can anyone explain to me these people?

Question

prolifers - can you explain to me prolifers who support the death penalty? usually one is indicative of the other. isn't all life precious? or is it only the life you see fit to allow to live?

prochoicers - can you explain to me prochoicers who feel who are against cruelty to animals? usually one is indicative of the other as well. understandably, you don't feel the life inside a woman is a human, but is it not still a life? i'm amazed at the lengths some people will go to save a cow from becoming a hamburger, but not show the same respect to a fetus.

second part of the question should read...
prochoicers - can you explain to me prochoicers who are against cruelty to animals?

mick, ahhh, so if i can make me a tasty piece of veal from a cow fetus that is not yet born, then that wouldn't be cruel, right?

apostle, not once they're born they're not. should we just wait until they're born to give them the death penalty?

yahweh's toaster, it may not be human, but it's definitely life. it's as much a life as any other living organism on this planet. doesn't it deserver the same rights as every other living organism?

ahmed, so if a man killed all my family except me, it would be fair for me to kill all of his family except for him, according to your action/reaction law.

Answer 1

I can explain the anti-abortionists (saying they are "pro-life" is the misconception) who support the death penalty. They are at least consistent. They want to protect innocent life, not guilty murderers. That they figure a human life starts at conception is their doctrine. It may be wrong, but it's not inconsistent.

The pro-choice people who are against CRUELTY to animals are also being consistent. The compassion they feel for a woman who needs to abort the fetus she is carrying is consistent with avoidance of cruelty generally. Until that fetus develops a nervous system and can suffer, it is not cruel to abort it.

People who are against killing of all animals, no matter the circumstances, are being completely unrealistic. A quick, clean kill of an animal which has been raised for food does not seem cruel to me. If we were to turn that animal loose in the wild, it would not survive. We bred them to be farm animals, and we are responsible for seeing that their lives are as comfortable as possible, and their death as painless as possible.

Answer 2

Veal is not made from fetal cows, it is made from young, nearly immobilized calves!
Yes, the difference for Pro Choice is whether the fetus is viable on its own or not. For some it is whether it is born or not. Animal cruelty against fetal animals is not a problem for Pro-Choicers, so your comparison there is wrong.
Pro-Lifers are for protection of Innocent Lives, so that comparison with the Death Penalty does not work either.
If you are really Pro-Life, you should be pouring your time and money into development of a 100% form of ovulation control. Abstinence has never worked, even in societies where the violation amongst certain groups has severe penalties. So if you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent conception. Sperm cannot fertilize a non-developed egg, so an ovulation holding medication that lacks problematic side effects is what you really are seeking. Then there is ONLY the debate on the impact for the health of the mother when she has already opted to conceive. Of course if you are so religiously conservative that you feel people should only have sex for procreation, this will still not work for you, but most Pro-Life people are just of the belief that the fetus is an independent life even as it is incapable of surviving outside of the mother. The option for the religious conservatives would be the development of artificial host-uteruses, which could receive the fetus if the mother was ill or endangered or disinterested in the completion of the pregnancy. These artifical uteruses would help bring all pregnancies to term as well as providing a means for women with Uterus scarring or fibroids to have their own children using the artificial womb. This is another place where those who truly oppose abortion could do great work. They should also devote their energy spent vilifying others to finding homes for children in the foster system and help for those who are considered unadoptable and ways to make foster homes safer and check foster parents more carefully and allow them to adopt if they want. More foster parents are needed - it seems strange the Pro Lifers want to save each fetus but do not mind losing children to bad foster homes and neglect and abuse. Innocent life should mean all innocent life, right?

