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

[Immanuel]

Decide...control...amounts to the same thing.

Do you deny having played those kind of word games with me in the past?

Immie

I don't play games...sometimes I misinterpret what people say, but not on purpose (and only rarely in the case of trolls).

That's right. I am a troll.

I suspect I am one of the few that is actually honest about who they are but I am a troll.

Immie

 

[xsited1]

Decide...control...amounts to the same thing.

Do you deny having played those kind of word games with me in the past?

Immie

I don't play games...sometimes I misinterpret what people say, but not on purpose (and only rarely in the case of trolls).

 

[Ravi]

Do you deny having played those kind of word games with me in the past?

Immie

I don't play games...sometimes I misinterpret what people say, but not on purpose (and only rarely in the case of trolls).

That's right. I am a troll.

I suspect I am one of the few that is actually honest about who they are but I am a troll.

Immie

I wasn't calling you a troll.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

In the case of the court finding one guilty, the guilty person has a chance at waging a defense. An unborn child doesn't have any defense.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't play games...sometimes I misinterpret what people say, but not on purpose (and only rarely in the case of trolls).

That's right. I am a troll.

I suspect I am one of the few that is actually honest about who they are but I am a troll.

Immie

I wasn't calling you a troll.

Then I misinterpreted your

(and only rarely in the case of trolls)

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

How many convictions were there in relation to exonerations. 267 exonerations out of how many thousands of convictions? Our judicial system isn't perfect but it is the best on the world.

 

[peach174]

I never have understood the logic in this.
It's Ok to kill an inocent baby who has done nothing wrong, but it's not Ok to kill someon who has killed?

 

[Si modo]

I nver have understood the logic in this.
It's Ok to kill an inocent baby who has done nothing wrong, but it's not Ok to kill someon who has killed?

I'm Pro-Choice but I don't agree with killing babies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I nver have understood the logic in this.
It's Ok to kill an inocent baby who has done nothing wrong, but it's not Ok to kill someon who has killed?

I'm Pro-Choice but I don't agree with killing babies.

So you don't view abortions as killing babies?

 

[Si modo]

I nver have understood the logic in this.
It's Ok to kill an inocent baby who has done nothing wrong, but it's not Ok to kill someon who has killed?

I'm Pro-Choice but I don't agree with killing babies.

So you don't view abortions as killing babies?

Nope.

 

[driveby]

I may be wrong, but i don't think a fetus has ever committed a felony.
Now, how can one be simultaneously pro abortion and anti death penalty? ....

but I thought it was all about the santity of LIFE. .. If that is true, no matter what a person does (and if he is a murderer, I wonder if his mother wanted to have him?) he has the right to live. Because more than anything, its all about LIFE...not the crime he did when he grew up.

Now, how can one be simultaneously pro abortion and anti death penalty?

 

[Stephanie]

I can't believe anyone WOULD TRY AND COMPARE these two.

the death Penalty is for A ADULT who committed a crime against another

pro-life is not wanting to see a CRIME be committed against an INNOCENT CHILD who hasn't even been giving a chance to live let alone commit a crime.

 

[Liability]

To put the stupid ignorant OP question into a more coherent perspective, I must again ask the question (slightly rephrased):

"How Can One Be Simultaneously Anti-Life-of-the-preborn-child AND Anti-Death Penalty?"

 

[Misty]

A baby is innocent and should not be killed

a murderer, if proven guilty, should be punished. If the sentence is death then they should be executed.

If you don't want to be executed don't be a murderer.

If you don't want to be aborted, well you better hope you have a decent mother, because it isn't your choice it's hers.

Which of course would then make her a murderer and therefore she should be executed preventing anymore unwanted babies.

It's the cycle of death. How poetic.

 

[Imma B Me]

I have noticed many posters attempt to redefine the death penalty in this thread to justify an inconsistent position. The Op's question is very direct and clear, How Can One Be Simultaneously "Pro-Life" AND Pro-Death Penalty? No mention of "if the death penalty was perfect", only THE death penalty.

The death penalty we have, not the one we want, has in fact lead to the murder of innocent people. So how can one be simultaneously against the murder of some innocent life while being ok with the murder of other innocent life?

 

[Liability]

I have noticed many posters attempt to redefine the death penalty in this thread to justify an inconsistent position. The Op's question is very direct and clear, How Can One Be Simultaneously "Pro-Life" AND Pro-Death Penalty? No mention of "if the death penalty was perfect", only THE death penalty.

The death penalty we have, not the one we want, has in fact lead to the murder of innocent people. So how can one be simultaneously against the murder of some innocent life while being ok with the murder of other innocent life?

By that silly "standard," the better question REMAINS:

How can anybody be AGAINST the death penalty (on the ground that it's wrong to snuff out a human life) and yet PRO-Abortion-on-Demand-for-mere-convenience "rights?"

The Answer to YOUR umpteenth reiteration of the same question remains unchanged:

The DISTINCTION is that one can oppose abortion upon the ground that it snuffs out innocent life yet accept a death penalty for those who are not innocent, but who are instead found guilty of fucking murder, etc.

The above use of very subtle highlighting is intended to help get you past your self-imposed "confusion."

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrats are simply not bright


I guess that is why the labor of the working class has to fund their healthcare, retirement, kitchen, Mortagages, education and of course killing thier unwanted babies.

 

[rdean]

Sorry, Immie, but that is probably the silliest argument I've ever seen you make. "Allowing" women and their doctors to decide for themselves is in no way, shape, or form government interference.

Indeed. Further evidence of the Far RW wingnuts willingness to make ish up as they go along.

Redefining words are par for the course for these types.

That's because they learn words as part of an "oral tradition". It's why they don't need "books". Not even they can "refudiate" these words.