, even under those conditions, the use of anything, any weapon needed in your defense, but could possibly be considered, by an ambitious presecutor, as the use of extra force, and could result in charges.) considered unexceptable.
And especially when courts and juries have been repeatedly proven to be mistaken in their judgements of defendants guilt.
Way to many people fail to realize the true and rare gift life really is and give far to little thought to the taking of any life other than their own.
Now that's real life.
Abortion is a whole other thing.
From a legal standpoint I'm still waiting for a serious, intelligent reason why it is ever even discussed as anything other than the gross infrigment into the rights of each and every individual women. Women who's rights, in plain black and white, our country is suppost to not only represent, but is legally bound too and not to be allowed to being used as a politians football..
It seemes those seeking power are all to willing to, at a minimum, bend and all to often even break the laws to gain voters, or riches, and that out of shear laziness or fear, we all stupidly allow.
It appears George Orwells fictional novel,"1984" did become a political reality 9-11-01 and slowly, but surely, questions like yours will be a thing of the past. Will we simply be told where to live, what to do, and how to think.
2006-09-06 12:38:40 · answer #3 · answered by thomnjo2 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no comparison between a defenseless unborn child and a convicted killer.That is elementary school reasoning,which seems to be all that the liberals have.That same lack of logic allows liberals to be for disarming citizens(like Hitler)but are against conducting surveillance on suspected terrorists.
2006-09-06 10:02:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Have you heard of those cases where they convicted the wrong person. What if it was one of your family members, and they were innocent of the crime that they had been convicted of, but were put to death for it anyways. The justice system is not fool-proof, and until it is, it should not be allowed to impose the death penalty.
Until the baby is born, it does not have rights under the Constitution. The Constitution covers CITIZENS of the U.S, and until the baby is born, it is not a citizen. The mother, however, is a citizen and her rights ARE protected. It's a woman's body, it's a woman's choice.
2006-09-06 10:02:58 · answer #5 · answered by rob 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I share your opinion. Those who responded oppose death on any level - however, I can't see the two as equivalent issues.
An unborn child has commited no crime and is blameless, completely innocent.
A "convicted felon" is obviously, by definition, guilty and deserving of punishment - in this case, death.
As you know - just about every whack job now owns a computer, so it shouldn't surprise us too much about some of the responses we get... fortunately, most of these people are all talk and have no real voice because they are to lazy to vote. Thank goodness for that!
2006-09-06 09:58:59 · answer #6 · answered by Forgiven 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
the comparison is useful in gauging
the vastly inherent corrupt nature of liberalism.
2006-09-06 10:04:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
absolutely no. Liberals seem to think that convient abortion trumps the babys right to free speech
2006-09-06 09:58:45 · answer #8 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Thou shalt not kill.
the last i looked i didn't see an exception there. but then 99.99% of christians are hypocrites anyway,
hhhmmmm......
We, as a society, kill people to show other people that killing people is wrong.
Do you see the flaw?
2006-09-06 09:57:37 · answer #9 · answered by mhp_wizo_93_418 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
save a whale
save a killer
KILL THE UNBORN...makes perfect since...they are guilty of their parents choice, right??
2006-09-06 10:00:35 · answer #10 · answered by Commander 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