Is Christian opposition to abortion inconsistent with upholding the death penalty?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm fed up with this claim: "Being pro life on the issue of abortion is inconcistent with supporting the death penalty."

Non Christians say it to justify abortion. How can we expect to convince them of our pro life valus, they say, when we ourselves support some killing, such as in the case of the death penalty? Christians say it to oppose the death penalty. How can we support the death penalty, they say, when we tackle the abortion issue a dn claim to be "pro-life"? They're both wrong. Very wrong. I'm tempted to use stronger terms because the argument has every appearance of being very stupid, but I know some intelligent people who have, at one time or another, found the argument plausible. I'm going to try to show briefly here that it is not plausible, and in fact it is very stupid.

The claim is that these two positions are inconsistent:

1) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong
2) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong

Now, there is certainly no formal contradiction here, since a contradiction involves saying something like "A and not A," and that's just not happening here. So I'm going to try to formulate these two statements in a way that is a contradiction, to see what lengths we have to go to.

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

Now we do have a formal contradiction. But we also have a straw man. Christians who oppose abortion don't do so - or at least they certainly don't have to do so - on the grounds that all killing is always wrong. So it seems to me first off that construing these two claims so as to make them contradict one another just involves citing a claim (namely claim 1) that Christian defenders of the death penalty wouldn't use.

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

When we spell the claims out this way, it becomes very obvious that even if claim 6) is false, it is not inconsistent with 5).

Saying that "if you do it to a criminal, then you have to accept doing it to a foetus, or someone else," is a fairly indefensible claim. We do not ordinarily steal from people - we say it is wrong, but we don't say that this means the state cannot fine criminals - that is, take their property. We say it is wrong to kidnap people, but we do not say that this fact means the state must not confine people in prison 9even if we think that the prison system is wrong on other grounds).

Christian opponents of the death penalty then have - whether they realise it or not - become guilty of begging the question. In their own opposition to abortion, they are assuming premise 3), involving the view that all killing is always wrong. But the fact that this claim is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty does not mean that opposition to abortion is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty, since those Christians who uphold the death penalty simply reject premise 3).

If you want to argue that Christians who uphold the death penalty are incorrect, by all means do so. But let's have no short cuts. They aren't inconsistent just because they oppose abortion. That is a very stupid argument, so please stop using it.

[Sparko]

I agree.

[Teallaura]

Yup.....:yes:



(You realize they'll just keep using it, right? :eh: It's not exactly a rocket scientist argument to begin with....:shrug: But congratulations on a worthy, if futile, effort! :cheers:)

[NeilUnreal]

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent

6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.


There's the rub. It depends on the justification for "deserves" in "the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die."

1) If you use civil authority to justify "deserves," then you have to accept civil authority's decision to permit abortion.

2) If you use the traditional theological concept of judgement, then both equally equally fall under God's condemnation and "deserve" to perish.

3) If you use the traditional concept of Christian mercy, then both equally require acquital regardless of what they "deserve."

-Neil

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

There's the rub. It depends on the justification for "deserves" in "the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die."

1) If you use civil authority to justify "deserves," then you have to accept civil authority's decision to permit abortion.

2) If you use the traditional theological concept of judgement, then both equally equally fall under God's condemnation and "deserve" to perish.

3) If you use the traditional concept of Christian mercy, then both equally require acquital regardless of what they "deserve."

-Neil
I mean "deserves to die" to refer to being worthy of death in this world because of some actions the person has done.

[Xavier]

I mean "deserves to die" to refer to being worthy of death in this world because of some actions the person has done.
My problem is with the human ability to provide and use an objective standard by which this state is determined. There *is* justice without death.

[norwegen]

"Deserving to die" for a capital crime is really not an issue, I don't believe. A criminal risks execution when he commits a capital crime, and, in effect, chooses the sentence. States don't decide to legalize death penalties and then execute someone after he commits such a crime.

