NationStates Jolt Archive

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Mind you, I'm pro-choice, and I'm not against capital punishment because it's cruel. I'm against it because it's the easy way out. Life without any chance of parole (or possibly visitation rights, though this depends on how angry of a mood I'm at the time) is FAR worse, in my mind.

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Sure. A person can consent to actions that will lead to their death, such as serial killers. A fetus obviously cannot.

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Mind you, I'm pro-choice, and I'm not against capital punishment because it's cruel. I'm against it because it's the easy way out. Life without any chance of parole (or possibly visitation rights, though this depends on how angry of a mood I'm at the time) is FAR worse, in my mind.
Maybe if little trials* were held for the fetuses where by they could be sentenced to death- spend ten years on death row then be fryed in an electric chair would be an acceptable compromise to those who are pro-life yet pro-capital punishment?



*need to think up an offence tho, hmm how about conspiracy to grow up and vote democrat?

Maybe if little trials* were held for the fetuses where by they could be sentenced to death- spend ten years on death row then be fryed in an electric chair would be an acceptable compromise to those who are pro-life yet pro-capital punishment?



*need to think up an offence tho, hmm how about conspiracy to grow up and vote democrat?

That's a serious charge. Bring out the chair, lads! ;)

Sure. A person can consent to actions that will lead to their death, such as serial killers. A fetus obviously cannot.
You never saw: Look who's talking. Have you?

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Mind you, I'm pro-choice, and I'm not against capital punishment because it's cruel. I'm against it because it's the easy way out. Life without any chance of parole (or possibly visitation rights, though this depends on how angry of a mood I'm at the time) is FAR worse, in my mind. Yes, it's hypocritical all right. ;)

You never saw: Look who's talking. Have you?

I never have. Would you care to inform me of the point?

I never have. Would you care to inform me of the point?
Nah, dont let Sim spoil it for ya, go and watch the movie instead ;)

Nah, dont let Sim spoil it for ya, go and watch the movie instead ;)
Yep. Do that.

Nah, dont let Sim spoil it for ya, go and watch the movie instead ;)

I probably will never go out and see it, because I'm lazy. :) I'm quite content to let Sim spoil it for me.

I probably will never go out and see it, because I'm lazy. :) I'm quite content to let Sim spoil it for me.
See now you are tempting us to make up complete crap and say thats what the movie is about. If you really want it spoiled- google it.

I probably will never go out and see it, because I'm lazy. :) I'm quite content to let Sim spoil it for me.
No. I'm not gonna do that to you. Just go rent it. You would help the Church of Scientology. So you get to see a movie and do a good deed.

See now you are tempting us to make up complete crap and say thats what the movie is about. If you really want it spoiled- google it.

Fine. I will.

Fine. I will.
Ah but as a gesture of good faith you must prove you have done it by summarising the films plot in this thread ;)

Yes, it's hypocritical all right. ;)

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.

Ah but as a gesture of good faith you must prove you have done it by summarising the films plot in this thread ;)

I won't do that, but I will offer these points.

1.) It's a commercial film. I'm not going to allow the use of a movie as proof that a baby or fetus can consent.

2.) After reading the summaries and reviews, I have less interest in seeing it than before.

3.) It was interesting to find out about the connection between John Travolta and Scientology. I had not known that before.

I don't think it's hypocritical. The fetus hasn't done anything wrong. The person who's sitting on death row did something incredibly wrong, legally, in order to be put there. That person deserves to die. The fetus just sits there. It doesn't.

3.) It was interesting to find out about the connection between John Travolta and Scientology. I had not known that before.
You didn't? You knew Tom Cruise missile is a believer as well?

You didn't? You knew Tom Cruise missile is a believer as well?

After a few seconds on Google, I do now.

I thought the entire argument of pro-life was that human life is sacred. If human life is sacred, even if that life has sinned terribly, it's just as morally wrong to take that life.

Explain to me how killing someone is better than locking them up for life.

I thought the entire argument of pro-life was that human life is sacred. If human life is sacred, even if that life has sinned terribly, it's just as morally wrong to take that life.

Explain to me how killing someone is better than locking them up for life.

Ooooo! A challenge! I love playing Devil's Advocate!

When you kill someone, you eliminate the need for the use of resources to sustain them, which frees those resources to be used in sustaining the life of fine, upstanding, God-fearing persons. It's all for the greater good. :D

Explain to me how killing someone is better than locking them up for life.
Damn straight! The Shawshank redemption would have sucked major ass if it had went like this :
Chapter 1:Andy dufrien gets the chair
The end.

