Against abortion for any reason? What about the death penalty?

[Pegg]

im pro life 100% but against the death penalty because the decision to end a life should never be given to an imperfect human to decide.

If God chose to end someones life, then that would be acceptable to me because I know Gods judgment is 100% accurate 100% of the time. But people make mistakes and the power of life and death should not be in the hands of imperfect, corruptible people.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you want to read an interesting book with regard to this topic, check out The 12th Disciple.

In a nutshell, the book is religious fiction and proposes an idea that the Second Coming may have been aborted. Why? Because, even outside of abortion, humanity has devalued life all over the world.

The book brings twelve modern day Disciples together to usher in a period before Revelations.

If anything else, the book is great for Bible study and religious discussion.

Available on Kindle and Nook under The 12th Disciple...

:clap

My emphasis.
Actually there has never been a time in history where human life was more valued than it is now, which is astounding considering that there has never been more of us around than there currently is.
So the claim that human life has been 'devalued' is at best unfounded and at worst a straight out lie.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I didn't see how prevalent it is for anti-choice people to also be against contraception and proper sex ed, I might be inclined to accept this.

Perhaps it makes sense to see different groups....
1) Pro-lifers who allow contraception & sex ed.
2) Pro-lifers who oppose same.
Their philosophies look pretty different to me.

But when people do things that contribute to abortion rates, I can't believe that they're all that concerned with preventing "death of innocent life".

Their concern could be there & genuine, but trumped by their dogma.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps it makes sense to see different groups....
1) Pro-lifers who allow contraception & sex ed.
2) Pro-lifers who oppose same.
Their philosophies look pretty different to me.

And that first group is rapidly shrinking.

There have been some denominations who have been in that first group all along, but I see a disturbing trend, particularly in the Evangelical Protestant community, that churches that were okay with contraception in the 70s and 80s (usually not with premarital sex, contraception or not, but didn't see contraception as inherently bad) are now against it.

Their concern could be there & genuine, but trumped by their dogma.

Yeah... I suppose that's possible. People who are genuinely concerned could be steered into one particular direction to express that concern in one specific way. But still, I would think that if a person is really concerned with an issue, every now and then they'd stop to re-examine whether their approach to it is a good one.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that first group is rapidly shrinking.

Is it?
Even if it were, to combine the groups for criticism seems inaccurate.

There have been some denominations who have been in that first group all along, but I see a disturbing trend, particularly in the Evangelical Protestant community, that churches that were okay with contraception in the 70s and 80s (usually not with premarital sex, contraception or not, but didn't see contraception as inherently bad) are now against it.

Tis a hard thing to quantify. So I go by what I see, which includes many who oppose abortion, but have diverse views on related issues.

Yeah... I suppose that's possible. People who are genuinely concerned could be steered into one particular direction to express that concern in one specific way. But still, I would think that if a person is really concerned with an issue, every now and then they'd stop to re-examine whether their approach to it is a good one.

Everyone benefits from continually examination what they believe. And there are many different approaches to achieving the same larger goal, eg, health may be advanced by either private or public means....or both.

 

[Magic Man]

One is too high but there are more tools at our disposal to decide whether someone is guilty or not and once found guilty they should,IMO,either be executed or given the means to do it themselves,either way it ticks boxes,they cannot kill again,they aren't a burden to innocent people and the money saved from just 10 lifers would equate to a whole lot of Nurses and Teachers JFE.

OK, so if one is too high, then why do you support the death penalty, which is likely to execute at least one innocent person over time?

Again, you're not really saving money, unless you don't give them the extra appeals process, which is there to try to make absolutely sure you're not executing an innocent person. You're spending an extra $10,000 a year for 15 years on them.

And keeping them in prison for life will make sure they can't kill again just as much as killing them will.

 

[Magic Man]

When pro choicers accuse pro lifers of wanting to infringe on womens' rights, they are, whether it's intentional or not, totally missing that point.

Not really. Telling a woman she can't have an abortion is infringing on her rights. You might think the rights of a clump of cells that's not truly living or human yet are more important than those of the mother, but you're still infringing on the mother's rights.

The critical question, and the one that simply must be answered, is this - When does a fetus become a person worthy of protection?