If you're going to murder someone, and you don't want to die, you'd better find out if your jurisdiction enforces a death penalty.

[Xavier]

I'm addressing the moral ideal in this case, not necessarily the legal pragmatism.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

There *is* justice without death.This is only true if murderers don't deserve to be executed. Otherwise there is not justice without death. But that is not the topic of this thread.

[Xavier]

[...] But that is not the topic of this thread.

Fair enough.

[decoski]

Inevitably, the skeptic will then ask, "Well, God ordered genocide on babies in the OT, so how can you be against abortion?"

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Then the skeptic is raising a red-herring that is on another topic. God told at least one person to kill at least one other person. How can we oppose killing everyone?

That topic is not the topic of this thread.

[micah4]

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

...

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.


Your latter clarification of the Christians claims who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, I note hinges on the innocence of the fetus and the guilt of the murderer.

I suppose that many (if not most) of the people opposing would consider this an essential part of the claim, such that their claims are more realistically put this way:

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because it is prmia facie wrong to kill the innocent

Which you'll note is the same as your clarified premise. Then:

4) Killing a convicted murderer via execution is wrong because it is possible that the convicted murderer is innocent.

Being declared legally guilty, and being guilty are two different things. I don't know whether your initial claim "all killing is always wrong" or my amended claim "it's possible that the convicted murder is innocent" is closer to the majority opinion (I don't personally oppose the death penalty, so I'm a bit out of the loop). But I'm sure the potential of executing an innocent man is not an insignificant consideration for a large number opposing the death penalty, making your initial formulation is at least potentially a strawman.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm fed up with this claim: "Being pro life on the issue of abortion is inconcistent with supporting the death penalty."

Non Christians say it to justify abortion. How can we expect to convince them of our pro life valus, they say, when we ourselves support some killing, such as in the case of the death penalty? Christians say it to oppose the death penalty. How can we support the death penalty, they say, when we tackle the abortion issue a dn claim to be "pro-life"? They're both wrong. Very wrong. I'm tempted to use stronger terms because the argument has every appearance of being very stupid, but I know some intelligent people who have, at one time or another, found the argument plausible. I'm going to try to show briefly here that it is not plausible, and in fact it is very stupid.

The claim is that these two positions are inconsistent:

1) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong
2) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong

Now, there is certainly no formal contradiction here, since a contradiction involves saying something like "A and not A," and that's just not happening here. So I'm going to try to formulate these two statements in a way that is a contradiction, to see what lengths we have to go to.

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

Now we do have a formal contradiction. But we also have a straw man. Christians who oppose abortion don't do so - or at least they certainly don't have to do so - on the grounds that all killing is always wrong. So it seems to me first off that construing these two claims so as to make them contradict one another just involves citing a claim (namely claim 1) that Christian defenders of the death penalty wouldn't use.

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

When we spell the claims out this way, it becomes very obvious that even if claim 6) is false, it is not inconsistent with 5).

Saying that "if you do it to a criminal, then you have to accept doing it to a foetus, or someone else," is a fairly indefensible claim. We do not ordinarily steal from people - we say it is wrong, but we don't say that this means the state cannot fine criminals - that is, take their property. We say it is wrong to kidnap people, but we do not say that this fact means the state must not confine people in prison 9even if we think that the prison system is wrong on other grounds).

Christian opponents of the death penalty then have - whether they realise it or not - become guilty of begging the question. In their own opposition to abortion, they are assuming premise 3), involving the view that all killing is always wrong. But the fact that this claim is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty does not mean that opposition to abortion is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty, since those Christians who uphold the death penalty simply reject premise 3).

If you want to argue that Christians who uphold the death penalty are incorrect, by all means do so. But let's have no short cuts. They aren't inconsistent just because they oppose abortion. That is a very stupid argument, so please stop using it.