Damn straight! The Shawshank redemption would have sucked major ass if it had went like this :
Chapter 1:Andy dufrien gets the chair
The end.
It still sucked.

Ooooo! A challenge! I love playing Devil's Advocate!

When you kill someone, you eliminate the need for the use of resources to sustain them, which frees those resources to be used in sustaining the life of fine, upstanding, God-fearing persons. It's all for the greater good. :D

It's also the easy way out. Killing someone allows them to basically ignore the moral guilt that will inevitably build up over the 40+ years of realizing "holy shit, I gunned down a school bus full of children, I'm a terrible person" or whatnot.

Unless they're complete sociopaths, in which case, maybe Bubba or Tough Guy over there will make their poop come out REAL easy-like.

It's also the easy way out. Killing someone allows them to basically ignore the moral guilt that will inevitably build up over the 40+ years of realizing "holy shit, I gunned down a school bus full of children, I'm a terrible person" or whatnot.

Unless they're complete sociopaths, in which case, maybe Bubba or Tough Guy over there will make their poop come out REAL easy-like.

So what if it's the easy way out? That doesn't change the validity of my argument.

So what if it's the easy way out? That doesn't change the validity of my argument.

I'm aware of that. I can't change the fact that killing people off is a lot more economical. Well, it would be if they didn't sit on Death Row for a few years, get an appeal, come back, stall, and basically not die for another 20 years or so...

I'm aware of that. I can't change the fact that killing people off is a lot more economical. Well, it would be if they didn't sit on Death Row for a few years, get an appeal, come back, stall, and basically not die for another 20 years or so...

There is that. A bullet to the brainstem would be much cheaper and quite humane.

I'm cool either way, death penalty or life in prison. Just as long as there is a penalty. I don't see belief in the death penalty as hypocritical for pro-lifers for reasons already pointed out.

Ooooo! A challenge! I love playing Devil's Advocate!

When you kill someone, you eliminate the need for the use of resources to sustain them, which frees those resources to be used in sustaining the life of fine, upstanding, God-fearing persons. It's all for the greater good. :D

Apparently you've never heard that due to all the extra court costs, security and so on... sentencing someone to capital punishment actually costs over a million dollars more than giving them life in jail.

Not to mention being "God-fearing" sure as hell is no reason at all for someone to be considered more worthy of life... in fact I take offense to you saying that.

Also, death penalty: What if you got the wrong person? That's a bit immoral, eh?

It still sucked.
I know but you can see how these pro-life, pro-death penalty folks are really just trying to fuck up the works of Stephen King.

There is that. A bullet to the brainstem would be much cheaper and quite humane.

Of course... at least if you believe that giving people death without a chance for appeal is a good thing.

Also, death penalty: What if you got the wrong person? That's a bit immoral, eh?
Ah well. They just send the family a fruit basket then.

You can appeal death sentence. And you can't be executed while your appeal is in progress. Thats how some come to sit on death row for 20 years. They just continually appeal.

Ah well. They just send the family a fruit basket then.
If the victim was wrongfully executed for having been erroneously found guilty of stealing bananas your idea would rock

Also, death penalty: What if you got the wrong person? That's a bit immoral, eh?

Unfortunately, the law cannot operate on what ifs. Otherwise, the entire judicial system would break down.

If the victim was wrongfully executed for having been erroneously found guilty of stealing bananas your idea would rock
Ok. So if he was wrongfully executed for murder we'll send his family some lovely blood pudding.

Apparently you've never heard that due to all the extra court costs, security and so on... sentencing someone to capital punishment actually costs over a million dollars more than giving them life in jail.

Apparently you missed post #27 of this thread. :D

Not to mention being "God-fearing" sure as hell is no reason at all for someone to be considered more worthy of life... in fact I take offense to you saying that.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Chill out.

Also, death penalty: What if you got the wrong person? That's a bit immoral, eh?

Not really. They get to go to Heaven. We're doing them a favor.

Alternatively, if they were not going to Heaven, but Hell, then we would be saving the human race from a Hell-bound sinner. It works out either way.

Not really. They get to go to Heaven. We're doing them a favor.

Alternatively, if they were not going to Heaven, but Hell, then we would be saving the human race from a Hell-bound sinner. It works out either way.

