How can Pro Life people support the death penalty?? When it proves to be a contradiction???

Question

Life Is Life
Innocence and guilty do not measure the value of a human life.......While saying that the laws are wrong on abortion you support the same laws of the death penalty....U claim abortion is murder well then u would have to argue that the death penalty comits murder under the law as well.....some of u say it is up to god who lives and dies well the same concept would apply to the deat penalty....

yes i am aware that not all pro life people support the death penalty

Answer 1

Listen to all this Conservative mafia rhetoric! Pro-Life should mean you do NOT support the death penalty and that you do NOT support war. Leave it to a bunch of rich Christians to decide what the definition of "Life" is. Who the hell gave them the authority to decide who lives and who dies?

Answer 2

How can a pro-life proponent support the death penalty?

The answer depends on the ethical model used in forming that individual’s position. Put as a formal argument, a common position opposing abortion essentially states:

First Premise: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
Second Premise: A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus.

Notably, this model focuses on the innocence of the fetus.

A pro-life person can believe in the sacredness and inviolability of the right of innocents to live (as expressed by the above model), yet still see a need to secure that right through laws that impose punishment (including capital punishment if warranted) on one who breaches that right through murder. Thus, under this model, a pro-life proponent may reject the idea that everyone has an absolute right to live to his or her natural term regardless of that person’s actions no matter how heinous (i.e., they reject the concept that a murderer has a right to live equal to that of his or her innocent victim). Accordingly, these pro-innocent-life proponents may propose that if innocents are to be secure in their lives, then murders cannot be. In short, their argument is that a Stalin, a Hitler, an Idi Amin does not have as much right to live as their victims did.

Of course, this is not the only model upon which an individual can base his or her pro-life position. Another model might state in argument form the following:

First Premise: It is wrong to kill a human being.
Second Premise: A human fetus is a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.

You will note that this model leaves out the idea of innocence. Because this model leaves out the idea of innocence, it takes the position that it is always wrong to kill a human being. It negates justifications for violence such as self-defense, war to protect the oppressed and weak, and other justifications for a violent respone to circumstances. It is akin to the Quaker idea that violence is never justified.

So you may want to find a third model. Oh well, I could ramble on some more. But I’ve said a mouthful already and I need to head to work.

MBH

Answer 3

Death equals death. The fact that one is a supposed criminal (may have been an innocent person wrongly convicted) is just an excuse to justify a taking of life... it is a legal murder just as abortions are. Pro-life advocates claim that the fertilized egg is a human life form... aren't those on death row also human life forms?

What about the fact that some wrongly convicted have been proven innocent through modern technolgy (DNA profiling)? HOW certain can we be that not one innocent person has been executioned?

Since this country was founded, how many victims have been brought back to life with the executions of the condemned?

Answer 4

No doubt you bring up good points. I am in favor of the death penalty, but would be in favor of life in prison, with harsh punishment, but that is no guarantee. I don't want some murderer playing chess and enjoying televison the rest of his life.
This question is very simple though.

A. Babies are innocent, they have commited no crimes, other than being considered a nuisance for a woman.

B. Murderers are adults who knowingly made decisions to harm others, and were found guilty in a court of law, and sentenced to die.

Big Difference here!

I don't care about the more equivalance, I care about common sense. These are really apples and oranges here.

Answer 5

Not a contradiction at all. In one case an innocent human life is being eliminated because it is INCONVENIENT. In the other case the taking of life is a harsh punishment for such heinous crimes, that the only reasonable punishment is for them to forfeit their own lives.

I've never heard about it being up to God who lives and dies. But if you're talking about the "judge not lest ye be judged", that is in regards to sin and one's soul, not one's Earthly punishment for Earthly crimes. Jesus did not save the lives of the 2 thieves who were also on crucifixes on Calvary - he saved their soul.

That's why there is no Biblical support for abolishing the death penalty - it is not condemned in the Bible, and without it, Christ could not have saved us.

Executing criminals is not "murder". Murder has a specific meaning - the unlawful and unauthorized taking of another's life with malice aforethought. Execution IS lawful and authorized, and is not done in malice.