I agree wholeheartedly Theo. There is also the "jury of their peers" guilty verdict which the murderer has and the fetus lacks. There was no jury that determined the fetus was guilty of any crime and no justification to destroy the fetus. The two positions are complementary from this Christian's perspective.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Being declared legally guilty, and being guilty are two different things. I don't know whether your initial claim "all killing is always wrong" or my amended claim "it's possible that the convicted murder is innocent" is closer to the majority opinion (I don't personally oppose the death penalty, so I'm a bit out of the loop). But I'm sure the potential of executing an innocent man is not an insignificant consideration for a large number opposing the death penalty, making your initial formulation is at least potentially a strawman.There is literally no sense in which I have attacked a straw man, either directly or by implication.

The position I have attacked is the position that it is inconsistent to support the execution of a murderer while opposing the abortion of a fetus.

That is, if I support the execution of a murderer then there is some reason why I should logically support abortion, or, if I oppose abortion, then there is some logical reason why I should oppose the death penalty.

My answer has just been to point out that this claim erects a straw man. It supposes that those who do support the death penalty and oppose abortion hold to a view that killing is always wrong, since only if that claim is maintained could this stance literally be inconsistent.

Notice that I have said that there is no conflict between opposing abortion and supporting the execution of someone who is guilty. We need to get that principle very clear before we introduce the idea of wrong convictions. We need to pin the objector down and say "OK, so do you grant that if I oppose abortion and support the execution of the guilty, there is no inconsistency?" Once that is granted, the OP of this thread is conceded.

THEN the two can move on to things like the risks of the death penalty.

[Snarf]

I'm fed up with this claim: "Being pro life on the issue of abortion is inconcistent with supporting the death penalty."

Non Christians say it to justify abortion. How can we expect to convince them of our pro life valus, they say, when we ourselves support some killing, such as in the case of the death penalty? Christians say it to oppose the death penalty. How can we support the death penalty, they say, when we tackle the abortion issue a dn claim to be "pro-life"? They're both wrong. Very wrong. I'm tempted to use stronger terms because the argument has every appearance of being very stupid, but I know some intelligent people who have, at one time or another, found the argument plausible. I'm going to try to show briefly here that it is not plausible, and in fact it is very stupid.

The claim is that these two positions are inconsistent:

1) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong
2) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong

Now, there is certainly no formal contradiction here, since a contradiction involves saying something like "A and not A," and that's just not happening here. So I'm going to try to formulate these two statements in a way that is a contradiction, to see what lengths we have to go to.

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

Now we do have a formal contradiction. But we also have a straw man. Christians who oppose abortion don't do so - or at least they certainly don't have to do so - on the grounds that all killing is always wrong. So it seems to me first off that construing these two claims so as to make them contradict one another just involves citing a claim (namely claim 1) that Christian defenders of the death penalty wouldn't use.

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

When we spell the claims out this way, it becomes very obvious that even if claim 6) is false, it is not inconsistent with 5).

Saying that "if you do it to a criminal, then you have to accept doing it to a foetus, or someone else," is a fairly indefensible claim. We do not ordinarily steal from people - we say it is wrong, but we don't say that this means the state cannot fine criminals - that is, take their property. We say it is wrong to kidnap people, but we do not say that this fact means the state must not confine people in prison 9even if we think that the prison system is wrong on other grounds).

Christian opponents of the death penalty then have - whether they realise it or not - become guilty of begging the question. In their own opposition to abortion, they are assuming premise 3), involving the view that all killing is always wrong. But the fact that this claim is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty does not mean that opposition to abortion is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty, since those Christians who uphold the death penalty simply reject premise 3).

If you want to argue that Christians who uphold the death penalty are incorrect, by all means do so. But let's have no short cuts. They aren't inconsistent just because they oppose abortion. That is a very stupid argument, so please stop using it.

So, 'pro-life' actually means 'pro-life that we think has a right to exist, death to those we want killed.'