Tsk tsk. I don't like treading onto grounds of religion. Also, couldn't that be sending whoever executed them to hell for the killing of an innocent man/woman/thing?

You know if we follow the twisted logic of the threads title then wouldn't it be hypocritical to pro-choice and anti death penalty?

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

A fetus doesn't sit in the womb planning. " Oh I will kill my expectant mother :sniper: . A serial killer thought about his actions

Tsk tsk. I don't like treading onto grounds of religion. Also, couldn't that be sending whoever executed them to hell for the killing of an innocent man/woman/thing?

Hes only friggin' joking.

You know if we follow the twisted logic of the threads title then wouldn't it be hypocritical to pro-choice and anti death penalty?
If they were really "pro-choice" wouldnt they allow criminals to choose between life imprisonment, hanging, the chair etc?

by the way I don't agree with abortion or capital punishment

Hes only friggin' joking.

I know he's playing Devil's Advocate. I merely feel compelled to argue it.

If they were really "pro-choice" wouldnt they allow criminals to choose between life imprisonment, hanging, the chair etc?

No they'd let someone else choose for them.

Yep. Do that.


...for people who advocate that others watch "Look Who's Talking".

Seriously, in regard to the original question, I'd have to ask: "What's your point? Hypocrisy is not a crime."

It is more pertinent to ask if holding both positions is not morally INCONSISTENT. And may be, but only if the anti-abortion position is justified by the argument that "all human life is sacred". THEN (and only then?) it would be inconsistent to favor the death penalty.

But there are plenty of moral beliefs that are conditiional, that fall far short of being absolute. Perhaps it would be more relevant to ask if the two positions are not LOGICALLY inconsistent, and even then one's position on either or both issues my be some blend of logical, moral, legalistic, or utilitarian considerations.

From there, things become a little to complex and interrelated for bumper-sticker level analysis, methinks.

So my answer would be, 'doesn't matter.'

Here's my question:

"If someone asks the question 'Isn't it hypocritical to be against abortion and for the death penalty?' instead of the question 'Isn't it hypocritical to be pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment?, do we learn more about the questioner than about either issue?"

Tsk tsk. I don't like treading onto grounds of religion.

Ah. Then what is the non-religious reason for opposing the death penalty?

Also, couldn't that be sending whoever executed them to hell for the killing of an innocent man/woman/thing?

Nope. God would forgive them.

Here's my question:

"If someone asks the question 'Isn't it hypocritical to be against abortion and for the death penalty?' instead of the question 'Isn't it hypocritical to be pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment?, do we learn more about the questioner than about either issue?"

Mazel tov!

Nope. God would forgive them.
Only if he believes in Jesus and repents.

Sure. A person can consent to actions that will lead to their death, such as serial killers. A fetus obviously cannot.

So you'd rather kill an innocent being. Ok, makes since. Kill the ones who can't make the decisions to ruin their life, but throw the ones in prison who can and do. Hell, lets even feed them and keep them out of the rain.

btw... you won't go to hell simply for killing someone... an entirely different argument, though, so I'll leave it alone.

I believe this arguement can be addressed in the immortal words of homestar.
"Shut it up about the fish, already!"

Nope. God would forgive them.

sorry thats Mormons not Christians huge difference

sorry thats Mormons not Christians huge difference

Mormons are just a heretical sect of Christianity, of which there are many.

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Mind you, I'm pro-choice, and I'm not against capital punishment because it's cruel. I'm against it because it's the easy way out. Life without any chance of parole (or possibly visitation rights, though this depends on how angry of a mood I'm at the time) is FAR worse, in my mind.

From the arguement I've heard...

-Being Pro-Choice (which most people define as Pro-Having Abortion as an Option) is very similar to being Pro-Capital Punishment in that the believer recognizes that in some situations the state or the mother of the child can decide when it's no longer in reasonable/in their best, etc. interest to continue that life. (This position assumes that one recognize the fetus as a life.)

-Some Pro-Lifers argue that no one is really Pro-Choice unless they are both Pro-Capital Punishment and Pro-Abortion as an option and that they (The Pro-Lifers) are the opposite side of the coin... and anyone who falls in between is a little confused ninny.

Does that make more sense?

*edited for clarity

So you'd rather kill an innocent being. Ok, makes since. Kill the ones who can't make the decisions to ruin their life, but throw the ones in prison who can and do. Hell, lets even feed them and keep them out of the rain.

btw... you won't go to hell simply for killing someone... an entirely different argument, though, so I'll leave it alone.