Agreed.

Demonizing either side does absolutely no good and is a waste of time.

Agreed again. I think this would be much easier if people realized how little difference there is between the two sides.

 

[England my lionheart]

OK, so if one is too high, then why do you support the death penalty, which is likely to execute at least one innocent person over time?

Why likely,if someone has been convicted beyond any doubt like Myra Hindley,the Yorkshire Ripper and the like why not at the very least give them the means to end their existence or some kind of Humane dispatch.

Again, you're not really saving money, unless you don't give them the extra appeals process, which is there to try to make absolutely sure you're not executing an innocent person. You're spending an extra $10,000 a year for 15 years on them.

Beyond doubt is what i'm proposing,if there is absolutely no doubt they did the crime and there are many sitting in prison where there is no doubt, the problem with a life sentence in the UK is its only 15 years and some have got out in 10 or 12 and murdered again.

And keeping them in prison for life will make sure they can't kill again just as much as killing them will.

Like i said,life =15 years here which is way too lenient

 

[Magic Man]

Why likely,if someone has been convicted beyond any doubt like Myra Hindley,the Yorkshire Ripper and the like why not at the very least give them the means to end their existence or some kind of Humane dispatch.

Beyond doubt is what i'm proposing,if there is absolutely no doubt they did the crime and there are many sitting in prison where there is no doubt, the problem with a life sentence in the UK is its only 15 years and some have got out in 10 or 12 and murdered again.

But what do you consider "beyond doubt"? I'm guessing in the cases where an innocent person has been executed, they'd consider it to be beyond doubt, too.

As far as the life sentences there being 15 years, that seems a little extreme, but the answer is not to kill them. The answer is to either extend the sentence beyond 15 years or make some kind of exception. For instance, the Norwegian guy who killed all those people recently would only be up for a total sentence of 21 years, but he'll probably be in containment for the rest of this life.

Like i said,life =15 years here which is way too lenient

That may or may not be, but it's not a matter of 15 years or execution. You could just extend the sentence, for instance.

 

[Walkntune]

Against abortion for any reason? What about the death penalty?

Interesting how you link both of these questions together as they both deny a right to life. I would say abortion rights should be circumstantial only and thats when the life of the mother is threatened.Many mothers would still sacrifice their life for the the sake of their child and you have to appreciate a love like that.
The death penalty to me seems like a waste of good energy we can put to use. I say use them as labor.The prison system should be able to pay for itself.The ones running the system are just as corrupt as the ones in it.

 

[Kathryn]

And that first group is rapidly shrinking.

There have been some denominations who have been in that first group all along, but I see a disturbing trend, particularly in the Evangelical Protestant community, that churches that were okay with contraception in the 70s and 80s (usually not with premarital sex, contraception or not, but didn't see contraception as inherently bad) are now against it.

Other than the Roman Catholic church, I've never heard of a mainstream church that was opposed to contraception. Can you provide a source or two backing up your claim that there is a disturbing trend within the evangelical protestant movement toward regarding contraception as inherently bad?

Also, there are many pro life proponents who are also opposed to the death penalty. As for universal healthcare - the opposition to that (from conservatives) is generally based in skepticism about the government's ability to administer the plan, not in disregard for human life.

As for opposing sexual education in schools - once again, it's usually not basic biological sex ed that people oppose. It's explicit and agenda-driven sex ed that negates the values which parents are trying to instill which has some parents up in arms.

But once again - demonizing others is so much more fun than actually trying to understand the other POV.

 

[jarofthoughts]

As for opposing sexual education in schools - once again, it's usually not basic biological sex ed that people oppose. It's explicit and agenda-driven sex ed that negates the values which parents are trying to instill which has some parents up in arms.

As a teacher, this is of question interest to me.
What would you consider explicit and agenda-driven sex education?
What do you think that sex ed -should- contain?

Just to give you some background for comparison: In Norway the pupils get their first class of sex ed in fifth grade (10-11 years old) and it includes a rather clinical introduction to the process of human reproduction and the reproductive organs. They also learn about things like puberty and what happens to one's body during that period, including girls getting their period. In addition there is usually a part discussing same sex relationships, on the level of 'sometimes a boy can fall in love with a boy or a girl can fall in love with a girl'.
During either the 6th or the 7th grade they also get a rather clinical introduction to contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases, and how to avoid them. A lot of emphasis is put on personal boundaries and not getting into situations they might regret.

