How exactly is being pro-capital punishment consistent with being pro-life?

[kaz]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty, but this is a stupid argument.

Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. Explain the conflict in that

Hi kaz
Whether we see each other's line in the sand as consistent or not,
the point is that our views of life and who has or has not the authority to terminate life
constitute political BELIEFS.

And if the laws favor some beliefs over others,
that is technically establishing or endorsing beliefs of one group over others.

We cannot help that we have our own beliefs,
but if we are to have a consistent govt that does not "establish religion by political pressure or majority"
then we do need to talk out these issues, and decide what we AGREE on should be public policy
where we aren't discriminating against the beliefs of people who disagree.

As long as we AGREE where to draw the lines in the sand,
then govt has authority to reflect the will of the people, just not one religious bias over another (unless people consent to that).

I have no idea what point you just made.

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

And the same can be said of "prochoice" people who only apply this to abortion,
but curiously swing "antichoice" when it comes to health care mandates
that penalize the freedom to choose to pay and provide for health care
in ways that are not crimes, but just not recognized as exemptions by federal govt.

True dat

 

[emilynghiem]

A child in the womb is as innocent as it gets.

A murderer, on the other hand...

I can see where the pro-death penalty people are coming from, even if I don't personally agree with them. I can see where the anti-abortion people are coming from and do agree with them. I can't really see how someone could take the label of "pro-life" because they oppose abortion but then turn around and support killing an offender despite the label they claim.

The phrase "due process" is not in your world, is it? I am pro-liberty, but I support putting criminals in prison. Do you seriously not get why that is not a contradiction?

Thank you kaz very good point

In fact, the issue in Roe v. Wade was based on "substantive due process" and more about the effect of the laws on the woman and her privacy (if the defense was required to prove mitigating circumstances as in criminal cases of murder).
It was not really addressing the issue of life of the child, but found flaws in the defense of "due process" that were too problematic to enforce laws that affect the woman disproportionately.

What I think Pedro is focusing on is the objective end point:

Do we believe or not believe that govt and/or humans have justification for terminating
life, and if so, under what circumstances? And some people say no to ALL circumstances,
and others say in the case of self-defense or in taking a life for a life, or if you follow civil laws and authority
then it is permissible.

So yes, all these cases are different.
And yes, there are some people who will say no human or govt should be able to terminate life by our choosing,
and they believe in "some other alternative" to achieve the goal of justice or to resolve the issue
that termination would otherwise be used to address.

 

[daws101]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty, but this is a stupid argument.

Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. Explain the conflict in that

Hi kaz
Whether we see each other's line in the sand as consistent or not,
the point is that our views of life and who has or has not the authority to terminate life
constitute political BELIEFS.

And if the laws favor some beliefs over others,
that is technically establishing or endorsing beliefs of one group over others.

We cannot help that we have our own beliefs,
but if we are to have a consistent govt that does not "establish religion by political pressure or majority"
then we do need to talk out these issues, and decide what we AGREE on should be public policy
where we aren't discriminating against the beliefs of people who disagree.

As long as we AGREE where to draw the lines in the sand,
then govt has authority to reflect the will of the people, just not one religious bias over another (unless people consent to that).

I have no idea what point you just made.

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

And the same can be said of "prochoice" people who only apply this to abortion,
but curiously swing "antichoice" when it comes to health care mandates
that penalize the freedom to choose to pay and provide for health care
in ways that are not crimes, but just not recognized as exemptions by federal govt.

True dat

neither does she.....

 

[daws101]

A child in the womb is as innocent as it gets.

A murderer, on the other hand...

But the catholic church doesn't consider it innocent once its born.

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

And the same can be said of "prochoice" people who only apply this to abortion,
but curiously swing "antichoice" when it comes to health care mandates
that penalize the freedom to choose to pay and provide for health care
in ways that are not crimes, but just not recognized as exemptions by federal govt.

Why do you always try to derail every damn thread? Not everything is about the ACA.

The two are not related to each other in any way.

Really, this is just plain weird and more than a little creepy.

Maybe to you Luddly Neddite
but to the credit of Catholics who strive for a consistent prolife policy,
they are against war, abortion, euthanisia, death penalty, anything
that demeans the idea that life is sacred and natural and taking it away is unnatural.

Your answer is not related to my comment.

 

[emilynghiem]

But the catholic church doesn't consider it innocent once its born.

1. yes, the issue of value of life is not determined by innocence or guilt
but life is seen as having a positive spiritual value and purpose UNCONDITIONALLY

Exactly, this is a religious value that does not judge people's value based on what you do right or wrong,
but the value of life and ability to correct whatever is wrong without having to take life unnaturally.

Why do you always try to derail every damn thread? Not everything is about the ACA.

2. The ACA provides proof that liberals are biased in pushing BELIEFS through govt and are
NOT about "separating church and state" since they are willing to establish their own beliefs by law over the beliefs of others. So this ACA now negates any liberal arguments for prochoice as defending "freedom of choice"
but show it is agenda-driven, ie only defending prochoice depending if the choices follow liberal agenda or not.