Answer 3

for the prochoice side, its a difference of "being" more than life. until something is born, it has no "being" i also dont think that a non-cognizant cluster of cells and tissue should be given more rights that the born, sentient being that is the woman carrying it.

to me a fetus is nothing more than a potential for a human being until it is at a point of development in which it can survive outside of the womb. i base this on having a bit of experiences with miscarriage and fetal death, and i have found that attributing humanity to soemthing that has such a low rate of survival is not mentally healthy.
I also beleive that women are in control of their own bodies and if they wish to not be pregnant, then they should have that choice and that it is not my business what someone else chooses to do with their body.

to live this up with the cruelty to animals argument, I also feel i have a choice here. I choose not to give money to the factory farming industry, and I choose to treat my pets well. If i cant take care of my animals, i can give them to someone else to care for.

Answer 4

These issues are separate. Many people are rethinking their views on the death penalty on the basis of what they know about the way the system actually functions. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people.

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 5

"i'm amazed at the lengths some people will go to save a cow from becoming a hamburger, but not show the same respect to a fetus".

Why? A cow is a sentient being, something to which we have a moral obligation. A fertilized egg is not.

Even the most fervent anti-abortion people don't _really_ believe that a fertilized egg is a human being - they just pretend that they do because it enables them to continue to demonize others and feel like they're heroic. If they really believed it, they'd put pictures of fertilized eggs up on their billboards rather than photos of smiling babies.

Answer 6

S?ma, D?na, Danda, Bheda is a fashion of persuasion used via Hindu Kshatriyas.those are 4 of the seven innovations used via Kings to rule their Kingdoms. the different 3 being, Maya, Upeksha, Indrajala. it truly is a political technique to concepts-set a given mission. initiate with conciliation or tender persuasion (S?ma). If that doesn't help, grant money/cloth wealth (D?na). Use punishment or violence (Danda) to confirm the placement the place the previous 3 fail.If that still does not replace the status quo, use threat or reason dissension (Bheda). Use of illusions or deceit (M?ya), intentionally ignoring human beings (Upeksha), use of jugglery (Indraj?l?) additionally are reported to confirm any mission. Sama, dana, danda , bheda have been the political methodologies prescribed via the scriptures. each of the 4 have been to be pondered. the 1st became sama: political conciliation, humane; dana: a political sacrifice; danda : there's a combat , and if each little thing fails bheda: a guess that some thing undesirable might ensue if ideal steps are no longer taken to convey a pair of conciliation. interior the context of Mahabharata, finally it became desperate via the nicely-wishers of the Pandavas that the three beforehand approaches might desire to no longer be triumphant, nevertheless they tried their appropriate interior the pursuance of those guidelines. conflict surpassed off, and info of the conflict are given interior the Bhishmaparva, the Dronaparva, and the Karnaparva of the Mahabharata, ending with the Shantiparva the place, via mysterious maneuvers and divine interventions of countless types, the conflict became gained on the ingredient of the Pandavas. the supervisor of the Pandavas, Yudhishthira, became topped king.

Answer 7

My brother who is prolife and pro death penalty said this. God said Kill them for their sins, God says an eye for an eye , so i have the right to kill them , god says so. rolls eyes...i walked out of the room before he was done.
They think they are above the animal so they can hurt it, god gave them the right to as they are above it. I am prolife and prochoice. I believe it is murder but no one has the right to take that choice from me. I do not have the right to choose for another woman or family that is up to them.

Answer 8

I find that odd myself. But hey, people are strange.
I myself though, condemn all acts of violence.
I realize sometimes it's a must, such as killing a plant, fruit, or vegetables before it 'dies'. - And even the killing of animals for meat is a must for many. I'll never support, nor understand the killing of humans, no matter how 'young' or 'bad' though.
I just can't.

--Buddhist.

Answer 9

All life is precious. The greatest of all is the life God gives to man. The unborn child is innocent of any wrong doing and deserves the right to experience the life God has granted, to whatever extent that life may be. When the child comes of age he shares the responsibilities of life with others. He takes upon himself the rewards of his actions.

Answer 10

I don't find an embryo (read: under three months) to be life. It's on its way to life...but then again, so is every atom; every one is about to join up with something to be a part of life. Is splitting atoms unethical? At that point, the embryo is a clump of cells. Is removing cancer cells unethical? They're just as alive as that embryo.