 

[England my lionheart]

But what do you consider "beyond doubt"? I'm guessing in the cases where an innocent person has been executed, they'd consider it to be beyond doubt, too.

Beyond any doubt are people like Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper) who killed
13 Women,he is currently serving 20 life sentences,pehaps thats enough to keep him away from the public but what good does it serve,he has been in Prison for 30 years which equates to 1.5 million pounds that could be used to better effect.


As far as the life sentences there being 15 years, that seems a little extreme, but the answer is not to kill them. The answer is to either extend the sentence beyond 15 years or make some kind of exception. For instance, the Norwegian guy who killed all those people recently would only be up for a total sentence of 21 years, but he'll probably be in containment for the rest of this life.

But why containment,why not pay the same penalty that they gave their victim/s,nobody bats an eye when a Platoon ambushes an enemy and shoots indiscriminately,there isn't a trial,some of them may never have harmed anyone yet people are willing to keep a murderer cooped up in a cell 23 hours a day just in case that one day they may be found to be innocent or nobody wants the responsibility of someones death on there hands nomatter how guilty they are.

 

[Mister Emu]

Hard-line Pro-life... against death penalty.

 

[jarofthoughts]

But why containment,why not pay the same penalty that they gave their victim/s,nobody bats an eye when a Platoon ambushes an enemy and shoots indiscriminately,there isn't a trial,some of them may never have harmed anyone yet people are willing to keep a murderer cooped up in a cell 23 hours a day just in case that one day they may be found to be innocent or nobody wants the responsibility of someones death on there hands no matter how guilty they are.

Because our system works.
Even if someone has taken a life, or several even, they can still be redeemed, and they can still become an asset for society.
Granted, for some that chance is very remote, and for those, we have containment.
But, you have to remove the emotional aspect from the equation.
This is not about vengeance. It is about what's best for society as a whole.

And a 20% recidivism rate, one of the lowest crime rates in the world, one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and being one of the safest countries in the world to live in is evidence that the system works as intended.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am against the taking of life thoughlessly or for convenience. Beyond that it gets complicated.

 

[Jainarayan]

Personally I am against abortion, but I am pro-choice.

I used to be rabidly in favor of the death penalty, but now I'm pretty much against it.

 

[England my lionheart]

Because our system works.
Even if someone has taken a life, or several even, they can still be redeemed, and they can still become an asset for society.

I'm not sure there are many examples of redeemed serial or Child killers and i for one wouldn't like to gamble on them not re offending.

Granted, for some that chance is very remote, and for those, we have containment.
But, you have to remove the emotional aspect from the equation.
This is not about vengeance. It is about what's best for society as a whole.

I agree its not about vengeance,for myself its whats best for society,a dead murderer can no longer murder,a dead murderer will not cost the price of a good Teacher or Nurse to keep a year,to me thats whats best for society not keeping someone in a small cell for the rest of their lives for 23 hours a day with protection for Child killers,i think they should at least be given the option to commit suicide.



And a 20% recidivism rate, one of the lowest crime rates in the world, one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and being one of the safest countries in the world to live in is evidence that the system works as intended.

Admirable but Norway has a small population of around 5 million,Britain has around 60 million,thats a big difference,the USA has a population of over 300 million so its not going to work for everyone.

 

[England my lionheart]

I am against the taking of life thoughlessly or for convenience. Beyond that it gets complicated.

Theres nothing thoughtless or convenient about it,i would much prefer that people would not commit premeditated rape and murder of victims such as Women and Children so i don't see any complications there.

Obviously the complications occur with crimes of passion,in the heat of the moment,someone suffers repeated attacks and snaps one day,a Man finds his Wife in Bed with the Milkman,thats different and the French differentiate between the two.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Theres nothing thoughtless or convenient about it, ...

What is "it"?

If you wish to respond to my post, respond to my post. Distorting it so that you might babble self-righteously is a bit ridiculous.