Kill the fetuses whose parents don't want them, because our nation (the US's) foster care and adoptive services are so screwed up that to put them through that would be to put them through a fate that is almost without a doubt likely to unbalance them mentally and physically, also keeping in mind that the majority of children aborted are not healthy babies but babies with problems (fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. ones with ISSUES).

Throw the ones in prison who kill people because if you're speaking from a religious standpoint, this gives them time to reflect on what they've done and to repent for their sins; or merely to feel the emotional pain of realizing what they've done. Also, with the life sentence, you're not killing someone who may be innocent.

Kill the ones you know are guilty. As for the abortion thing. If you kill the fetus, you could be killing someone who might've actually had a chance to overcome the odds of failure in foster homes. God, I know there are some pretty amazing people that grew up in foster homes.

I respect your comment, though. Nicely put.

Here's my question:

"If someone asks the question 'Isn't it hypocritical to be against abortion and for the death penalty?' instead of the question 'Isn't it hypocritical to be pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment?, do we learn more about the questioner than about either issue?"

No. While the former query is fair in certain contexts (as you yourself pointed out) the latter is not cogent under any circumstances.

Item One: An embryo or fetus in an early gestational stage does not qualify as human life; a felon on death row does.

Item Two: An embryo or fetus is essentially the property of the woman carrying it; no private citizen has personal jurisdiction over an adult criminal.

Item Three: "Pro-abortion" is a flawed term. It's called "pro-choice" precisely because those who support the right to have an abortion don't advocate mandatory abortions in all scenarios of pregnancy; a large percentage contend that they would never have one themselves.

Item One: An embryo or fetus in an early gestational stage does not qualify as human life; a felon on death row does.


May I ask who's to decide what's a human and what isn't?

May I ask who's to decide what's a human and what isn't?

The DNA, baby.

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Mind you, I'm pro-choice, and I'm not against capital punishment because it's cruel. I'm against it because it's the easy way out. Life without any chance of parole (or possibly visitation rights, though this depends on how angry of a mood I'm at the time) is FAR worse, in my mind.


No, because a baby is innocent. A baby has done nothing wrong to warrant having their life ended. A murderer has.

ah, no one read my earlier one...

The previous is the philosphical arguement assuming that both the fetus and the person on death row are living beings...

If you don't believe a fetus is a living being then the topics could be related in a different way...
-Abortion becomes an issue protecting/or not personal decision over the medical practices performed on one's body and capital punishment could be viewed as protecting the rights of criminals to decide what is being done to their bodies as well.

...I that case our original thread starter is following consistant logic with being Pro-Abortion rights and Anti-Capital Punishment.

May I ask who's to decide what's a human and what isn't?
It isn't sentient, muchacho.

So a fetus is NOT a human? I dunno if you've got some sort of scientific term for what it is or not, but a fetus will eventually become a human...

Eventually this will turn into a debate much like something out of Minority Report... and I will vote yes for Precrime.

Predetermination happens everyday...

It isn't sentient, love.

Neither are some victims of brain damage.

No, because a baby is innocent. A baby has done nothing wrong to warrant having their life ended. A murderer has.

I agree about guilt and innocence.

Murderers have done things wrong and it's not as if the process to decide who is on death row is haphazard... beyond a reasonable doubt on multiple layers is not any easy thing to prove.

Being someone who has know a few "abortion for the mother's health" cases as well as had friends who were is situations where they would have been beaten, etc. if they were pregnant... I'm definetly Pro-Choice. Abortion should be a choice. If a woman can't physically bring her baby to term for safety or health reasons I believe those are the best reasons. But Abortion needs to be legal for all and a choice for all. Personally I don't think it should ever be used as a birth control method... there are plenty other ones that cause less harm to all.

(yes, this is my showing my opinion.. I'm a "Pro-Choicer" all the way
...instead of explaining philosophical threads as before)

You all sound more Australian than the people I'm used to talking to on NS... Good morning to you! ...And way past good night to me...

So a fetus is NOT a human? I dunno if you've got some sort of scientific term for what it is or not, but a fetus will eventually become a human...

Yes, a fetus could potentially become human, as could sperm and ova. Nice try, though.

Yes, a fetus could potentially become human, as could sperm and ova. Nice try, though.

A fetus is human, as per it's DNA. A fetus is alive. However, a fetus is not a sentient human person, which seems to be the point on which the divergence occurs.

The DNA, baby.