[Snarf]

I mean "deserves to die" to refer to being worthy of death in this world because of some actions the person has done.
And how did you decide this? And why can't you be wrong?

[Snarf]

Then the skeptic is raising a red-herring that is on another topic. God told at least one person to kill at least one other person. How can we oppose killing everyone?

That topic is not the topic of this thread.
So, why do you worship a self-admitted baby killer?

[Jedidiah]

So, 'pro-life' actually means 'pro-life that we think has a right to exist, death to those we want killed.'
No, pro-life actually means, being in favor of life for the unborn. It refers to opposition to abortion. It has no reference at all to capital punishment.

[Snarf]

No, pro-life actually means, being in favor of life for the unborn. It refers to opposition to abortion. It has no reference at all to capital punishment.

Very well, why only the unborn? Does it mean that life becomes more expendable after birth?

[Darth Executor]

So, 'pro-life' actually means 'pro-life that we think has a right to exist, death to those we want killed.'

Yeah, and pro choice means you're for people's choice to drink coffee. Are you stupid?

[Snarf]

Yeah, and pro choice means you're for people's choice to drink coffee. Are you stupid?

All people should have the choice whether or not to drink coffee, take that Mormons!

[Jedidiah]

Very well, why only the unborn? Does it mean that life becomes more expendable after birth?At least as far as abortion is concerned. If I object to killing the post natal . . .

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Snarf, that's exactly why "pro-life" can be misleading if it is taken acontextually. The fact is, there are times when killing - undesirable though it may be - is warranted.

My point here isn't what we should call conservative Christians who oppose abortion and support the death penalty. My only interest has been to explain the clear weakness in assuming that there is an obvious inconsistncy in doing so.

Whether or not abortion or the death penalty are right or wrong has nothing to do with the OP.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Very well, why only the unborn? Does it mean that life becomes more expendable after birth?Actually it's not just the unborn. It's the innocent, which happens to include the unborn.

[Jedidiah]

Actually it's not just the unborn. It's the innocent, which happens to include the unborn.
Right, after they are born we do not use the term abortion any longer. The name is different, but it is still murder.

[Snarf]

Snarf, that's exactly why "pro-life" can be misleading if it is taken acontextually. The fact is, there are times when killing - undesirable though it may be - is warranted.

My point here isn't what we should call conservative Christians who oppose abortion and support the death penalty. My only interest has been to explain the clear weakness in assuming that there is an obvious inconsistncy in doing so.

Whether or not abortion or the death penalty are right or wrong has nothing to do with the OP.
Very well. The hypocrisy comes in when pro-lifers assert that killing a person under any circumstances, and this includes the use of condoms, is wrong, and then support the death penalty, and excuse the deaths of innocents during war as acceptable because of collateral damage.

I do agree with you that killing, though undesirable, is warranted. This includes abortions-though it depends on the developmental stage of the fetus.

[Snarf]

Right, after they are born we do not use the term abortion any longer. The name is different, but it is still murder.
Maybe so, but it's something that Jesus did as well.
Since Jesus=God, then all of the children killed by God during the OT were killed by Jesus (unless you want to argue that God used a 'good God bad God' approach).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Snarf, are you referring to the babies who died in Egypt? Or just all the babies who died during the OT as the result of war?

Additionally, what is your point? That Jesus is not the God of the OT? Or that Jesus did all the killing the OT God did, and you're not objecting to it, you're merely trying to make it sound silly? Or something else?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Very well. The hypocrisy comes in when pro-lifers assert that killing a person under any circumstances, and this includes the use of condoms, is wrong, and then support the death penalty, and excuse the deaths of innocents during war as acceptable because of collateral damage.It would be hypocrisy IF pro-lifers who support the death penalty made that claim "that killing a person under any circumstances, and this includes the use of condoms, is wrong." One of my points in the OP is that this is a straw man, since pro-lifers who support the death penalty simply do no tmake that claim.
I do agree with you that killing, though undesirable, is warranted. This includes abortions-though it depends on the developmental stage of the fetus.I think that's very basically false, but whether or not abortion or the death penalty is justified is not part of the topic of this thread. My only interest is the consistency of opposing one and supporting the other.