Many of us hold innocent life in such high regard, that someone who murders another must forfeit their most dear possession - their own life. This is punishment for Earthly crimes.

You will never convince me that being against abortion but for capital punishment is a contradiction.

Answer 6

Babies pose no danger to society; actually they are required for society! No baby ever hurt anyone, most people were very happy to create him or her! But then they realize responsibility is on the horizon, so they CUT AND RUN. While I agree with a small percentage of abortions, most of them are a result of making poor choices and shirking responsibilities. Most abortions are done to women aged 20 -25, single, no boyfriend in sight. What a way to start your adult life.

I narrowly believe in the death penalty; while I agree with it in concept, I have seen enough abuse and incompetance to want more controls on it. But if you read about many of the perps, you will see that these people pose a constant threat to everyone around them. Some get loose, like Michael Dukakis found out when Willy Horton went on furlough from prison, raped a woman and killed her husband as she watched. If you spent time with Jeffry Dahlmer, you might change your mind. They are wild, kill for no reason and must be removed form circulation. Death accomplishes that without risk, and these people are done on earth anyway.

If you refuse to put a feral murderer to death, you MUST share responsibility for any future atrocities he commits. Jesus offers forgiveness BECAUSE he paid the price of humiliation and death; too many liberals want to give out forgiveness like welfare money and do not understand that there is a price to offering forgiveness. Few want to pay the price, they just want that little rush they get when they give away freebies to the needy.

To solve your dilemma, abortion and the death penalty are unrelated subjects. One is directly related to our youths' inability to keep their clothes on and wait for the right person, the other has to do with eradicating a clear and present danger to our...children.
In WWII, we sent thousands of troops to shoot Nazis. Were they murderers? Of course not. If you resist a rapist and he falls down a flight of stairs and DIES, are you a murderer? Of course not, you have the right to self-defense. If you put tools into a woman's womb and kill a fetus, what evil has been defeated? What cause has been forwarded? Will there be a ticker-tape parade? Any heroes? Are we more free as a result of abortions? Some are necessary, I understand, but not all killing is murder nor is it all justified.
You have a lot to think about; both subjects are difficult to cover in a paragraph.

Answer 7

I think we ALL draw lines, rightly or wrongly, allowing "killing" when another value is deemed more important. Certainly most people would approve abortion when a mother's life is in danger, or the killing of enemy soldiers in wartime (depending on the conflict), or (for some) the death penalty.

We all use the same analysis although the result is not the same - anti-abortion folks feel there is a difference between putting a dangerous criminal to death and aborting an innocent unborn life. Pro-abortion rights groups see the interest in preserving an unborn life to be outweighted by other factors, including the woman's autonomy.

Again, we all weigh the factors. we just do it differently.

Pro-life and pro-choice are both inaccurate labels.

Answer 8

What kind of rats nest do you have going on up there in that area between your ears. First of all, show me statistics on your assertion that people who are pro life are pro death penalty. I am pro life because of my religous beliefs and my upbringing. I do not believe abortion is an appropriate solution IN MOST CASES. I also do not think the state should perform sanctioned murder IN MOST CASES.

Answer 9

Is the innocent life of an unborn baby who's committed no wrong the same as the life of someone who commits heinous murders or rapes children? No! If life is life, then it would be a crime to squash the mosquito that just bit you, or to pick a flower or to eat a fish or chicken or to flush away embrios that have just been experiemented on.

Jesus once said not to turn away the children around him because "thus is the kingdom of Heaven." And no wonder Heaven is full of children....we murder millions of them every year.

Answer 10

A convicted criminal gives up his rights when he decides to take the law in his own hands!! He knew before he committed the crime what the consequences would be and chose to do it anyway. An innocent little baby is at the mercy of someone else's decisions. Abortion is punishing someone else for your mistakes, the death penalty is accepting the responsibility/consequences for your own mistake....big difference!!!

Answer 11

You are mixed up. People who get the dealth penalty have taken a life! Unborn babies are not murderers, they are being murdered. How can you possibly compare the two. I value human life but once someone crosses that line and takes a life that person deserves to fry. To date I don't know of any fetuses that have comitted murder to earn the death penalty.