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

[RadiomanATL]

I'm pro life and anti death penalty.

But it's not that hard to understand.

Pro saving innocent lives, pro killing parties guilty of heinous crimes.

Did you mean to say that you were "pro life" and pro death penalty?

IMO, letting the government decide is the ultimate big brother.

Seems to me like you didn't catch the middle sentence.

But it's not that hard to understand.

Meaning he is pro life and anti death penalty but he understands the concept of being pro life and pro death penalty.

Immie

Exactly.

I disagree with it, but it is not logically inconsistent as the OP suggests.

 

[Immanuel]

Did you mean to say that you were "pro life" and pro death penalty?

IMO, letting the government decide is the ultimate big brother.

Seems to me like you didn't catch the middle sentence.

But it's not that hard to understand.

Meaning he is pro life and anti death penalty but he understands the concept of being pro life and pro death penalty.

Immie

Okay, I "understand" it, too, but then again I don't think the government should decide matters of life and death.

Hmm, let me throw this wrench in your thinking. The government has decided matters of life and death in the case of abortion. In this case, they have stuck their nose in it and given the abortion industry carte blanche to kill. The only reason the pro-choice side is not angry at the government about that is that the government has decided in their favor at this point.

Immie

 

[Zona]

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? ....

From what I understand about pro life people its all about the sanctity of life! LIFE..

Not what crime the unwanted child does later in life.

From what YOU "understand" about ANYTHING, nothing useful can ever be derived.

The sanctity of life is real. The right to life can be subject to forfeiture under some circumstances. But on what basis can the sanctity of innocent life be forfeited?

Is the mere convenience of the mother a sufficient basis in a civilized society to justify snuffing out an innocent life?

Who raises those kids? Who? You? It is legal to have abortions here in the states. Try to stay on point and address those two little issues.

You guys love the fetus, hate the poor kids. If they are born from incest, or are handicapped or are just from a poor family and are minorities, WHO RAISES THEM?

Stay on point for just this post please.

 

[Zona]

Pro life, pro war and pro death penalty.

Wow. I thought LIFE was so precious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I hope you are right, but I'm not positive that you are.

Anything is possible, but the process, especially when the defense attorney is doing his job, is designed to reduce errors to as near zero as possib.e

Not at this moment.

Here is the hypothetical, if withheld evidence did get that far, would you consider it murder on behalf of a prosecutor?

Depends. Was it a deliberate act, intended to cause the death of the defendant?

Well, it is a hypothetical, but I was thinking yes, it was deliberate, but not necessarily to bring about the death of the defendant. More like to boost his conviction rate and win political points.

Then it isn't murder. It's not even manslaughter as the prosecutor has no control of the sentence. The prosecutor gets the conviction, after that things are pretty much out of his control.

In any event, what you suggest here only happens on TV.

Not yet? If that means you are in law school, good luck in finishing your schooling and completing the bar exam.

I said 'not at this moment' but thank you just the same.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pro life, pro war and pro death penalty.

Wow. I thought LIFE was so precious.

Life is precious. Stop thinking it and start treating it that way

 

[mudwhistle]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

It's a simple philosophy of defending the innocent and punishing criminals.

What's so hard to understand?

How do you rationalize murdering over 40 million unborn children yet fighting to save the lives of murderers?????

 

[Zona]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.

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.

The sanctity of like argument does not preclude removing the right to life, thru due process, of those who commit certain acts against others.

The height of the bar for such punishment derives from that sanctity - the punishment is not delivered w/o much deliberation and only withing a narrow set of conditions.

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

 

[Charles_Main]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

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.

No it's about the sanctity of Innocent life. Why is it so hard to understand that one can think it is wrong to kill innocent children in the womb, but it is not wrong to have the state administer a death penalty to someone convicted of a heinous crime.

I guess your problem is you think the only people who are not pro Abortion are the extreme religious right. You think wrong. I am not at all religious, and consider myself agnostic at best. Yet I find it morally repugnant for a woman to kill her unborn baby for trivial reasons.

I can accept abortion in cases cases(rape, incest, massive birth Defect, threat to the life of the mother, ETC), but the idea that 2 million babies are aborted each year. The vast majority of which are not aborted for extreme reasons but rather because someone was not careful and got pregnant and does not want to be Bothered with the consequences, Is disgusting to me.

As far as this thread goes. I think the better question is how could you be ok with the killing of innocent Babies in the womb, but not ok with ending the life of a heinous murderer. The very fact that some on the left think it does not make sense to not support abortion but be ok with the death penalty. Exposes a very warped logic if you ask me. In effect what they are saying is killing unborn babies is no different than killing convicted murders. What else can you call that, but twisted logic. An attempt to make a moral equivalence where there is none.

But then the left trying to make unfounded moral equivalence where there is none is nothing new. How many times have they told us that the US accidentally killing civilians, despite spending millions of dollars trying not to. Is no different than a terrorist strapping on some C4 and detonating it amongst as many civilians as he can.

 

[Ravi]

Seems to me like you didn't catch the middle sentence.

Meaning he is pro life and anti death penalty but he understands the concept of being pro life and pro death penalty.

Immie

Okay, I "understand" it, too, but then again I don't think the government should decide matters of life and death.

Hmm, let me throw this wrench in your thinking. The government has decided matters of life and death in the case of abortion. In this case, they have stuck their nose in it and given the abortion industry carte blanche to kill. The only reason the pro-choice side is not angry at the government about that is that the government has decided in their favor at this point.

Immie

Not forbidding something is not government control.

 

[MarcATL]

This is what we have so far.

The folks that are the furthest on the right are....

1. Quick to rush to war
2. Quick to punish a fellow citizen with death
3. Quick to force a woman to see her pregnancy to term
4. And still see themselves as somehow being "pro-life" all the while.

Interesting.

 

[Immanuel]

Okay, I "understand" it, too, but then again I don't think the government should decide matters of life and death.

Hmm, let me throw this wrench in your thinking. The government has decided matters of life and death in the case of abortion. In this case, they have stuck their nose in it and given the abortion industry carte blanche to kill. The only reason the pro-choice side is not angry at the government about that is that the government has decided in their favor at this point.

Immie

Not forbidding something is not government control.

No, it is government decision making and that was what you were talking about.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You stated and I quote:

Okay, I "understand" it, too, but then again I don't think the government should decide matters of life and death.

You said nothing at all in the post that I replied to about control.

Even though I think I know where you were going, my comment was based upon what you said... in fact, I think you have done the same thing to me on multiple occasions.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

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.

You stated and I quote:

Okay, I "understand" it, too, but then again I don't think the government should decide matters of life and death.

You said nothing at all in the post that I replied to about control.

Even though I think I know where you were going, my comment was based upon what you said... in fact, I think you have done the same thing to me on multiple occasions.

Immie

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

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Unlike you being a FL Wingnut, I am not for Right nor far left. Get your head out of your derriere.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You stated and I quote:

Okay, I "understand" it, too, but then again I don't think the government should decide matters of life and death.

You said nothing at all in the post that I replied to about control.

Even though I think I know where you were going, my comment was based upon what you said... in fact, I think you have done the same thing to me on multiple occasions.

Immie

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

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

Immie

 

[Ravi]

You stated and I quote:

You said nothing at all in the post that I replied to about control.

Even though I think I know where you were going, my comment was based upon what you said... in fact, I think you have done the same thing to me on multiple occasions.

Immie

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).