I think one of them all of us should care about, seeing as though we all pay to house prisoners. The other one is none of our business. I have never thought that there should be legislation on abortion except for the health aspect. I honestly don't think its OK to kill some but not others. I actually think its rather hypocritical. How do you know for sure that the man sitting on death row is not innocent of the crime they are accused of? None of us can know for sure. My point is we are losing rights left and right and we as Americans need to worry more about that rather then whether or not some young women who isn't ready to be a mother aborts her undeveloped fetus. It may sound harsh but in the long run they could be doing that baby and the world a favor. Because if she cant care for it could grow up in poverty and resort to a life of crime and then we will be putting them on death row. Besides its not like the world doesn't have 6 billion and growing human population problem.
2007-07-02 04:27:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by MJMGrand 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
People called me to support this legislation and I wouldn't do it- it was just going too far. I never was ok with this - it was like drawing the line in the sand.
Things are not as they seem - it isn't all about what they say it is - it's something else. Honestly I don't know the true motives and neither do you.
Personally, I think it's a coverup - I think they are spending so much time focusing on 1-2 issues that they can get away with murder elsewhere.
I don't know - only God knows.
as far as the death penalty - God says "He that kills with the sword, must be killed with the sword" you can take that one up with God. Honestly I see where there is a Scriptural view to support the death penalty but also against abortion - it isn't the same. I used to not think that, but I've read enough to where I think that. I personally am opposed to this practice, we've become a bloodthirsty culture - it just plays into that.
honestly a person can take what they want to say and find a Bible passage to back it up or whatever. They take everything out of context.
2007-07-02 03:53:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by art_flood 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
So your comparing an unborn child to a convicted felon? How about the thousands of people that are on a waiting list to adopt? Many people would be interested in having that baby, not the criminal. Why would a female choose to abort a life, rather than give it up for adoption? Wait a minute, i know why,..it's because woman would rather kill something than end up with a stretch mark. There is no excuse for abortion, with all the advances in medical technology such as the morning after pill, even rape induced pregnancy is not an excuse, however the criminal that accidentally killed innocent lives while retaliating during a drive-by shooting should be executed.
2007-07-02 03:57:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have answred this type of question before
I'm 100% behind a womans ability to make medical choices herself. BUT if and I do mean a BIG IF we some how decided that women can not make their own choices when it comes to reproduction I would only agree to it under the following terms:
The government will recognize the fetus as a living member of society. They will become citizens also granting the status of a person eligible for a social security card and allowing the parents of said person to become equally eligible for any and all claims given to parents of dependents who have been born
A national Pro-life list shall be rendered. That list will henceforth be responsible for the housing, health, emotional, and educational care of all unwanted children ( thousands will end up in state run facilities. Just as Pro-lifers balk and paying for abortion I balk at being forced to pay for thousands of children who would not have been born if women were able to make a choice on their own and NO you pro lifers you don’t get a pass you want to abolish it YOU pay for it) The individuals who are on that list will be the sole economic support for children who land in state run facilities. If for any reason the monies collected from said list do not maintain the masses of children born the abortion act will become retroactive once again allowing women to again maintain their right to decide for themselves what is and isn’t best...and the topic will never become a national debate EVER again.
2007-07-02 04:07:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by phule_poet 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Our "values" in this country are so screwed up, sometimes I wonder what it will take to unscrew what has happened to the USA. I consider myself a believer (Christian), yet it makes no sense to me how a lot of so-called right-wing Republicans can justify some forms of murder over others. Also, it's interesting how people want to criminalize abortion yet could care tow licks about what happens to that girl or her baby after the child is born. It's sad how we "value"denying same sex couples to love one another lawfully yet more than 50% of all couples who are married get divorced. Seems to me like the traditional family structure is pretty broken, yet some choose to blame it on gay marriage when gay marriage isn't even legal. It's just ridiculous. It's sad that some people care more about how they look when they go to church than how we tackle the issues of poverty around the world. It's sad that some "Christians" drive big fat SUVs and could care less about global warming and actually think it's positive that big oil companies are incentivized for polluting. There are many things that are really sad. Too many Christians have been taken under the wing of misinformed, hate-mongering buffoons...it's time to start a movement to take back what Christian values are....not what a few nutjobs perceive them to be.
2007-07-02 03:54:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
We DO NOT play God when enforcing the death penalty. God Himself, the One who said "Thou shalt not kill," prescribed a penalty for those who did. "If any man taketh the life of another man, then by man shall his life be taken."
-- Exodus 21:12
The death penalty serves several legitimate interests for society. The biggest one is justice for the families of the victims of crime, deterrence is another interest, and it also relieves the taxpayers of the burden of feeding, clothing, and sheltering criminals for the rest of their lives (not to mention providing free health care, free GED and college courses, free Internet access, and free cable -- things many law-abiding citizens don't have).
Abortion is a much different situation because you're talking about murdering an innocent, defenseless, unborn child in the name of convenience. I can hear you saying "Yeah, but what about the victims of rape and incest?" While I agree that women in those unfortunate situations should not be forced to carry such a baby to term, the number of abortions on this basis is less than half a percent of all the abortions performed in this country. That means, on average, over 995 out of 1,000 abortions happen because the mother-to-be doesn't want the child.
So let's examine further: Should a woman be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want? In this day where birth control is widely available, the answer is yes. You do the deed, you assume the risks. If you're old enough and mature enough to have sex, then you're old enough and mature enough to take responsibility for your actions. That goes DOUBLE for the father of the child.
P.S.: If a female seeks an abortion from an untrustworthy source or tries the old coat hanger treatment, again, she assumes the risk. Don't want children? Don't want to worry about a back-alley abortion? There's a simple solution: Either take precautions or don't screw around.
2007-07-02 03:59:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Both abortion and the death penalty are wrong, and anyone who supports one and opposes the other is clinically stupid.
As far as Christianity goes if anyone thinks they can "love your enemy, and bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use who so that you may be the sons of your father in heaven; he causes his son to shine on the just and the unjust and his rain to fall on the righteous along with the wicked therefore be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" and then go execute someone or abort a human life then that person is also clinically stupid.
2007-07-02 03:57:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by billy d 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
all of you who pulled the innocent / guilty card are missing his point, the point isn't if they are guilty or innocent but what is different and wrong between taking one life and taking another he could've used many other examples besides the death penalty but thats usually the first one that pops into ones mind.
im pro-choice and for capital punishment too me. also for you religious people, the infant is not innocent, as he comes with "original sin" or did you forget that part?
2007-07-02 03:54:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by hades 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Since it has been shown that several people have been wrongfully imprisoned and executed, the 'innocent' argument doesn't really hold any water. I agree that gov't should stay out of these situations, as well as end of life situations.
2007-07-02 03:52:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by hichefheidi 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
We not only play God, we believe that we are better than him. Under "God's Law" we all are going to die. However, he didn't mean for us to invent ways to die. We decide who's good and who's bad. We totally ignore his precept of ' Love thy neighbor as you love thyself".We create machines and decrees to put people to death. We kill others in the name of "Freedom", nevertheless we are not even "Free" to choose our own destiny.We are giving permission to kill the people that disagree with us, and then we are chastised because we couldn't win a worthless, corporate war.
2007-07-02 03:54:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by cabron o 4
·
1⤊
0⤋