How can Pro Lifers support the death penalty? Why the double standard?

Question

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

Answer 1

Most pro-lifers will throw the word "innocent" into the debate - the "innocent" unborn vs. the "not-innocent" criminal. I am pro-life, but in a much stricter sense than most of those calling themselves that. All human life is sacred. Why is the life of the unborn more important than "collateral damage"? Why is the life of an embryo more important than the life of a homeless veteran, a teenager with AIDS, or a poor person in New Orleans? It isn't. To think that God allows exceptions to the "Big 10" based on level of innocence is hypocritical.

As far as my "anti-abortion" stance, I believe that it is not the governments decision. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is through assistance, education, and alternatives, not criminalizing it.

Answer 2

It's a good question.

I believe in pro-life, however, my beliefs are NOT what everyone else believes and is not alwasy best for everyone else. If I were a politician I could not support Pro-Life because I am now forcing what I believe onto 300 Million people.

I believe in the Death Penalty. But this belief does not stem from religion, emotion or the like. It is the lack of an individual to respect the value of a human life, plain and simple. Once a murderer (1st degree) always a murderer. Just like once a rapist, always a rapist. Once a Pedo, always a Pedo. Simple.

As a Politician (and now), I would STRONLY support the death penalty because that is what is best for the citizens of America. Some man or Woman killed one or more people in cold blood and it would be completely irresponsible of me as a leader to let this person out of prison or to force the tax payer and the victims family pay for their likelyhood in prison.

Answer 3

I think you will find lots of people who oppose the death penalty and are pro life. Pope John Paul said that the death penalty is wrong in societies that have other ways to protect their citizens, as we do in the United States.

Many people, including some pro lifers, just don't know the hard facts about the death penalty. I think it is important to get these facts out.

Here are some of them-

It is not a deterrent- states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not. People who commit murder do not think they will be caught, let alone punished, that is, if they think at all.

The death penalty costs much more than life sentences. A great deal of the extra cost comes before conviction. There is an unmet need for more well funded victims’ assistance programs. (In my opinion, that is where we should spend the extra money.)

Life without parole is on the books in more and more states. It means what it says. It is no picnic to be locked up in a tiny cell for 23 of 24 hours a day.

Over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. In the overwhelming number of these cases, the evidence was not DNA. DNA is not a miracle cure for wrongful convictions. The exonerees had spent many years on death row before being found innocent. Speeding up the process would guarantee the execution of an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.

Death sentences can be very hard on victims’ families. The process takes a long time and they are forced to relive their ordeal over and over again, in courts and in the media. Some murder victims’ family members have said that although they support the death penalty in theory, they do not want to see it in the case of their murdered loved one because of how the process affects families like theirs. Life without parole is swift and sure and rarely results in appeals.

More and more people oppose the death penalty because they believe it is an ineffective way of keeping us safe. They are coming to this position for practical, rather than for moral reasons.

Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean you excuse or coddle criminals who commit brutal and depraved acts. They must be punished severely. But we need to use common sense based on the facts, not to focus on revenge which accomplishes nothing.

Answer 4

Though, I do not really have a problem with abortion, one could make the same argument for the converse.

If you do not have a problem with abortion, then how can you be against capital punishment?

The two really are different issues. People who support abortion, and are against the death penalty feel the fetus is not a human life so abortion is not murder; however, killing a person no matter what his crime is morally reprehensible.

People who are against abortion and pro capital punishment say that the unborn baby is innocent and has committed no crime and so deserves to live, while on the other hand, a person who has committed capital murder has committed a heinous crime and deserves to be meted out such a punishment.

Answer 5

Ah it isn't thou shall not kill it is thou shall not murder.

In a death penalty case there is a trail and crime and appeals before a death sentence.

Tell me what crime a fetus is guiltiy of.

You need to know the difference.

In that case the reverse should hold how can Pro-choice be against a death penalty?
It is legal like abortion.

Oh if want to throw in what about a mistake.

Like all women who have had abortion never ever regreted it.

Answer 6

Because innocent babies are not the same as murderers and rapist, And along with "thou shalt not kill" if one would do more research it also states "an eye for an eye." There is no double standard unless one is for abortion and not for the death penalty. It works both ways. I am for the death penalty and against abortion only when used as a form of birth control.

Answer 7

You'll find a lot of contradictions and hypocrasy in political opinions, you better get used to it.

I agree with you. Sure, some people deserve to die, but this is a decision governments should not be allowed to make. In the recent Moussoui trial, where death was a possibility, the prosecutor was caught 'cheating', trying to influence witnesses.

This is scary, how often does a prosecutor in a death penalty case 'cheat' and not get caught.

Answer 8

all and sundry seems on the dying penalty as a ethical concern, whilst specific, it is. besides the undeniable fact that, you ought to look on the economics in the back of it. sometimes its greater good cost to maintain somebody in penal complex than it is to truly kill them. some argue that its the cost of the poisons you ought to purchase, yet in actuality thats not the case, assorted it has to do with trials and being positioned on dying row. It would not fairly answer your question, yet optimistically will close up the human beings who say immediately that somebody merits to flat out die.

Answer 9

The big difference is that the unborn child is innocent of any crime.

The death penalty is applied to one who has been convicted of a heinous crime and has been through the appeals process.

Oh and NONAME the death penalty is legal.

Answer 10

First of all, many pro-lifers Like myself, are against the death penalty. In defense of my misguided brothers who support the death penalty, it is a little easier to see someone who has actually KILLED people pay for the consequences of his actions then it is to see a little baby pay the consequences for his Mom's actions...

The belief in both is not hypocrisy, and the argument that it is, is simply sheeple 'Baaaing' because they are afraid they won't be able to kill babies anymore.