Posted on 03/01/2005 8:09:47 AM PST by Right Wing It
I have had enough of people asking how I can be pro-life, but for the death penalty. This is one of the most un-thought out question that someone can ask me. For all those that simply don’t see the logic behind this, I will attempt to explain.
Pro-life is referring to killing a completely innocent life form, I.E.: a fetus. Yes, a fetus is living. Many claim that a fetus is not living because it is just an underdeveloped group of cells, and it doesn’t have a conscious will of its own. This is a completely outlandish way for someone to even begin looking at a fetus. First off, there is brain activity present. Brain activity indicates life, meaning that a fetus is under scientific standards, is alive. Second off, it requires oxygen, meaning that it is alive, no matter how it receives it, and third, it has a HEART! What can that tell you other than the fact that it is alive.
A fetus also has the ability to grow into a fully functional being, and killing it in vain is denying its right to become that person. Abortion in vain is wrong no matter which way you look at it. Now I will tell you this, I believe that abortion is okay in certain situations. I believe that abortion is okay in the situation that it will kill the mother in the process of being born. Now I only find this to be appropriate when the doctors are for sure that the baby threatens the mother’s life to a point of death. In this situation, Killing the fetus is an act of self-defense. This is the only situation in which I believe abortion to be optional. Not in cases of rape (probability for pregnancy from rape comes out to 1/10 of 1%) or incest, only in situations of life and death.
Saying that the mother will be inept to take care of the infant is the most irresponsible statement someone can make. In these situations, there are two main options.
1. Abstinence, the magic of what is NOT HAVING SEX WHEN YOU’RE NOT ABLE TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PARENT.
2. Adoption, that magic of what is giving your baby to someone who truly wants to be a parent, and is willing and ready to take the responsibility. Aborting a child is almost a slap in the face to all those mothers in he world who would give anything to have a child, when you can have the joy of giving them what the long for.
Don’t even try and pull on me that it’s a mothers right to “choose”. If your going to say that, you might as well say that killing anyone is defended on the constitution under someone’s right to choose, there is almost no argument for someone that is pro-abortion to use the “right to choose” as the right to kill. These people aren’t pro-choice, they’re pro-abortion.
There you have it people, the major solutions to abortion, there are many other reasons besides the ones I have mentioned, but among them, I find the above the most effective positions for backing up an argument against abortion.
Now, for someone to compare this to the death penalty is an entirely different situation. There are two main differences between Abortion and the Death Penalty.
1. Abortion- The killing of an innocent human being, thus denying it the right to live and become a fully developed human being
3. Death Penalty- the killing of a ruthless killer who has in doing so, denied himself the right to live, instead of remaining an icon of horror and tax dollars
That’s right, abortion is the killing of innocent beings, and the death penalty is the killing of those that have killed someone else, and in result had their rights revoked. Criminals don’t have rights, and many will try and lead you to believe that they do.
I do have another stance on the death penalty as well. I do not believe anyone should be condemned based on circumstantial evidence. I’m not going to try and deny that innocent people have died, that’s absurd. I know that innocent people have died, and it is because they were condemned on circumstantial evidences. No one was able to prove him or her entirely responsible; in result they had a jury decide on whether or not the “criminal” was guilty. In 95% of cases, they are correct, but there have been instances where they were wrong, and someone was possibly murdered in vain.
Take for instance the Scott Peterson trial. That case was based solely in circumstantial evidence. There were no witnesses, and just enough evidence to point the case in his direction, but other than that, nothing. I personally, along with probably the rest of America think this man is guilty, but there is also the possible slight off chance of him being innocent, but the chances of that are very slim. As much as this man deserves his punishment, I do not think the death penalty is appropriate in this situation, although I can understand someone’s want for a death sentence. I just believe that this keeps open the door of possible wrong killings of innocent people.
There are many other cases that are going to show up in our justice system based solely on circumstantial evidence, and by allowing people such as Scott Peterson to be executed under circumstantial evidence sets a precedence for other trials to result in the same fashion. I want the courts to be 100% positive that they are condemning the correct criminal before the sentence is carried out, to leave no shadow of a doubt that this man is the killer.
To go even further, I have another solution. Prison has become a free ride nowadays thanks to liberal lawyers coming out and saying that criminals have rights to, allowing them to practically have a free ride in jail with cable T.V. and no work. This is not how prison should be. They should make these criminals, not just murderers, but other criminals as well give back to society what they have taken away, by working every day until their parole releases them, or until they die.
Criminals have no rights, and they deserve to be punished. Make them work, tend fields, pave highways, do whatever community service project they can involving strenuous labor. I think that if this were to occur, there would be almost no need for the death penalty, because strenuous labor is in itself a much more applicable punishment.
Once you die, its over, no more earth. But labor would allow these criminals to pay of their debt to society and at least help pay for the tax dollars that pay for their shelter and such. If they refuse to work, then they don’t eat. It’s as simple as that. Until the day that they get out, make them work. Possibly one day of resting can occur every once and a while, but not an every day T.V. and hanging out with cell mates marathon.
Any way, I am feeling like I have forgotten something. Feel free to ask questions and leave comments, especially if I am leaving something
To sum it all up for you:
Unborn children do not get due process.
Murderers do.
(Much more simple explanation...)
LOL. Who died and made you Supreme Omniscient Arbitor of All Definitions? :-)
Am I wrong?
After all we have to allow a natural death to be Pro Life!
That would be self defense, which I am all for.
Since 1971 10,000 people have been killed by people who were convicted on murder and released.
And the Death Penalty is used to punish and deter prisoners from killing guards.
In my humble opinion, your definition is absolutely wrong. By your definition, God is not pro-life.
How would that be?
A monster murderer gets due process and punishment for crimes committed.
Problem is that isnt the case the average time in prison for murdered is just 6 YEARS!
I would agree that this is a horrible fact! Aside from the death penalty debate, surely anyone who intentionally kills another person should never have the chance to be free. In my opinion, someone who intentionally attempts to kill another person should be locked up forever as well.
God gives authority to government to impose and carry out the death penalty. See Romans 13:4.
"Loose"? How else do you interpret that? Government bears the sword for God, to execute wrath upon the evildoer.
Absolutely, It's a terrible argument for someone to use. That's a great point you made.
Yes
It seems to me that we have to create a culture of life before either abortion or death penalty can go away. Those who support abortion and not the death penalty are just as hypocritical as those who are against abortion and are for the death penalty. We have to hold our politicians responsible for supporting initiatives that support not only life, but the pursuit of happiness. That includes children who are born to irresponsible parents. Some people point to statistics showing the correlations between the increase in abortion and the decrease in violent crimes. This is certainly an interesting case here, but it still results in the taking of life. Until our society ensures that a every child has the same opportunity at a good life, perhaps we should maintain the status quo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.