How Can One Be Simultaneously "Pro-Life" AND Pro-Death Penalty?

[MarcATL]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you understand the concept of punishment?

 

[tigerbob]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.

If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.

 

[uscitizen]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

and perhaps we should not leave out pro premptive invasions and war.

 

[tigerbob]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

and perhaps we should not leave out pro premptive invasions and war.

Indeed. It's all about the taking of life.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm opposed to the death penalty. Lock 'em up for ever... no problem. Kill 'em.. not so much.

 

[Ernie S.]

Please read:

So when you compare and contrast the two, you find that a “true” liberal believes that:

* There should be zero chance of any suffering for even the most heinous criminals while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no executions.
* There should be zero consideration of any suffering for babies in the womb while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no abortion restrictions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.

If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.

1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?

2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.

It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases

Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases

Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.

Well, then how about we limit the question to those proven and admitted guilty...would that be satisfactory?

 

[tigerbob]

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.

If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.

1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?

2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.

It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Not sure I follow that entirely, and I will read it again, but my initial view is that, yes, if science says the current time of viability is wrong then the law should take account of that.

What are the current term limits anyway? I've seen some people say 12 weeks, some 25. I'm assuming it varies by state.

 

[whitehall]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

I doubt if you could make an argument about "cognitive dissonance" but I propose another psychological disorder in your own argument. What about war and what about capital punishment, do they compare to hiring someone to kill your unborn child? Making the same inane arguments over and over again is akin to doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. It is the pop-definition of insanity.

 

[Si modo]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

Good question, Marc.

How about this, too? How can one be Pro-Choice and anti-death penalty (which I am)?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Apples & Oranges.

 

[Liability]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

Malcolm Ex-Lax is quite dull.

General opposition to abortion on demand is not at all inconsistent with support of a death penalty.

Opposition to abortion on demand constitutes a statement in support of innocent life.

Support of a death penalty is also a statement in support of innocent life, but a recognition that support of all life can be silly. Assuming a defendant gets honestly and justifiably convicted for a capital offense crime, and assuming that the mitigation in his favor is out-weighted by the justification for a capital sentence, then a death penalty doesn't speak to an innocent life.

Malcolm Ex-Lax remains lost.

 

[Granny]

Perhaps the reason some people are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time is the difference between one life never having been given a chance to succeed or fail and a life given the chance to succeed or fail but decided to fuck it all up and destroy many other lives in the process.

People are not perfect, judges, juries, prosecution and defense attorneys are not perfect - but those who put themselves in the position of being considered a suspect might not have been considered a suspect at all if they had kept their nose clean in the first place.

 

[MarcATL]

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases

Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.

Well, then how about we limit the question to those proven and admitted guilty...would that be satisfactory?

No...it would not.

 

[MarcATL]

Perhaps the reason some people are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time is the difference between one life never having been given a chance to succeed or fail and a life given the chance to succeed or fail but decided to fuck it all up and destroy many other lives in the process.

People are not perfect, judges, juries, prosecution and defense attorneys are not perfect - but those who put themselves in the position of being considered a suspect might not have been considered a suspect at all if they had kept their nose clean in the first place.

There are too many cases of mistaken identity where the innocent victim has spent years and even decades locked up behind bars enduring God knows what sort of unthinkable acts. Only to get a "Oops...we're sorry." from the guvment.

I smell more Far RW claptrap.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.

Is that too nuanced for you?

I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases

Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.

Well, then how about we limit the question to those proven and admitted guilty...would that be satisfactory?

Since rarely will a defendant plead guilty to First Degree Murder with Special Circumstances that would effectively end Capital Punishment.
While I admit a personal desire for retribution for those who commit such a crime, I find Capital Punishment to be a stupid way to met out punishment. The Cost to execute a prisoner today is enormous and far exceeds the cost to house the perp for decades in a maximum security prison.
Execution is the easy way out. Maximum security, no personal interatction with guards or other inmates, no contact visits by family or friends and only one hour a day of exercise. Spending each day alone with no TV, no radio, nothing to read seems to me a greater punishment than execution.