[Cringing Negativism Network]

Thoughtful answer, thanks.

Equal time, my own view is one cannot be consistent in a pro-life position, while at the same time supporting capital punishment.

Seems to me, you either support life, or you don’t.

National security of course, trumps.

[muawiyah]

Use the concept of "blood guilt". That lets the unborn baby off the hook while you take the abortionist out and hang him from a lampost.

The baby is innocent. The abortionist is not.

Now, why not hang the mother? Well, the answer is that it's demonstrable that the newborn thrive better with a good stiff shot of mother's milk for several months.

So she gets off the hook for a period of time ~ but I bet she doesn't go back to the abortionist if he's out there hanging from a lampost.

Remember, part of the practice of justice is to minimize the cost of maintaining a just system. If you hang everybody who violates the codes you run out of people. It only takes a few good examples to get the others to fall into line.

[cammie]

I respect that position. I know my position on pro-life and “accepting” the death penalty is at least somewhat inconsistent...the only defense, I suppose, I have of the inconsistency is that in cases of the death penalty, a horrific crime has been committed. There is some form of “guilt” that justifies “severe punishment” whereas in the case of abortion, some baby did nothing to merit loss of their nascent life. I do think your position is the most logically consistent position; one could REALLY only consider themselves pro-life if they are anti-death penalty as well. You must have found yourself in trouble with many here at FR for that opinion as well! :-)