How can u support nothing but life and then support the death penalty..
If u argue innocent vs guilty ,,,life is life,,,,, innocent and guilty does not measure the value of a life....
2006-10-02 09:51:38 · 10 answers · asked by coopchic 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well how canu argue that it's up to god who lives and dies then turn around and support the death penalty when it is up to god who lives and dies i thought the decision was in gods hand not yours...like i said innocent and guilty does not measure the value of a life
2006-10-02 10:00:32 · update #1
Actually, it is a contradiction to be pro-life and not support the death penalty. The reason people are pro-life is because they think that even the all forms of human life have value-- especially unborn life, because such life cannot defend itself, even from its own parent.
The death penalty is reserved generally for the most heinous crimes. In all these crimes, life is devalued and degraded to the nth degree. Because of this, it demands strict justice. If a person did not demand strict justice, then they are essentially saying that the crime victim's life wasn't worth anything, so there is no need to punish the perpetrator. Justice demands equal penalty for equal crime. For example, if a person murders another, then justice demands that he or she be put to death. If that is relaxed at all, then the murder victim's life is somehow worth less than the life of the murderer.
2006-10-02 10:15:18 · answer #1 · answered by The1andOnlyMule 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I do not think it should be in mans hands to kill. The death penalty come on how bad is that it is the same as an abortion. Here is my idea I think for all the murders and child molesters and all of that I think what ever they did to others should be done to them (to an extent). For example I sure everyone has heard about so and so drowning their children in a body of water. I think that person should be taken out of his/her cell every day hauled off to a lake and thrown in. Just until they are down to there last breath. Then haul them up ....and do this every day day after day ...See because then they will know exactly what they put the children through and have to live with it and how scared they must have been every day ...See you can take this route with just about everything done to someone else in harm......
2006-10-03 04:14:06 · answer #2 · answered by thunder_rainclouds 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not a contradiction.
The basic principle in civilized society is justice. The punishment must fit the crime. Society has no right to take my life if I steal a loaf of bread: the punishment far exceeds the crime. On the other hand, if Ted is a serial murderer, society has no right to jail him for 15 years and then release him in 10 of those years. The punishment is far less than the crime.
Someone who takes a life forfeits his own. I'm talking here about premeditated murder; not manslaughter.
Whose life did the unborn child take?
2006-10-02 10:55:48 · answer #3 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I"m Pro Life and I'm against the Death Penalty. A life is a life.
2006-10-02 09:58:18 · answer #4 · answered by sister steph 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I am pro choice and pro death penalty.
Without putting words in the pro lifers' mouths, I believe it is about choice - a fetus that is aborted has no choice, where as the person who is convicted of a death-penalty crime made his/her own choices.
Mike Honeycutt
2006-10-02 09:59:13 · answer #5 · answered by mahoneycuttnc2002 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
abortion is the slaughter of pre-born infants, the death penalty is a lawful and bibical response to a murder. Murder and legal execution are two different things. And what makes you think tearing a baby to shreds is the same thing as putting a murder to sleep permantly?
2006-10-02 09:59:26 · answer #6 · answered by Grandma Susie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You must be new here... YAWN
An innocent baby doesn't deserve to die... a psychopathic murderer does... the murderer has to face the consequences of his actions even though his life has value and his death will protect other innocent life.
It's really not that difficult to figure out.
2006-10-02 09:56:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No. Both views are protecting innocent life.
2006-10-02 09:58:03 · answer #8 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
An individual has no right to kill another. That is called murder.
Like it or not, nations have the right to wage war and execute people for capitol offenses.
There is a wide chasm between the two, my friend.
2006-10-02 09:58:10 · answer #9 · answered by Bad Cosmo 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Bravo!!!! Can't have it both ways. Want to bet some will try?
2006-10-02 09:55:59 · answer #10 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