The Parties Platforms confuse me. They stand on opposite sides of the fence on Abortion and the Death Penalty?

Question

How can oneside say they are for life if in the next breath they can say Kill the murderer, where is the Christian belief in that one. And the other say Save the Guilty and Kill the Innocent.
If the fetus is not a person than why was Scott Peterson found guilty of two muders

Christians believe in turning the other cheek tought by Jesus
Its a jewish belief that says an eye for an eye
it is from the old testiment

Answer 1

an unborn child has committed no crime and a premeditated murder. i am against the death penalty and against abortion. but as long as you bring up christianity, the main one is obey the laws of the land. the fellow in ohio is being cahrged with two murders and i had ask the same question and i got the "well, if it is less than seven months it is not alive" answer. but a child can survive at 21 weeks, 5 months. it is an easy out for women who want sex and do not want to do the right thing and abstain or use protection.

Answer 2

The same way the other side can say the state has no right end the life of a convicted murderer, then in the next breath say that the killing of innocent unborn babies should be funded by the state.

On the right, the belief is that the innocent shouldn't be killed and the guilty should be. It's compatible with christianity, though more with the old testament than the all forgivey new.

On the left, the belief is that the right of a woman to control her own body overrides the theoretical right of the foetus (which may not be considered human at all) to live, while the right of the convicted murderer to live can't be restored if his conviction is overturned after he's been executed.

I'm not confused by these positions, but I can't agree with them either. I don't honestly think life is all that sacred, and I see nothing wrong with a woman deciding she just doesn't what a kid, and getting rid of it (heck, I'm not sure I'd object if it was post natal - just, like, try giving it up for adoption first), nor do I see anything wrong with disposing of those who have forfieted thier rights by committing the most heinous crimes not being alive anymore (at least the recidivism rate is low).

Answer 3

Politics - like life, is never a clear cut answer. What would say if a man brutally murdered your family? Would you not seek the death penalty? I know I would not want my tax dollars supporting this person for the rest of his life.
What if your sister was raped? Would you then say abortion is wrong? Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders because the fetus would have been able to survive outside the womb.
And then throw in the debate about sending young men to die in a foreign country.....
The politicians often choose the most popular belief at the time - religion aside.

Answer 4

The Democrats no longer care much if their candidates oppose capital punishment unfortunately. The Clintons support the death penalty, in fact when Bill Clinton appointed Janet Reno as Attorney General he praised her success in winning convictions in capital cases. He also took a break from his Presidential campaign while he was still Governor of AK to go back to AK to make sure an execution was done right (I think the person executed was considered to be mentally retarded if I remember right).

If you are interested in a political group that opposes both capital punishment and abortion, check out The Consistent Ethic organization and Democrats for Life (links below). Unfortunately there is no consistent ethic party, and I doubt Dems 4 Life will be able to change their party's thinking (but you never know).

http://www.yaktivist.com -- A place to discuss developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.

Answer 5

Your questions ask the very core of what the problems are here in America! We tout the death penalty that does not reduce crime rates nor does in reduce recidivism. It doesn't even provide for justice. Thousands of studies that have been done to show these facts to be true. As for abortion, we have women who want control over their bodies. Fine, but that is why when one is going to have a sexual encounter they use protection so that a future abortion isn't going to be necessary. Religion in America is a bit off these days. Everybody wants freedom, but they don't want the responsibility of consequences that happen with each and every decision we make.
As for the death penalty ... WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG? It's time to repeal the death penalty and force those that commit horrible crimes to face life in prison WITHOUT the possibility of parole.

Answer 6

This is politics, it's not supposed to make sense.

Personally, I believe killing a criminal is still killing & is unacceptable.

Abortion is far more troubling to me - I don't see it as clear cut. Aborting a viable fetus is also unacceptable. But what is a real person & what is just a fetus shaped collection of cells ?

"Aborting" a feterilized egg, with the "morning after" pill - fine go ahead. I have no problems with that.

Answer 7

You answered your own question. The "guilty" have committed a serious crime. The "innocent" have been slaughtered just because the mother doesn't want the responsibility. There is a huge difference between the two.

Answer 8

The fetus never did anything to deserve to die. Abortion is the worst kind of murder, because you are murdering a helpless victim. The death penalty is given to criminals.

Answer 9

Christian belief? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

Answer 10

www.politicalcompass.org