When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[yiostheoy]

Abortion is fundamentally driven by modern promiscuity and irresponsible sex habits of teens, unwed mothers, liberated single party girls, and their frat boy associates.

Abortion is governed by bad SCOTUS law which mandates all states to follow a permissive standard of law.

In accordance with a literal reading of the U.S. Constitution abortion is relegated to the States to decide what limitations and procedures they want to follow in their states.

The foolish b!tch who was Roe in Roe V. Wade recently died. It would have been better for the U.S.A. had she never been born. She repudiated all the positions in her law suit that went to the SCOTUS and became an emotional fallacy argument that the Burger Court swallowed in a moment of Judiciary activism.

A good reason for having an abortion is due to rape or incest (which is also rape), or an abnormally deformed fetus.

In the case of a stupid teenager I would favor abortion too, since the single mother status is likely to destroy the child-mother's life, and also be detrimental to the baby as well.

I don't have a problem with infanticide for deformed babies either. There is essentially no difference. Better to start over. And then if it keeps happening get sterilized and then adopt instead.

That's the whole argument for and against abortion.

The people of any given state should be empowered to decide how they want to deal with abortion and to what extent they want to allow it and what regulations to put upon it.

What about the part of the Constitution that says "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws?

Does that not include persons (esp. children) with deformities?

You would need to dig up a definition of "persons" out of the U.S. Code to answer your own question, rather than pull something out of your wazoo.

 

[GoDemocratic]

....
You can't be pro-life and still support capital punishment.

Why not????

Because it's not pro-life. Pro-life means you have a consistent ethic of life. It's not arbritrary. Anything else is pro-some-life.

Then maybe it's pro-choice! You choose which lives can remain and which lives to end.

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion is fundamentally driven by modern promiscuity and irresponsible sex habits of teens, unwed mothers, liberated single party girls, and their frat boy associates.

Abortion is governed by bad SCOTUS law which mandates all states to follow a permissive standard of law.

In accordance with a literal reading of the U.S. Constitution abortion is relegated to the States to decide what limitations and procedures they want to follow in their states.

The foolish b!tch who was Roe in Roe V. Wade recently died. It would have been better for the U.S.A. had she never been born. She repudiated all the positions in her law suit that went to the SCOTUS and became an emotional fallacy argument that the Burger Court swallowed in a moment of Judiciary activism.

A good reason for having an abortion is due to rape or incest (which is also rape), or an abnormally deformed fetus.

In the case of a stupid teenager I would favor abortion too, since the single mother status is likely to destroy the child-mother's life, and also be detrimental to the baby as well.

I don't have a problem with infanticide for deformed babies either. There is essentially no difference. Better to start over. And then if it keeps happening get sterilized and then adopt instead.

That's the whole argument for and against abortion.

The people of any given state should be empowered to decide how they want to deal with abortion and to what extent they want to allow it and what regulations to put upon it.

What about the part of the Constitution that says "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws?

Does that not include persons (esp. children) with deformities?

You would need to dig up a definition of "persons" out of the U.S. Code to answer your own question, rather than pull something out of your wazoo.

1. Is the U.S. Code infallible?
2. How do you think the definitions in the U.S. Code get there?
3. What about THIS definition from the U.S. Code?

(d)
As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why not????

Because it's not pro-life. Pro-life means you have a consistent ethic of life. It's not arbritrary. Anything else is pro-some-life.

Then maybe it's pro-choice! You choose which lives can remain and which lives to end.

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

 

[GoDemocratic]

Because it's not pro-life. Pro-life means you have a consistent ethic of life. It's not arbritrary. Anything else is pro-some-life.

Then maybe it's pro-choice! You choose which lives can remain and which lives to end.

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

 

[Chuz Life]

Then maybe it's pro-choice! You choose which lives can remain and which lives to end.

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

Not when you factor in their behavior changes - following the removal of the "abortion is legal" safety net.

No.

And it won't be only the women's behavior that will change.

All the abusive men who (for now) use legalized abortion as their safety net and way out of 18 years of child support will likely change too.

 

[GoDemocratic]

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

Not when you factor in their behavior changes - following the removal of the "abortion is legal" safety net.

No.

In the heat of the moment, nothing works. If the GOP wants this, they have to formulate a plan for it. But you can forget it, because they are too busy moving money to the rich and wealthy in the opposite direction that no abortions would benefit. .

 

[keepitreal]

Is it pro-life or pro-some life?
Can you be pro-life if you oppose abortion and support the death penalty?
Can you be pro-life if you support the right to abortion and oppose the death penalty?

You can only be pro-life if you have a consistent ethic that respects the dignity of all life. But I'll narrow it down and say the dignity of all human life.