Excellent investigative work! Yes, a fetus undeniably has DNA. Do you mind if I play this game too? OK, here goes: ants, grass, sperm, ova, tumors, and what you ate for dinner also contain DNA :)

Yes, a fetus could potentially become human, as could sperm and ova. Nice try, though.

A fetus is already there (a human) in my oppinion. The sperm comment was retarded. (only said that because what you said, I took as rude... If it wasn't how you meant it, then I appologize)

Neither are some victims of brain damage.

Are you telling me you disagree with the practice of allowing family members the option of "pulling the plug," so to speak? :(

Excellent investigative work! Yes, a fetus undeniably has DNA. Do you mind if I play this game too? OK, here goes: ants, grass, sperm, ova, tumors, and what you ate for dinner also contain DNA :)

You aren't playing my game, luv.

Are you telling me you disagree with the practice of allowing family members the option of "pulling the plug," so to speak? :(

No. I'm pointing out that sentience is not a qualification for being a human life.

You aren't playing my game, luv.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you elucidate?

I really shouldn't be engaged in debate on the NS.net fora so close to my 4 AM bedtime. :D

One who is really pro-life, as opposed to pro-life-for-what-suits-me, would be opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, as well as euthenasia and unnecessary war.

I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment. For me, they are both related to a huge respect for human life. On the one hand, I respect human life enough that the baby should be brought to term, regardless of the mother's wishes. On the other hand, a person who has committed murder has so demeaned human life that forfeiting his own life is the only decent punishment for the crime.

I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment. For me, they are both related to a huge respect for human life. On the one hand, I respect human life enough that the baby should be brought to term, regardless of the mother's wishes. On the other hand, a person who has committed murder has so demeaned human life that forfeiting his own life is the only decent punishment for the crime.

I agree with him totally
:mp5:

I agree with him totally
:mp5:

So do I.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you elucidate?

DNA is what determines our quality. Whether we be humans, dinosaurs, plants, or tumors, DNA makes us what we are, determines our species. Thus the quality of being "human" is determined by our DNA.

Even a bacterium is a life, so we can't really say that a fetus is not a life.

Therefore sentience is not necessary for being a human life, as my brain damage example also illustrated.

So the issue becomes a developmental consideration. We would not class a cell with human DNA as a "human life" if it were a skin cell or a hair cell, despite it being both human and a life. We would class an adult human as a "human life". We would class a human child as a "human life". We would class a human toddler as a "human life". We would class a human newborn as a "human life". Would we class a developing human in the third trimester of development as such? The second trimester? What about the first trimester? Implantation? Conception? Other than the developmental stage, which seems irrelevant after birth, what property is there that you believe disqualifies the fetus from being considered a "human life"?

I really shouldn't be engaged in debate on the NS.net fora so close to my 4 AM bedtime. :D

Hmmm. You must live in the US, then.

Ok people...let's break this down for the leftist no brains out there.
1. if you kill someone, premeditated and in cold blood you are infringing upon their rights to life. Why should an interloper on someone else's rights be able to maintain theirs? They obviously have no respect for them.
2. Comparing the death penalty to murder is like comparing kidnapping to legal incarceration or making love to rape just because they have the same end result.
3. In states where life without parole is the highest sentence, prisoners can kill while in prison, or escape and kill as many people as they want...and when they get caught, they just go right back to prison on life without parole...again. Is that really what you want? And if you're thinking that there are no murders within prisons, or no escapees from maximum security prisons, you are wrong, there are plenty out there, check the cnn database for a skimmer.
4.What crime has a fetus commited to deserve execution? Execution is a punishment for a capital offense. That's like saying if we allow abortion we should make murder legal. Is that what you liberals are trying to do? Relating execution and abortion in any form is just a leftist propaganda movement targeting rightist views in an effort to deface solid, impregnable logic.
5. Don't try to argue my points...crack open that hard skull of yours and take a look at the obvious. The death penalty is punishment for crimes that can be dealt with in no other way. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.
6. To those of you pro-choice people: no one forced them to have sex, they need to take responsibility for their actions. Why don't you give the baby its right to life like you fight to give the murderers theirs? What kinda sick people are you!? Oh, and rape only accounts for 3% of abortions, so don't try pulling that one on me either.

Bam, the man has spoken.

I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment. For me, they are both related to a huge respect for human life. On the one hand, I respect human life enough that the baby should be brought to term, regardless of the mother's wishes. On the other hand, a person who has committed murder has so demeaned human life that forfeiting his own life is the only decent punishment for the crime.

