Without trying to insult anyone, it seems as though both sides on this issue are being brainwashed. Most religious conservatives I talk to are pro-life and for the death penalty while most liberals I talk to are pro-choice and against the death penalty.
Both of these positions can be seem to be hypocritical depending on which side you are on. So, why are there so few who say both must live or both must die for the benefit of society?
Does anyone here think outside the box on these two issues? If so, why do you think that most people seem limited to either one of the two positions?
2007-01-02 09:06:09 · 10 answers · asked by Bow down to me 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
For the record, I jokingly call myself pro-death as I am pro-choice, for the death penalty, and for voluntary euthanasia. You may not agree with my position... but I doubt anyone can call me a hypocrite. At least I hope not!
2007-01-02 09:08:32 · update #1
Look I'm all for little babies having the chance to live, but murderers/rapists/child molestors etc. should get the death penalty. A baby didn't do anything to deserve to die. The killers etc. well you know what they did to deserve to die.
2007-01-02 09:12:45 · answer #1 · answered by lilmama 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Without knowing your reasoning for being pro-choice or anti-death penalty, it's impossible to say whether you are a hypocrite or not. It also depends on how you define life. If you see the death penalty as ending a life, and don't see late term abortions as doing so, you're not a hypocrite. I would challenge the stance on late term abortion, since technically many of those fetuses could survive outside the womb, there is some evidence that they can learn even when in the womb, and they respond to a wide variety of stimuli.
2016-05-23 07:24:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's an overgeneralization to say that "most" conservatives are pro-life and in favor of the death penalty - the majority that I know are pro-life, but against the death penalty, as well as against euthanasia. They oppose the taking of life on all fronts.
I've got my own little box out there - neither party wants me. ;) Pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and pro-death penalty here:
Pro-choice because it is a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, and she should not be forced to bear a pregnancy that she does not want. It should not be the "primary form of birth control" that a woman uses, but it should be an option. It is, however, a decision that IMHO should be made in the first trimester or half of the pregnancy (barring medical complications).
Pro-euthanasia because it is a person's right to die with dignity when the quality of life has become negligible. When a pet animal is suffering, we consider it humane to end their suffering. When a human is suffering, we do everything we can to prolong life as long as we can. Huh?
Pro-death penalty because I believe if someone maliciously and without provocation takes the life of another, then their own is forfeit. (I have issues with the current legal system and its implementation, however the base belief is still there.)
2007-01-02 09:29:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I also call myself "Pro-death." I see myself this way mainly because I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I am pro-death penalty because I believe if a person commits a crime violent enought that it can warrant death, it should. People spend too much money on criminals who are going to stay in prison for life. Rehibilitation only works if they are going to be able to get OUT. I'm pro-choice because I believe the world is overpopulated and it is the woman's right (depending on the reason) to decided whether or not she wishes to give birth.
I often jokingly tell people I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I'm pro-death. In fact, I'd send a pregnant woman to the elecrtic chair if she had committed a serious enough crime and didn't plan on keeping her child anyway. I also think I may be this way because I find it rather bizarre to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty or vice versa. It is just a difference of time period of when you end the person's (debatably sometimes) life. If I have no qualms about one I see no reason to have qualms about the other.
2007-01-02 10:01:53 · answer #4 · answered by bishonenofcacophony 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am pro-choice and against the death penalty. The foundation of this stance (for me, at least) is that I would rather the state not have the power to enact an irreversible punishment, especially given the condition of our criminal justice system. Likewise, I don't believe the state is able to define the circumstances under which an abortion is justified. For me, these positions are not contradictory. They both stem from the desire to keep life and death decisions out of the government's hands.
2007-01-02 09:17:50 · answer #5 · answered by lcraesharbor 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm for both. Kill 'em all and let your god sort them out.
I'm for a right to choose, but other precautions should be taken. The most wicked need to be put down, though if there can be any doubt to guilt they should not die. Can I be on the fence on both issues?
2007-01-02 09:12:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Those people are weird. I'm pro-choice and for the death penalty.
2007-01-02 09:12:29 · answer #7 · answered by Laura 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's a very good question and the answer is as you know becauses you posted it here religious bigotry versus enlightned modern people.
2007-01-02 09:11:12 · answer #8 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Pro choice" is not about killing babies, so that's where your premise is flawed. Embryos are not babies any more than acorns are oak trees.
2007-01-02 09:17:58 · answer #9 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ironic isn't it?
2007-01-02 09:10:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