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
Why?
Nothing about government here.
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
That may have been the interpretation at the time. We no longer live a world where most people believe that their rulers are ordained by God. Do you really think God wants our souls to be subject to the higher powers of government? Our souls are only subject to the higher powers of God.
Shall we consider the government that legalizes child murder to be ordained by God?
Yeesh. And you accused me of having a "loose" interpretation? "Most people" get to decide what applies to us today and what doesn't? How are the world's rulers any different today than they were in the 1st Century? Do you think those Christians Paul was writing to in 1st Century Rome were living under godly rulers? Nero?!
Do you really think God wants our souls to be subject to the higher powers of government?
I believe His word is every bit as much for us today as it was for the early church.
Our souls are only subject to the higher powers of God.
None of the earthly powers would have any power at all unless it were given to them by God. True then. True now. True always.
Wow.
He could certainly stop it yesterday if He wants to.
His thoughts are not our thoughts. Pain and suffering here last but an instant. Eternity is forever.
That's beside the point.
I refuse to trust as Godly a government that legalizes and even funds child murder.
On the contrary, that is the point.
I refuse to trust as Godly a government that legalizes and even funds child murder.
Ours is certainly no less godly than the government ruling over the people to whom Paul sent that letter.
No it's not.
It was my point. No matter who He puts over us on this earth, we can trust God is sovereign. He has not abandoned us. He's not sitting off in the distance just wishing things would have turned out differently.
So, what was your point? Do you also say Romans 13 was somehow more applicable to those under Nero's rule than it is to us? If you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God for all times, just say so and I'll be happy to go away.
I seemed like you were trying to redefine pro-life. It's not a word with intrinsic meaning but a new label attached to abortion. Recently it has migrated to euthenasia but it is not a word that is stretched to death penalty. That is a whole different issue.
I think most people would also apply it to infanticide. Maybe I just view it differently as a Catholic.
Infanticide?
I'm not aware of much infanticide going on other than abortion.
I'm not sure you guys are ever going to agree on this issue. Maybe that is the point of sites like these, but I think it is a sure sign of the death of compromise, and if you read above, I support a culture of life. What good does it do a baby to be born if they are not going to be fed and loved.
So far it is just one of those necessary definition discussions. A lot of FR arguments are over 2 different definitions of the same word.
I thought about that. Atleast no one would try and call that something other than murder. That is what drives all of us prolifers crazy about abortion is the disagreement as to whether a baby is being killed or not.
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.