You are not pro-life, but only partially pro-life.

ah, no one read my earlier one...

The previous is the philosphical arguement assuming that both the fetus and the person on death row are living beings...

If you don't believe a fetus is a living being then the topics could be related in a different way...
-Abortion becomes an issue protecting/or not personal decision over the medical practices performed on one's body and capital punishment could be viewed as protecting the rights of criminals to decide what is being done to their bodies as well.

...I that case our original thread starter is following consistant logic with being Pro-Abortion rights and Anti-Capital Punishment.

Wow guy, so you think mother's should be able to kill their innocent unborn children but we shouldn't be able to deal justice to serial killers huh? That's sick. That's like...one of the sickest things I've ever heard.

I am through with this thread. My opinions still stand, and no one has even dented what I believe by what they have said. Drop me a telegram if you wish to discuss other matters.

good man epi, good man.

how anyone can support capital punishment is beyond me
for one there is a whole lot of evidence to suggest that mistakes are made and innocent people are murdered but i won't get into that
what we all need to realise is that as ghandi said 'in a world of eye for an eye the whole world would be blind'

so for those of you saying that murder is the only fitting punishment for murder, what about in poorer countries where a persons hand is amputated for stealing, is this right? Should a homeless person, stealing food to live be punished with amputation? Surely this is an over reaction and civilised people like us shouldn't ehave in such a manner.

Ok people...let's break this down for the leftist no brains out there.
1. if you kill someone, premeditated and in cold blood you are infringing upon their rights to life. Why should an interloper on someone else's rights be able to maintain theirs? They obviously have no respect for them.
2. Comparing the death penalty to murder is like comparing kidnapping to legal incarceration or making love to rape just because they have the same end result.
3. In states where life without parole is the highest sentence, prisoners can kill while in prison, or escape and kill as many people as they want...and when they get caught, they just go right back to prison on life without parole...again. Is that really what you want? And if you're thinking that there are no murders within prisons, or no escapees from maximum security prisons, you are wrong, there are plenty out there, check the cnn database for a skimmer.
4.What crime has a fetus commited to deserve execution? Execution is a punishment for a capital offense. That's like saying if we allow abortion we should make murder legal. Is that what you liberals are trying to do? Relating execution and abortion in any form is just a leftist propaganda movement targeting rightist views in an effort to deface solid, impregnable logic.
5. Don't try to argue my points...crack open that hard skull of yours and take a look at the obvious. The death penalty is punishment for crimes that can be dealt with in no other way. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.
6. To those of you pro-choice people: no one forced them to have sex, they need to take responsibility for their actions. Why don't you give the baby its right to life like you fight to give the murderers theirs? What kinda sick people are you!? Oh, and rape only accounts for 3% of abortions, so don't try pulling that one on me either.

Bam, the man has spoken.

Bam the man, sometimes deliberately killing another human, when there are no non-lethal alternatives, is necessary to protect others or one's own life from immediate threat. When there is no such necessity to the killing, then it is murder. And yes, the death penalty thus is murder because it is killing simply to kill. Take a hard look at the truly obvious.

The fact that prisoners can kill while in prison or escape prison to kill others also does not justify capital punishment because when those situations occur, they are failures of the prison system itself. I expect the prison system to prevent prisoners from killing and from escaping. If it doesn't, then the people running the prisons aren't competent enough; put in someone who is.

Lesson number one in arguing about abortion.

Pro Life = anti-choice, anti-euthenasia, anti-capital punishment. Period. If your "pro life," then your "anti-death."

So what did we learn today children? Pro life != anti-choice.

Lesson number one in arguing about abortion.

Pro Life = anti-choice, anti-euthenasia, anti-capital punishment. Period. If your "pro life," then your "anti-death."

So what did we learn today children? Pro life != anti-choice.

Pro-life does generally include anti-euthenasia, but since when has pro-life included anti-capital punishment? This is the first time that I have heard of it being lumped together like that before.

Pro-life does generally include anti-euthenasia, but since when has pro-life included anti-capital punishment? This is the first time that I have heard of it being lumped together like that before.

Since when hasn't it, except in terms of political expediency?

That's because pro-life does not include pro-death. If I favored killing to the point where I think it's a good idea to set a date, time, and place for it, I'd have a sizable gap in my pro-life credentials.