I admire this ethic. It's something to strive for. And it's something I admire the Catholic faith for.

The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position

Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Is it pro-life or pro-some life?
Can you be pro-life if you oppose abortion and support the death penalty

Abortion is a choice to avoid consequences
The death penalty enforces consequences

An unborn baby wasn't irresponsible
but they pay with their life

A murderer pays with his life for taking a life

One life ends because of someone else's actions
another life is ended because of their actions

The catholic church chose to protect the church
instead of turning over pedophile priests to authorities
so, their stance on human life and dignity is comical

Furthermore, their position on capital punishment
is not even biblical... no surprise there

 

[Chuz Life]

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

Not when you factor in their behavior changes - following the removal of the "abortion is legal" safety net.

No.

In the heat of the moment, nothing works. If the GOP wants this, they have to formulate a plan for it. But you can forget it, because they are too busy moving money to the rich and wealthy in the opposite direction that no abortions would benefit. .

That changes nothing for me at all.

I am not driven by nor affected by politics, who is in power and who is not.

I am driven by the facts and what the Constitution says.

 

[GoDemocratic]

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

Not when you factor in their behavior changes - following the removal of the "abortion is legal" safety net.

No.

And it won't be only the women's behavior that will change.

All the abusive men who (for now) use legalized abortion as their safety net and way out of 18 years of child support will likely change too.

Why not, as I said, in the heat of the moment, nothing works. The sex drive is too great. But, ok, is it not possible for the GOP to financially plan for this?

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it pro-life or pro-some life?
Can you be pro-life if you oppose abortion and support the death penalty?
Can you be pro-life if you support the right to abortion and oppose the death penalty?

You can only be pro-life if you have a consistent ethic that respects the dignity of all life. But I'll narrow it down and say the dignity of all human life.

I admire this ethic. It's something to strive for. And it's something I admire the Catholic faith for.

The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position

Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Is it pro-life or pro-some life?
Can you be pro-life if you oppose abortion and support the death penalty

Abortion is a choice to avoid consequences
The death penalty enforces consequences

An unborn baby wasn't irresponsible
but they pay with their life

A murderer pays with his life for taking a life

One life ends because of someone else's actions
another life is ended because of their actions

The catholic church chose to protect the church
instead of turning over pedophile priests to authorities
so, their stance on human life and dignity is comical

Furthermore, their position on capital punishment
is not even biblical... no surprise there

If I can get my wife to approve. . . will you marry me?

 

[Chuz Life]

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

Not when you factor in their behavior changes - following the removal of the "abortion is legal" safety net.

No.

And it won't be only the women's behavior that will change.

All the abusive men who (for now) use legalized abortion as their safety net and way out of 18 years of child support will likely change too.

Why not, as I said, in the heat of the moment, nothing works. The sex drive is too great.

Then I guess people will have to learn to use more self control or know up front that they will be held more responsible for any children's lives they might create in their uncontrollable "heat of the moment."

But, ok, is it not possible for the GOP to financially plan for this?

Don't know, don't care if they can or can't.

 

[yiostheoy]

Abortion is fundamentally driven by modern promiscuity and irresponsible sex habits of teens, unwed mothers, liberated single party girls, and their frat boy associates.

Abortion is governed by bad SCOTUS law which mandates all states to follow a permissive standard of law.

In accordance with a literal reading of the U.S. Constitution abortion is relegated to the States to decide what limitations and procedures they want to follow in their states.

The foolish b!tch who was Roe in Roe V. Wade recently died. It would have been better for the U.S.A. had she never been born. She repudiated all the positions in her law suit that went to the SCOTUS and became an emotional fallacy argument that the Burger Court swallowed in a moment of Judiciary activism.

A good reason for having an abortion is due to rape or incest (which is also rape), or an abnormally deformed fetus.

In the case of a stupid teenager I would favor abortion too, since the single mother status is likely to destroy the child-mother's life, and also be detrimental to the baby as well.

I don't have a problem with infanticide for deformed babies either. There is essentially no difference. Better to start over. And then if it keeps happening get sterilized and then adopt instead.

That's the whole argument for and against abortion.

The people of any given state should be empowered to decide how they want to deal with abortion and to what extent they want to allow it and what regulations to put upon it.

What about the part of the Constitution that says "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws?

Does that not include persons (esp. children) with deformities?

You would need to dig up a definition of "persons" out of the U.S. Code to answer your own question, rather than pull something out of your wazoo.

1. Is the U.S. Code infallible?
2. How do you think the definitions in the U.S. Code get there?
3. What about THIS definition from the U.S. Code?

(d)
As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

1 read
2 read on
3 read carefully.

