Why do so many "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty (seems a little contradicting)?

Question

Either you are "Pro Life", or you are not. Maybe the slogan should be changed to "Pro Life Sometimes".

Read this first. Life in prison is cheaper, as far as taxes are concerned (look it up, its true). Fetuses are not babies, sorry but it this is true. Murder is murder, again this is true. Only god shall judge (I don't believe this, but I hear christians say it all the time), and not the state. What if the wrong person was convicted, happens all the time? What about the innocent children and families, of people sentenced to the death penalty (you care about the innocent so much)? Finally, how do we prove killing is wrong by killing?

Read Mr. Danger's response next. Here is a person capable of thinking and stating facts, not regurgitating flawed "beliefs".

Answer 1

George Bush believes in "the sanctity of life" and yet more prisoners died under his watch as governor of Texas than any other state. What a hypocrite!

Answer 2

ProLife for the deserving perhaps...look at it from another angle.

In the beginning, abortion was an alternative to be used to save the life of woman whose pregnancy would result in catastrophic disablility or death. A baby is an innocent living organism, and as such, has a right to give life a try, one can always allow someone else to adopt the baby, especially if the birth mother feels she cannot keep the baby for whatever reason, and many believe that abortion is being used as an over abused alternative to birth control which is readily available and cheap. Abortion is hard on a woman's body and not always performed correctly. A condom in combination with other birth control methods is far more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

On the other hand, a criminal sentenced to death for committing a senseless act of violence against another human being is not innocent, quite to the contrary. All a dog has to do to a human is bite them and we kill the dog.
It is a contradiction in term only, not in ethics. It isn't a crime to want to be born. But what a human being chooses to do with the life they are given is something else entirely. If one anti social human being decides that killing and raping and mutilating and torturing another human being or victim is something they choose to do, then they also choose the consequences of that/ those actions, in this case, the death penalty. One truth of the death penalty is that once it is carried out, you have an absolute guarantee that this murderer will not take the life of anyone else's loved ones, ever again.

Where are all the banner wavers, candle holders and prayer vigil keepers, who should be keeping watch outside the homes of the victim's families? The victims in abortion, as in murder cases are always forgotten. Convenient isn't it? And when it comes to abortion, convenience, more often as not, is what it is all about.

Answer 3

I am pro-life and do not support the death penalty. But even so, there's a big difference between an innocent baby, and a murderer. I think the real question should be, how can you be against killing murders, in a non-painful way, but for killing little babies.

* Of course it's a baby. Fetus simply mean offspring. It doesn't mean it's not a baby. After hearing and seeing my daughter's heartbeat in an ultrasound at 7 weeks, there was no doubt what I was looking at. My grandfather was an OB and said after seeing abortions performed there was no doubt what he was looking at either. He changed his opinion on the whole matter after that.

Answer 4

.In order to morally support the death penalty one must first believe in the legal infallibility of the State. The Founding Fathers sure didn't . When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights they intentionally incorporated legal roadblocks to prevent the People from being abused by the over zealous government, overly zealous religious groups and the power of the mob.
They fully understood that in the absence of legal safeguards the State could imprison and execute many an innocent person and subsequent history has proven that to be true.
When you read the responses of others the dividing line seems to be the innocence of the life in question .Apparently all fetuses are innocent and all people convicted of murder are guilty. We of course know that the State does execute innocent people.
The wrongful imprisonment and execution by the State raises a new question . To those who support the death penalty , what would be an acceptable percentage of innocent people to be put to death by the State and still allow you to support the death penalty ? One percent ? ten percent ? Give me a number -please.
The paradox of this whole thing is that the pro- lifers claim to be Conservative and yet one of the basic tenets of American Conservatism is a mistrust of the power of Big Government.
So a true Conservative would be against capital punishment because he doesn't trust his government enough to get it right all the time.

