NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I shall tell you how. Fetuses don't murder people. Fetuses are completely innocent. Convicted murderers, on the other hand, are 99.9% of the time, NOT innocent. So, to any who ever attempt to argue this card again...yeah.

Actually, the percentage is significantly lower than that.

The legal system is far from perfect. Lots of innocent people die.

*streaks through thread*

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Bah! If I was wrongly accused of being a murderer, and got Life +99 years, even if I knew I would be proven free in 20, I'd rather be killed in a death sentense.

me...

im a conservative.


me...

I am for the death penalty.


me...

I am for abortion.

How can liberals be for abortion but against the death penalty?

'nuff said.

Børk børk!

Because we believe that a fetus is not a breathing living thing, that does not think and is not a sentient being. Therefore, we feel that it is alright to get rid of a future baby that you don't want. Hey, wouldn't you want to have your child when you were ready? The Death Penalty is against living, breathing individuals. I don't think anyone has the right to take the life of another human being, but a fetus (like cows and other animals) is fine by me.

Well, I think a murderer is also equivalent to cows and other animals. Somebody who has performed an inhuman act is not human. I am mildly pro-choice too.

Because if there's something that we haven't discussed ad nauseum, it's the comparison between abortion and the death penalty....

i always find it entertaining how conservatives are for the death penalty, expecially since Christ got the bad end of it :sniper:

i always find it entertaining how conservatives are for the death penalty, expecially since Christ got the bad end of it :sniper:
what do you find entertaining about Jews or Muslims that are for the death penalty?

I'm Jewish and I'm not for the death penalty.



A man can kill one person and what does he get? Death penalty.



A man kills thousands of people and what does he get? The exact same punishment for killing only one person.

It just doesnt seem like a punishment. More like revenge.

I'm Jewish and I'm not for the death penalty.
A man can kill one person and what does he get? Death penalty.
A man kills thousands of people and what does he get? The exact same punishment for killing only one person.
It just doesnt seem like a punishment. More like revenge.
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood. There is after all no higher punishment then the death penalty. Countries without death penalty usually sentence murderers to live-time prison scentences, regardless to how many people they have killed. So: what´s your point????

Its just so uneven.



A punishment is dicipline sent out to make you not repeat your mistakes nextime. When your dead, you can't learn from your mistakes. Therefore, the Death Penalty is nothing but vengiance, whether that is a good thing or not, you decide.

I'd argue that once it gets to the multiple separate acts of murder or the like, the intent is no longer discipline or rehabilitation but just to get the person away from the rest of society. The reason the death penalty is around, then, is because killing someone is a fairly sound means of keeping them away from society.

I would also argue, however, that there has to be a holding system for anyone who is going to be removed in this manner to be defended against judicial malfunction. Hence appeals. But the further problem is the "decade of appeal" phenomenon. A better option would be to allow enough time for any judicial malfunction to be discovered, then present it all as a single appeal. And if you believe that's faulty, appeal the appeal. And so on and so forth until either the malfunction is discovered or the present appeal takes a few minutes to make a more or less incontrovertible decision. No more spending weeks at a time on about thirty direct appeals. Yeesh.

Just curious: for those who consider abortion murder, do you also consider taking the pill or wearing a condom murder? How about kicking a guy in the nuts, or punching a (non-pregnant) woman in the stomach, damaging them and preventing them from having kids at some point in the future - is that murder?

Just curious: for those who consider abortion murder, do you also consider taking the pill or wearing a condom murder? How about kicking a guy in the nuts, or punching a (non-pregnant) woman in the stomach, damaging them and preventing them from having kids at some point in the future - is that murder?
Life begins at conception.

A fetus isn’t completely innocent. In fact the mothers own body will be trying to find ways of killing off the fetus because it’s an invading force. Now granted that it doesn’t always succeed that way. But after about nine months or so the body will reject the fetus anyways and force it out through various muscle contractions. Causing the mother to experience a lot of pain. Innocent? I think not.

What annoys me are people who are anti-contraception and anti-abortion. These people really need their heads read.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood. There is after all no higher punishment then the death penalty. Countries without death penalty usually sentence murderers to live-time prison scentences, regardless to how many people they have killed. So: what´s your point????
In England, you would get multiple life sentences, you just probably wouldn't get through them all before you die.

Theres worse punishements than the death penalty you know

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood
Single most horribly misunderstood (and misquoted) Bible verse ever. The Jews were talking about monetary value. You put someone's eye out, you provide for his family, since he can't work anymore. Never, EVER has any Jewish court in history taken it to mean "take out someone's eye if he does it to you". The Sanhedrin thought any society performing the death sentence more than once in 70 years was barbaric.
Life begins at conception.
In that case, you should also oppose the birth control pill, because it does not stop the conception. What it does is make the wand of the uterus a hostile environment for the egg, meaning after conception, it can't settle, and will be "ejected" as if conception had never occurred.

I hate it when I have to explain other people's viewpoints to them before debunking them.

And while we're at it, why don't you explain to me what "life" really is. Why is a fertilized egg "alive", while a sperm cell is not?

Why do you assume that liberals and conservatives can be defined purely on their position on these issues?

Why does everything boil down to just these two catch-all terms?

Bah, doesn't matter. This is just descending into yet another round of black and white statements on issues that aren't black and white.