 

[Mudda]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

 

[task0778]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

 

[Coyote]

What is it when an innocent person is condemned to die through a faulty justice system - in some cases criminally so? An innocent person dies and unlike an embryo, is aware of his innocence it every single second?

Now you're on to an argument. Instead of trying to push a moral equivalency between a child in utero and a convicted killer. You could try the alternate argument that the foetus in utero is less than human due to its inability to perceive its own innocence.

In that way, the killing of a feotus becomes legal based on the accepted principles of the culture.

That's not am argument I've seen before. I am not sure about it. But some sort of sentience and awareness seems like a requirement for "humanity" beyond species. If absence of brain waves marks death, then presence should mark the beginning of life.

But ethically, here's what you have. A child in utero that is by definition "innocent". A convicted murderer (convicted by a system known to be faulty) who may or may not be innocent - we just don't know.

If you err on the side of innocence - that no innocent life should be willfully taken, then they are morally equivalent.

 

[Coyote]

So you depend entirely on the subjective presumption of guilt and innocence to determine who lives and dies?

By the way - calling people "pro-abort" is pretty ignorant and ill informed.

I support the way it is established in our constitution.

And if you don't like the word pro abort or the definition thereof? I suggest you contact the writers of the various dictionaries to voice your complain to them.

Pro-some-life then.

Pro innocent life and pro innocent until proven guilty.... with the acceptance of a ******* reality that sometimes despite all the efforts to avoid it.... an innocent life might be lost.

Countless innocent lives are lost every day as a consequence of booze being legal.... But libtardz would never consider banning booze again... but one innocent CONVICTED felon (usually prior convictions) gets executed and suddenly we just have to ban the practice entirely.

How can you ethically condone the killing of any innocent person? Right there is the inconsistency in your ethic, so much so you have to resort to insults.

Innocent is innocent and if you oppose the killing of it you can't possibly support a system that is so faulty innocent people have gotten executed. And not just one. Or two. Or three.

It's acceptable to you to kill innocent people becuase what - most of them are guilty anyway and if they're not well they're already "convicted felons". Listen to yourself.

The Constitution says that no person can be deprived of their life - except by due process. I support what the Constitution says. Your attempts to twist, distort and mischaracterize my beliefs not with standing.

I'm n ot talking about the constitution - I'm not twisting or distorting anything (or at least, no more than you do others). I'm lookiing at it from a strictly ethical point of view because to me it's ultiimately the ethics that drive it.

I am serious when I say I admire those with a truly consistent ethic here, even more those who apply it across the spectrum of life. I'm 75% there, maybe more.

I support free and readily available birth control and education.
I support programs that support those with an unwanted pregnancy in making the choice of life and which will help her through until she is truly on her feet or adopts out the child - so she doesn't become a school drop out statistic or lose her job.
I support restricting late term elective abortions (which are anyway).
I would rather not see abortion ever be needed but I can never advocate removing that choice from a woman.
I oppose the death penalty. Too many innocent people have died. It's unjustly applied.

 

[Coyote]

Good points. Except. . .

Except the Constitution doesn't say that only self aware persons are entitled to the equal perceptions of our laws. . . It says ALL persons. That would include those in comas, severely retarded or otherwise incapacitaed.

I agree. But, the only chance of making an argument that morally justifies abortion of to push the argument that a human foetus isn't human. I personally don't accept that argument. But, the argument that an innocent human child and a convicted killer are morally equivalent is actually pretty stupid.

Yeah.... you got to love the argument that a human being in the zygote embryo or fetal stage of their life is not a human being.


I guess I haven't killed near enough brain cells to fully comprehend that one yet.

I've never argued they aren't of the species we call human being.

Whether they are "persons" is the argument.

 

[Coyote]

Is it pro-life or pro-some life?
Can you be pro-life if you oppose abortion and support the death penalty?
Can you be pro-life if you support the right to abortion and oppose the death penalty?

You can only be pro-life if you have a consistent ethic that respects the dignity of all life. But I'll narrow it down and say the dignity of all human life.

I admire this ethic. It's something to strive for. And it's something I admire the Catholic faith for.

The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position

Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Is it pro-life or pro-some life?
Can you be pro-life if you oppose abortion and support the death penalty

Abortion is a choice to avoid consequences
The death penalty enforces consequences

An unborn baby wasn't irresponsible
but they pay with their life

A murderer pays with his life for taking a life

One life ends because of someone else's actions
another life is ended because of their actions

The catholic church chose to protect the church
instead of turning over pedophile priests to authorities
so, their stance on human life and dignity is comical

Furthermore, their position on capital punishment
is not even biblical... no surprise there

That sounds fine and dandy but the death penalty has killed innocent people. Oops. Collateral damage?

 

[deanrd]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.