Why can't Buckwheat see the difference between executing a murderer and protecting an innocent, unborn baby?

Question

An unborn baby cannot commit a crime. Yet, Buckwheat thinks it's hypocritical to execute a murderer.

What gives?

By the way it's a fact that in states with parental notification laws, teen pregnancy drops 17% in the first year the law is enacted, on average.

Studbolt - I hear you, but, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

Also, for the record, my son is adopted, out of love for him. There are others like me, so I don't buy the 'what to do with the 'unwanted'" argument.

Answer 1

It's the ultimate double standard. Kill the innocent, free the guilty.

And, nice answer, there BW.

EDIT: And we deny "internal surgery" all the time. We can't even get a bill passed allowing anesthesia for the victims of late-term abortions.

Answer 2

I can respect an answer like Michelle's. Killing is killing. Therefore, anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion. I don't agree, but I can respect it. I don't agree because there comes a time when a person has shown such disdain for the rules of society, i.e. heinous murder, that the person has given up the rights to belong in society, and society has an obligation to remove this person. For respect for the people in society that haven't sunk that low. I'm not arguing for capital punishment in accidental homicide or manslaughter. But in the case of cold-blooded self serving murder. That is when a person gives up the rights to remain in society.

But the double standard is when someone is pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. Why people can't see the difference between an innocent life, even if still in the womb, and a murder's life, is beyond me.
It is about the value of a fetus, ok let's say it isn't alive, versus the value of a murderer. I don't know why these issues are so linked, but if people want to link them, ok. Put it this way. Say, you have two options, only two. When you link the issues you are limiting yourself to two options, if you want to answer honestly. Who would you kill, if you had no other choice but to kill?

a fetus
a murderer

The reason for only two options is the question of value. So would you kill a fetus or a murderer? Then you can answer what has greater value to society.

Answer 3

Abortion is a woman's right-to -ife issue and I will tell you why.

Abortion has been around for ages and even if a law was passed to end abortions, they would still continue because women will never lose the knowledge that they have of abortions. The difference is that they will have to have back alley, coat hanger abortions that will kill them or maim them and I am not going to put a woman (a viable human life) in danger because of someones moral agenda.

If you are truly pro-life, how can you justify putting women's lives in danger? You all talk about actions and consequences...how about the consequence of women dying from the illegal abortions they would be forced to get if abortion is illegal?

Answer 4

The difference is easily detectable. A person lacking the ability to discern this difference might have vision problems.

We, the American family should help people that need eye care.


Go big Red Go

Answer 5

I totally help Capital Punishment for the most heinous of crimes. even regardless of the reality that i in my opinion do not accept as true with abortions, I *do no longer* believe the authorities has right to inform females what to do with their body.

Answer 6

Well, the reality is that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Some may argue that by killing someone your example is that killing is OK if you think someone deserves it. Me being a pretty vengeful guy myself, understand why some get angry enough to kill. They say its for "justice". I know its for vengeance. If someone raped and/or killed my loved one, I'd want to see them dead. Its a human trait to want revenge. Does that make it right? I don't know.

Answer 7

They really aren't one in the same. Making bad comparisons is how liberals justify their agendas.
They also think that accidental killing civilians in a war zone is the same as flying planes into civilian targets.

Answer 8

Murder is (or should be) murder in the eyes of pro-lifers. Either way, a life is being taken. What gives is the fact that this is a double standard.

Answer 9

Because life is life....no exceptions.
If you're going to condemn abortion on the categorical grounds that all human life is sacred, even at embryonic stages, then you should have major problems not only with murder and terrorism but also with state-sanctioned capital punishment, torture, and war. Killing is killing. Thou shalt not kill. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Answer 10

Another frequent hypocrisy is found in those who are against abortion, but are also against programs to help that child if they are born into poverty. What can we do?