So the issue becomes a developmental consideration. We would not class a cell with human DNA as a "human life" if it were a skin cell or a hair cell, despite it being both human and a life. We would class an adult human as a "human life". We would class a human child as a "human life". We would class a human toddler as a "human life". We would class a human newborn as a "human life". Would we class a developing human in the third trimester of development as such? The second trimester? What about the first trimester? Implantation? Conception? Other than the developmental stage, which seems irrelevant after birth, what property is there that you believe disqualifies the fetus from being considered a "human life"?
Embryos and fetuses in early gestational stages may harbor DNA and make use of nutrients imbibed from the mother, but they are bereft of even a rudimentary brain, the capacity to respond to stimuli, and the ability to feel pain. Clinically speaking, they function more or less like parasites.

Regarding the irreversibly brain-dead, well... I hate to sound macabre, but a vegetable is no more sentient or conscious of its humanity than a cadaver.
Hmmm. You must live in the US, then.

Although your conclusion is correct, the inference itself is flawed; Canada, parts of Brazil, Panama, Peru, Colombia, Jamaica, and various other Central American nations and Caribbean islands also share my time zone.

Embryos and fetuses in early gestational stages may harbor DNA and make use of nutrients imbibed from the mother, but they are bereft of even a rudimentary brain, the capacity to respond to stimuli, and the ability to feel pain. Clinically speaking, they function more or less like parasites.

So they would be classed by you as human parasites, and parasites are alive, so we have a human life. Are you saying that having the quality of being parasitical removes a right to continued life?

Regarding the irreversibly brain-dead, well... I hate to sound macabre, but a vegetable is no more sentient or conscious of its humanity than a cadaver.

That's hardly relevant.

Although your conclusion is correct, the inference itself is flawed; Canada, parts of Brazil, Panama, Peru, Colombia, Jamaica, and various other Central American nations and Caribbean islands also share my time zone.

Sloppy of me. :( My apologies.

No one deserves to die. At the same time, everyone dies.

The idea that a fetus is more deserving of life than a criminal is pooted in a hypocritical but very human notion justice. People want to see the "good guys" to live happily ever acter and the "bad guys get that is comming to them. Unfortunatly, in this world there are no such things as good guys and bad guys, there are only guy you agree with, guys you disagree with, and guys you don't give a flying fig about.

The opposite idea, that a fetus is less deserving of protection than a criminal comes from an equaly hypocritical notion of human superiority. 'I'm better than an embyro because I have a brain. I'm better than cats, dogs, elephants, black, asians and jews, too. " It is easier to harm what you dehumanize. It is utterly stupid.

In reality, a fetus is no different from a serial killer. By some measures, a serial killer may be worth more, because a great deal of time and effort was put into raising him. Reprodicing a seriel killer would be difficult indeed. Fetuses, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.

I disagree with captiol punishment because there is no reasonable justification for it. Justice is not revenge. Killing a person won't change the past.
I agree with abortion because there is reasonable justification for it. There are far too many instiances where a woman's life is jepordized by pregancy to outlaw it and having a trial for every case would take far too long to do anything but put the decision in the mother's hands.

So they would be classed by you as human parasites...
*studies original post* Nope, I never said that.

That's hardly relevant.
Explain why.

Someone explain to me why it is hypocritical to be aganst the murder of an innocent, unborn child but for the killing of a convicted killer?

Granted, I'm not a huge fan of capital punishment. If I had to choose one I'd go pro-life (with the exception of the mother's life in danger).

Mormons are just a heretical sect of Christianity, of which there are many

Mormons aren't a sect of Christianity. They say they are Christians but they aren't

In reality, a fetus is no different from a serial killer

How is a fetus like a serial killer? :confused:

Lets see is being "Pro Life and "Pro Capital Punishment" hypocritical?

Well Jesus Christ, I would hope so.

Becuase they are humans (or will be, at least in the scientific sence. )

Becuase they are humans (or will be, at least in the scientific sence. )

If your answering my question your answer isn't relevant. If your not I'm sorry. :)

Mormons aren't a sect of Christianity. They say they are Christians but they aren't

Not entirely true, they hold the Christian bible as the base of their religion and that same book was used as the inspiration for the rest. The Mormons have three holy texts. A blue one, a red one, and a gold one. Read the gold one it's a hoot.

Mormons will give you these books by the way.

It's simple. We believe that a person should get a chance to be good, before they die. You only punish the wicked, not those who have commited no crime.