Something I always found curious: how anyone who claims to have read the Bible (let's just assume that so-called conservatives have) can ever be for the death penalty?
As the post above explained, the 'eye for an eye' bit was about money. Further, when it's written in the Bible that 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord' (Romans 12:19), it's pretty clear that the only one who gets to kill is God.

Personally, I find it hard to think of any grounds upon which to justify the death penalty.
The utilitarian argument may allow for it, but murder rates and the existence of the death penalty aren't related...
And if killing is wrong, why should it be done needlessly? While the state has the right to defend itself (and its citizens), I don't see how that right goes beyond, for example, incarcerating someone for life without parole. Obviously, the people may grant the state the right to kill someone, but qua above, I can't see a logical basis for this. Of course, if someone has one, I'd be glad to hear it.

Conservatives, a large majority of which claim to be Christians, support capital punishment and disagree with abortion because of what the Bible teaches about them, directly and indirectly.

Regarding capital punishment, I find it funny that those who disagree with it always question whether or not a Christian who does agree with it has read the Bible. Apparently, at least according to those dissenters, the Bible preaches against capital punishment. Some of the arguments are (paraphrased):

1) The Mosaic law is outdated anyway.
2) The Mosaic law concerns monetary issues.
3) Jesus got the bad end of it, so why would the Bible support it?
4) Only God decides who dies, because that's what Romans 12:19 says.

Let's look at Genesis 9:6, shall we?

Genesis 9
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

It is interesting to note that this law is not only a direct command from God (reading the whole chapter reveals that it is God who is speaking) but that it also significantly predates the Mosaic law, which Jesus abrogated. Jesus, being put to death by such a method, had ample opportunity to speak against it. On the cross, the thief next to him said:

Luke 23
41 "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Jesus could have turned to the man and said, "It doesn't matter what you did, capital punishment is wrong. It should be done away with," but he didn't.

In Romans (which the previous post tries to use to disagree with capital punishment), Paul tells us much of governmental authority.

Romans 13:1 reads:

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Romans 13:4 reads:

Romans 13
4 "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

From these passages, we can see that capital punishment was mandated by God and reaffirmed in the New Testament. It is to be carried out through a God-ordained instutition, which Paul tells us is the government.

Now, back to Romans 12:19, which reads:

Romans 12
19 "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

Paul says to not take revenge, but he uses the words "my friends," also translated as "brethren" or "brothers" in other translations. Paul is speaking on a personal level, arguing against revenge or vigilante justice. He is clearly not speaking on a governmental level in this verse, and as I showed above, advocates for capital punishment on the governmental level in the next chapter.

Let's look at Genesis 9:6, shall we?

Genesis 9
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

It is interesting to note that this law is not only a direct command from God (reading the whole chapter reveals that it is God who is speaking) but that it also significantly predates the Mosaic law, which Jesus abrogated.
Dude... You could not possibly be more wrong. This is a direct command form God alright - a command to NOT DO VIOLENCE. It clearly states not that violence is an okay punishment, but that it's bad to do in the first place, because it only leads to other violence.

Jesus, being put to death by such a method, had ample opportunity to speak against it. On the cross, the thief next to him said:

Luke 23
41 "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
That's what the THIEF said. Not what Jesus said.
Jesus could have turned to the man and said, "It doesn't matter what you did, capital punishment is wrong. It should be done away with," but he didn't.
Are you seriously saying that we should infer what's right or not from what Jesus did NOT reply?

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Romans 13:4 reads:

Romans 13
4 "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Let's please not get into how Paul perverted Christianity to make it fit his own views. What we do need to mention is how Paul almost needed to say this considering the situation he was in. But furthermore - surely you are not saying that Adolf Hitler was an authority directly established by God, therefore it was ok for him to "bring punishment on the wrongdoer(s)", and everybody was obliged by God to "submit himself"?

From these passages, we can see that capital punishment was mandated by God and reaffirmed in the New Testament. It is to be carried out through a God-ordained instutition, which Paul tells us is the government.
From these passages, we can see, once again, that Paul has little to do with Christianity, and that you do a very ramshackle job at interpreting your own religious texts.

Now, back to Romans 12:19, which reads:

Romans 12
19 "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

Paul says to not take revenge, but he uses the words "my friends," also translated as "brethren" or "brothers" in other translations. Paul is speaking on a personal level, arguing against revenge or vigilante justice. He is clearly not speaking on a governmental level in this verse, and as I showed above, advocates for capital punishment on the governmental level in the next chapter.
Funny, how you bend the verses that disagree with you to make them seem insignificant, and choose to ignore historical context in the ones that at surface-value seem to agree with you.

It should be blatantly obvious to any vertebrate that you're merely trying to justify your view with the text, instead of honestly looking at the texts to form your opinion.

The Death Penalty and Abortion issues are pointless to debate. Poster A will always feel that gassing prisoners is a great Sunday afternoon activity and that all sperm is sacred. While Poster B will always feel that all life is sacred except in such instances where it is inconveniencing mommy. Poster C will always feel that killing is the proper response to anything, including who gets the last muffin. Finally, Posted D will always refuse to kill anything and live out their life eating only road-kill.
Its like watching hentai, a really awkward group activity that accomplishes nothing and fills you with shame later in life.