Now all arguments concerning "political beliefs" can be compared against ACA as the standard for what
liberals showed they are "willing to compromise" by pushing their beliefs through govt against the "free choice" of others.

3.

Your answer is not related to my comment.

Sorry Luddly Neddite please explain what you think is "weird and creepy" then,
if my comment did not explain how the "two are related." Thanks!

 

[Kondor3]

A child in the womb is as innocent as it gets.

A murderer, on the other hand...

Yes.

That.

No further explanation is necessary, regarding how so many folks can be "for" one and "against" the other.

Not exactly rocket science.

 

[emilynghiem]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty, but this is a stupid argument.

Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. Explain the conflict in that

Hi kaz
Whether we see each other's line in the sand as consistent or not,
the point is that our views of life and who has or has not the authority to terminate life
constitute political BELIEFS.

And if the laws favor some beliefs over others,
that is technically establishing or endorsing beliefs of one group over others.

We cannot help that we have our own beliefs,
but if we are to have a consistent govt that does not "establish religion by political pressure or majority"
then we do need to talk out these issues, and decide what we AGREE on should be public policy
where we aren't discriminating against the beliefs of people who disagree.

As long as we AGREE where to draw the lines in the sand,
then govt has authority to reflect the will of the people, just not one religious bias over another (unless people consent to that).

I have no idea what point you just made.

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

And the same can be said of "prochoice" people who only apply this to abortion,
but curiously swing "antichoice" when it comes to health care mandates
that penalize the freedom to choose to pay and provide for health care
in ways that are not crimes, but just not recognized as exemptions by federal govt.

True dat

neither does she.....

Dear daws101 and kaz
How can I explain this more clearly:

Whether or not we agree what policies on life, death or termination are consistent or not,
all these views constitute political BELIEFS,
because they involve matters of terminating LIFE which is a spiritual issue.

We don't have to be the same or consistent with each other to
defend our BELIEFS.

These all become issues of religious freedom or "separation of church and state."

So what Pedro is saying is the only viewpoint that is consistent across the board
in ALL cases of termination is the prolife stance that says NO to all cases, and doesn't recognize ANY such choice or decision to terminate life unnaturally at the hands of man.

So if you define THAT standard to be 100% prolife,
then all the other views that justify unnatural termination in one case or another
are less than 100%.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm pro choice. Back in my restaurant days I knew a couple of girls who got knock up asked for my help in getting an abortion. The Pro-life in me offered to adopt their babies but, I also offered to take them to take them to the clinic if that is what they so choose. Both girls carried the babies full term and kept them to raise.

I'm pro-death penalty. But as in the case of Carla Tucker, I found it to be cruel and unusual. I supported the sentence because of the overwhelming evidence against her and the cruelness of the murder she committed. However allowing a person to languish on death row for nearly two decades and then killing them is wrong,imo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But the catholic church doesn't consider it innocent once its born.

1. yes, the issue of value of life is not determined by innocence or guilt
but life is seen as having a positive spiritual value and purpose UNCONDITIONALLY

Exactly, this is a religious value that does not judge people's value based on what you do right or wrong,
but the value of life and ability to correct whatever is wrong without having to take life unnaturally.

Why do you always try to derail every damn thread? Not everything is about the ACA.

2. The ACA provides proof that liberals are biased in pushing BELIEFS through govt and are
NOT about "separating church and state" since they are willing to establish their own beliefs by law over the beliefs of others. So this ACA now negates any liberal arguments for prochoice as defending "freedom of choice"
but show it is agenda-driven, ie only defending prochoice depending if the choices follow liberal agenda or not.

Now all arguments concerning "political beliefs" can be compared against ACA as the standard for what
liberals showed they are "willing to compromise" by pushing their beliefs through govt against the "free choice" of others.

3.

Your answer is not related to my comment.

Sorry Luddly Neddite please explain what you think is "weird and creepy" then,
if my comment did not explain how the "two are related." Thanks!

Well, THAT was certainly sweeping, generalized, and hubristic.

In future, please speak for yourself.

 

[chikenwing]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty, but this is a stupid argument.

Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. Explain the conflict in that

Well the huge conflict,is your statement about protecting the innocent,yet are willing to abort said innocent.
That an 8k pound gorilla you have there.

 

[Freewill]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

How is being anti-death penalty consistent with pro-abortion? The inconsistantcy is that in the DP the guilty party is being executed, in abortion the most innocent of society is being murdered (murdered in that they are innocent of no crime)

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

It isn't.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A child in the womb is as innocent as it gets.

A murderer, on the other hand...

I can see where the pro-death penalty people are coming from, even if I don't personally agree with them. I can see where the anti-abortion people are coming from and do agree with them. I can't really see how someone could take the label of "pro-life" because they oppose abortion but then turn around and support killing an offender despite the label they claim.