Ok people...let's break this down for the leftist no brains out there.
1. if you kill someone, premeditated and in cold blood you are infringing upon their rights to life. Why should an interloper on someone else's rights be able to maintain theirs? They obviously have no respect for them.
2. Comparing the death penalty to murder is like comparing kidnapping to legal incarceration or making love to rape just because they have the same end result.
3. In states where life without parole is the highest sentence, prisoners can kill while in prison, or escape and kill as many people as they want...and when they get caught, they just go right back to prison on life without parole...again. Is that really what you want? And if you're thinking that there are no murders within prisons, or no escapees from maximum security prisons, you are wrong, there are plenty out there, check the cnn database for a skimmer.
4.What crime has a fetus commited to deserve execution? Execution is a punishment for a capital offense. That's like saying if we allow abortion we should make murder legal. Is that what you liberals are trying to do? Relating execution and abortion in any form is just a leftist propaganda movement targeting rightist views in an effort to deface solid, impregnable logic.
5. Don't try to argue my points...crack open that hard skull of yours and take a look at the obvious. The death penalty is punishment for crimes that can be dealt with in no other way. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.
6. To those of you pro-choice people: no one forced them to have sex, they need to take responsibility for their actions. Why don't you give the baby its right to life like you fight to give the murderers theirs? What kinda sick people are you!? Oh, and rape only accounts for 3% of abortions, so don't try pulling that one on me either.

Bam, the man has spoken.

The original post was asking how some one can be 'pro-life' yet still support the death penalty. Well the easy answer is that 'pro-life' was simply a phrase chosen to give the anti-abortion folks a catch phrase that's hard to argue with. It doesn't actually mean being for the preservation of all forms of life.

Still, the justification given for being anti abortion is usually something like 'I believe ALL human life is sacred and it is wrong to destroy the lives of the unborn'. Well if ALL human life is sacred, then even the life of the most despicibal killer is sacred as well, and should not be destroyed. Now, I believe it would be possible to come up with a justification for being against abortion that doesn't involve the sanctity of life argument, but I've rarely heard such an argument.

Now, for us pro-choicers, there are two schools of thought. The first is, 'A fetus isn't actually a human being'. I don't like this argument, because there's really no way to prove it true. Certainly a 4 day old zygot of maybe 100 cells isn't a human being, but what about a fetus at 12 weeks? The other, stronger, argument is about control over ones own body. The government should not ever have the right to decree that should give up control over their own body. For example, even if there is someone who needs a kidney transplant, who will die without it, and even if you are the only person in the world who can give that person a kidney, the government cannot force you to give your kidney up. Certainly it would be the noble thing to do, but the government should not mandate that certain citizens must give up organs when they are told to. So it is with abortion, if the fetus could live outside of the womb, then that would be one thing, but it cannot. The government does not have the right to force her to provide a life suport system to another human being, even if the other person will die without it.

How is a fetus like a serial killer? :confused:

If you prick us do we not bleed?

Both are people. Both have the potential to cause harm and to cause joy. Both are mortal and both will die in due time.

Moral or legal doctrine asside, past acts or lack thereof are irrevelant. What matters is not what has been done but what will be done in the future. With the proper care and effort, a fetus may be raised to be an important member of society. The serial killer can be rehabilitated to become a productive and law abiding person, as well. It is jsut that the latter often reqires more extreme methods of brainwashing that society currently frowns upon.
At the same time, the fetus could grow up to cause a great deal of strife, just as the seriel killer could escape from prison and go on a killing spree, the fetus could become a seriel killer in the future, or worse.

All life is equal and no one deserves to live more or less than another. In an ideal world everyone would be immortal, but that isn't how the dice fell.

*studies original post* Nope, I never said that.

You didn't have to. It was a logical conclusion drawn from your statements. If you don't agree with it, then your views are logically inconsistent.

Explain why.

I already demonstrated that sentience is irrelevant to being a human life, and you did not contest my assertion on that point.

I fail to see how it isn't. So, murder is bad if it's a FETUS, but if it's a PERSON, it's a-okay?

Mind you, I'm pro-choice, and I'm not against capital punishment because it's cruel. I'm against it because it's the easy way out. Life without any chance of parole (or possibly visitation rights, though this depends on how angry of a mood I'm at the time) is FAR worse, in my mind.

Well, one involves a potential life, and the other an actual lilfe.

So I suppose that it is not hypocritical as long as they are ok with taking any actual life.