Answer 5

When life is cheap and materialistic, then unborn babies, babies just born, elderly folks and the infirm are expendable. Those who value human life want to spare those lives from pain and death. They also value human life so greatly that they believe a very strong punishment needs to be administered to anyone killing a life. If a life is so valuable then the punishment for killing that life has to be great. The death penalty is a deterrent and many a criminal won't kill because they don't want to die. They'll steal but they don't want the electric chair, the noose, the injection or guillotine. It is a deterrent. Give them a slap on the hand and killing will increase exponentially. Now as applied to Bush. Sad day in America when he became the Pres. He has plunged this country into unbelievable debt, for nothing.

Answer 6

I think you are being a little antagonistic and insincere; your "question" is really just a statement because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a strong belief in personal responsibility is the common thread in their foundation. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or use birth control. You don't have the right to use abortion as birth control and if you kill someone and are in your right mind, you bring your own execution upon yourself.
People making the most of themselves is what this nation is built upon. We can't have everyone looking for a copout or some kind of easy answer that doesn't cost them anything when dealing with the aftermath of their personal mistakes. The nation will go down the tubes if that becomes too much more widespread.

Answer 7

Pro lifers are fighting for the life of unborn children who are having their lives taken by the choice of someone else(these children make no choice). They are at the same time for the death penalty because these people had a choice and chose to take another persons life. And whether you like it or not-chioces do(or should) have consequences. The higher the consequence the greater deterrant to choose the wrong thing.

Answer 8

There is a big difference between abortion and the death penalty. The life of an innocent unborn child can barely be compared to that of a serial killer. Pro-life doesn't contradict with suffering the consequences of your acts. Just as smoking can cause lung cancer, taking the life of someone can result in having your own life taken. It amounts to a choice...a choice, though, that the unborn child DOESN'T have.

Answer 9

I agree that "Pro-life" is not the best term. Perhaps "Pro-choice", used another way, might be best.

Those younger than a few years old have no ability to choose, and are innocent of wrong-doing. They must be protected, and do not deserve to die for the choices of adults.

Criminals who have murdered, knowing the penalty is death, have CHOSEN to die. They knew the consequence, they did it anyway.

Is that STILL unclear?

I myself am pro-choice, but there should be consequences, such as not being allowed to have children, sterilization, etc.
I am also pro-death penalty, but only in the absence of forced slavery until they pay off their debt to the victims and the state.

Neither of these issues are as simple as you, or those on the other side like you (either side) would like to make them.

Answer 10

One reason for the disconnect is that people do not know the facts about the death penalty and the alternatives. People want to feel safe and react from fear as well as unrecognized urges for revenge. Here are some verifiable and sourced facts about the death penalty. I think it is very important to get the facts out and let common sense do the rest.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Many had already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person we are not likely to find that out and, also, the real criminal is still out there.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Appeals
Our appeals system is designed to make sure that the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: cost (Many people are mistaken about this.)
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not revenge.

Answer 11

Get this, I'm pro-choice and I'm against the death penalty.
Why?
Okay, I'll keep this simple - no facts, just observation:

Abortion-
A fetus is not a baby until it can survive without it's host (usually areound 6-7 months of gestation). Abortion is only legal in the first tri-mester, so it is not murder since the fetus is not viable life yet, making the woman solely responsbile for the choices she makes for herself and for the fetus, and women do have the right to choose. (Partial birth abortion would be unacceptable because the fetus could survive at that point without its mother). It's not punishment of the fetus - the fetus is not even a breathing, thinking being yet.

Death Penalty-
Sometimes people are wrongly convicted, and if they are correctly convicted, ending their life does not solve the problem, it does not deter other people from killing (after all, does a killer think rationally about the consequences of his or her actions?). The killer's family are the ones who truly are punsihed because they have lost a loved one in their innocence - so does taking a life for a life balance out? No because it doesn't bring the victim back. It would be much more of a punishment to make a killer live the rest of his or her natural life. I can't think of a better punishment then to make them live in their own miserable skin.

In Michigan, we have a "life without the possibility of parole", which clearly means that this person would no longer be a threat to the general population. And, their family doesn't have to be punished for the sins of their loved one.