A Question for those opposed to Abortion but support the Death Penalty?

Question

Should the death penalty apply to a Woman who is or may be pregnant?

Say a Woman on Death Row has sex(lets say with a helpfull guard) the night before she is to Fry there is a chance she may have concieved.
For those who wish to protect the rights of the unborn is this enough of a risk to postpone the Execution till she has a Pregnacy test?

Answer 1

Sounds right to me. I vote for you for tin-foil-hat-kitty president.

Answer 2

I don't believe this situation could happen. Prisoners on death row tend to be sufficiently isolated and watched that the hypothetical guard could not get into her cell, let alone into her panties. But let's say it was possible. Or let's imagine she had the means to perform an artificial insemination, or even that, for some reason, she was granted a conjugal visit.

Under those unlikely circumstances, I think someone who opposes abortion would have to agree to a postponement of the execution until after the child was born in order to be consistent. I suspect they would protest strongly if the governor decided to pardon the prisoner in the meantime.

Remember that the death sentence is only used for really horrible crimes. Typically, a woman's horrible crime would involve killing her children or her husband, perhaps both. So she cannot be trusted to raise the child anyway, and waiting only until it is born, and presumably put up for adoption, would seem a reasonable solution.

Answer 3

Yes,

Even among Christians, The issue of Capital Punishment is debated.

Some Christians believe capital punishment is mandated, while others believe it is merely permitted. In contrast, there are Christians who feel it is biblically prohibited. Those who believe it is prohibited base their argument on an assumption the New Testament reverses the mandate of the Old Testament prophecy which deals with habitual criminals: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6). However, Romans 13:1-7 implies capital punishment is still permitted under the new covenant. Those who believe capital punishment is permitted but not necessarily required point to the fact that even the Old Testament contains examples of criminal acts that were not punished by death; Cain, Moses, and David all took another man's life, but were not put to death for the killings.

Even though the Bible permits capital punishment, it lays down strict guidelines to keep judgment from being unfair or excessive. Punishment must be commensurate with the crime (Exodus 21:23-25). It must be based on certainty of guilt (Deuteronomy 17:6). It must result from premeditated intent (Numbers 35:22-24). There must be due process; cities of refuge were provided to protect the accused until trial (Numbers 35). Fairness and justice must prevail regardless of wealth or reputation (Exodus 23:6,7). Restraint should be exercised in imposing the death penalty (Ezekiel 33:11).

Deuteronomy 19:21 is sometimes noted as Old Testament support for capital punishment: "Show no pity, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." But the context in which this statement appears deals with the treatment of proven false witnesses. Under Jewish law, the accusation of two or three witness was all that was needed to convict the accused. The defendant had to prove himself innocent. False witnesses would make a mockery of the system of justice. Once guilt was established, the punishment had to fit the crime, neither exceeding the injury done nor handing down some inconsequential punishment for a serious crime (Exodus 21:12-36, Leviticus 24:17-22).

Both the Old and New Testaments indicate that personal retaliation is not appropriate (Leviticus 19:18; Romans 12:19-13:7). Punishment should be the prerogative of the government/community, not of the individual. No matter how heinous the crime, retaliation just to settle a personal vendetta, is contrary to biblical principles. Proponents of capital punishment give three possible reasons to mandate the ultimate sentence: (1) deterrence of potential offenders who might be inclined to commit a major crime, (2) deterrence of a criminal who if free might repeat the same offense; an executed murderer could not murder again, (3) retribution or repayment to victims or society for losses sustained because of the crime.

CONCERNS:

One of the alternatives to capital punishment for a despicable crime such as murder is life imprisonment without parole. Life imprisonment without parole for these criminals ensures their future victims, if any, would not be innocent law-abiding citizens. However, the cost of such lifetime maintenance and the number of criminals needing incarceration are genuine concerns for a society that is already heavily taxed.

There is room in the church for honest differences of opinion concerning the use

Answer 4

Good question, i guess the legalities from the states perspective would revolve around how far into the pregnancy she is. But generally speaking i think even some pro choice people would find it a step too far in killing a pregnant woman regardless of her crime. Hold her execution until the child has been born.

Answer 5

I'm a proponent of being responsible in the first place, i.e. the guard should have use a rubber (no, really, for his own protection!!!) and if there is a chance of sex for the women in prison they should be on mandatory birth control.

As far as abortion is concerned, In my moral system it is wrong, but it should be a safe and legal option, socially however it should not be advocated as a form of birth control and other forms should be strongly advocated, distributed and used.

Answer 6

they're the two incorrect, however the unborn new child has no person to combat for him/her. a number of those criminals who have been caught lifeless to precise bypass via years of averting the dying penalty and are granted clemency. what share attorneys come to the help of the unborn new child?

Answer 7

That's a tough one. Personally, I'm Pro-Choice AND Pro-Life simultaniously (Yes, you can be both). I think it would depend, but if she's going to die anyway, wouldn't it be better for the mother and "child" to die together? How romantic...

And anyway, if a pregnant woman is going to concieve soon, but get's struck by lightning, isn't that the same thing? Who get's blamed then? God??

Answer 8

OMG, this is a serious question from the cat! this is ground breaking!!!

i will have to say that i think it is, it would probably be better to kill the baby than let it grow up in care.

Answer 9

Sounds about right.

Answer 10

Hell no, zap her and the guard.
Sex outside of wedlock is a sin.