It takes prayer and personal revelation to see that choosing life in every situation is always the better and more moral option. I used to be a fierce advocate of capital punishment, but then was slowly convinced by the time tested wisdom of the holy Catholic Church that, living in the Covenant of Grace, we ought to extend mercy in this life and allow God to render final judgment. If I can be brought to see the error of capital punishment, there's hope for everyone else.

 

[Edgetho]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

Dewd, you work in stupidity like Rembrandt worked in oils.

Criminals are sentenced to death in this Country for committing a grievous, aggravated murder(s)

What did the baby do wrong that it deserves to die?

moron

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

Dewd, you work in stupidity like Rembrandt worked in oils.

Criminals are sentenced to death in this Country for committing a grievous, aggravated murder(s)

What did the baby do wrong that it deserves to die?

moron

This argument continually misses the point. Nobody's claiming that vicious murderers don't deserve to die and when they do, no wrong has been committed. We're arguing that if we have a choice, we ought always to err on the side of life and allow a righteous God to tender final judgment.

 

[kaz]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty, but this is a stupid argument.

Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. Explain the conflict in that

Well the huge conflict,is your statement about protecting the innocent,yet are willing to abort said innocent.
That an 8k pound gorilla you have there.

Try reading what I said again because you whiffed on it the first time

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

This argument continually misses the point. Nobody's claiming that vicious murderers don't deserve to die and when they do, no wrong has been committed. We're arguing that if we have a choice, we ought always to err on the side of life and allow a righteous God to tender final judgment.

It's not even really religious though. In the case of a murderer, at least one life has already been lost. The murderer is no longer much of a threat if they've already been caught and found guilty. Why should another life be taken when that threat has been neutralized non-violently? What gives us the right to kill someone who's already locked up under high security? "Justice?" There's no justice in that. None of the lives they took will stop being dead if we kill them. It would just be pointless, petty retribution at that point. If they can mentally handle freedom, then they need to be reformed through the penitentiary system. That's what it was always actually for anyway. If not, then keep them penned up somewhere they can be kept under close supervision and allow them to work for the benefit of society and their own well being from there. That we don't do this and treat prison as an industry and punishment rather than a place to work on your own reform is exactly why the Scandinavian system outpaces our own.

 

[Conservative65]

The sheer number of other "pro-life" people who are totally cool with killing people for committing a crime is probably second only to the religiosity of the organized pro-life movement in reasons I try to dissociate myself with it. How can someone justify using this label if they're okay with killing? It kind of seems like trying to say you're a vegan Jew who just happens to reserve and use the right to eat bacon.

It seems someone stupid as you doesn't know the difference between killing and punishment. That they both involve someone dying doesn't make them the same. Killings is what the one being punished with death gets because he killed. That you don't understand that either means you don't want to or you are simply to damn stupid to be able to.

 

[Conservative65]

This argument continually misses the point. Nobody's claiming that vicious murderers don't deserve to die and when they do, no wrong has been committed. We're arguing that if we have a choice, we ought always to err on the side of life and allow a righteous God to tender final judgment.

It's not even really religious though. In the case of a murderer, at least one life has already been lost. The murderer is no longer much of a threat if they've already been caught and found guilty. Why should another life be taken when that threat has been neutralized non-violently? What gives us the right to kill someone who's already locked up under high security? "Justice?" There's no justice in that. None of the lives they took will stop being dead if we kill them. It would just be pointless, petty retribution at that point. If they can mentally handle freedom, then they need to be reformed through the penitentiary system. That's what it was always actually for anyway. If not, then keep them penned up somewhere they can be kept under close supervision and allow them to work for the benefit of society and their own well being from there. That we don't do this and treat prison as an industry and punishment rather than a place to work on your own reform is exactly why the Scandinavian system outpaces our own.

In the case of the one that was murdered, they were innocent. The murderer isn't.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

[It seems someone stupid as you doesn't know the difference between killing and punishment. That they both involve someone dying doesn't make them the same. Killings is what the one being punished with death gets because he killed. That you don't understand that either means you don't want to or you are simply to damn stupid to be able to.

Killing is taking a life. Murder is taking a life without appropriate cause. Punishment is a penalty levied on an offender for breaking the law. Murder is always killing. Killing isn't always murder. I used the neutral term.

In the case of the one that was murdered, they were innocent. The murderer isn't.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.

And it's our right to decide who lives and who dies? How does that make us any better than the pro-abortion crowd? At least they're admitting that they believe themselves the final arbiters of whether someone is worthy not to be killed. Yes, the murderer is guilty. Yes, the murderer should be punished. Society and justice would be better served with a punishment that doesn't remove yet another life from society and allows the the chance of reforming the guilty into a healthy, productive member of society once again. That was what the penitentiary system was for: penitence. The victims aren't coming back. They don't even exist anymore. Killing the guilty won't allow any reform or penitence because they won't either.