[Darth Executor]

Very well. The hypocrisy comes in when pro-lifers assert that killing a person under any circumstances, and this includes the use of condoms, is wrong,

I have met a couple such people in my life and they would not call themselves conservative, nor are you doing anything other than burning straw men. You have a problem that is commonly known as "being stupid". Get help.

[Jedidiah]

The hypocrisy comes in when pro-lifers assert that killing a person under any circumstances, and this includes the use of condoms, is wrong, and then support the death penalty, and excuse the deaths of innocents during war as acceptable because of collateral damage.
Then it is folks who may happen to be pro-life, but also any killing of human beings is wrong under any and all circumstances, who are the subjects of your post. And Theonomy, you appear to agree, is correct.

[Snarf]

It would be hypocrisy IF pro-lifers who support the death penalty made that claim "that killing a person under any circumstances, and this includes the use of condoms, is wrong." One of my points in the OP is that this is a straw man, since pro-lifers who support the death penalty simply do no tmake that claim.

Some do, like in the Catholic students' group that I attended for some time. This is the reason why the catholic church condemns the use of birth control, and why all war and other actions that result in the deaths of humans is unacceptable to the church.

[Snarf]

I have met a couple such people in my life and they would not call themselves conservative, nor are you doing anything other than burning straw men. You have a problem that is commonly known as "being stupid". Get help.

Many Catholics believe what I said-it's not a straw man. They would also call themselves conservative Catholics.

[Snarf]

Then it is folks who may happen to be pro-life, but also any killing of human beings is wrong under any and all circumstances, who are the subjects of your post. And Theonomy, you appear to agree, is correct.
Yes.

I am also pointing out that since a human being is not killed in an abortion, then it is not the same as the death penalty, and that a woman should have a right to decide what goes on inside of her body.

[Snarf]

Snarf, are you referring to the babies who died in Egypt? Or just all the babies who died during the OT as the result of war?

Additionally, what is your point? That Jesus is not the God of the OT? Or that Jesus did all the killing the OT God did, and you're not objecting to it, you're merely trying to make it sound silly? Or something else?

My point is this. Christians are supposed to act in a way that Jesus would have done. If it shown that Jesus ordered His followers to kill and rape, and additionally killed children (like in Egypt), then one cannot say that abortion is anti-Christian because it results in the death of a potential human, since Jesus had no qualms about killing humans.

[Jedidiah]

I am also pointing out that since a human being is not killed in an abortion, then it is not the same as the death penalty, and that a woman should have a right to decide what goes on inside of her body.
I'd like to point out that you are wrong!

[Snarf]

I'd like to point out that you are wrong!
In what, that a one-celled zygote is not a human being or that a woman doesn't have a right to do what she wants with her body?

[Darth Executor]

In what, that a one-celled zygote is not a human being or that a woman doesn't have a right to do what she wants with her body?

It's not the woman's body, it's the zygote's body. The woman is just a shell.

[Snarf]

It's not the woman's body, it's the zygote's body. The woman is just a shell.
Not really-the zygote is dependent on the woman's body for food and nourishment, not the other way around. The zygote does not have an independent existence. Further, it was formed from the woman, which is why the woman's body can kill the zygote spontaneously (miscarriage).

I'm still not sure why Christians who believe that God is in control of everything, and who worship a God who is reported to have killed many should have such a problem with abortions. Since God is in control of everything, then He is in control of abortions. Why do you insist that killing a fetus is wrong, but that God killing fetuses is OK?

[Bill the Cat]

Not really-the zygote is dependent on the woman's body for food and nourishment, not the other way around.

So does the baby 10 minutes before it is delivered

The zygote does not have an independent existence.

Neither does the baby 10 minutes before it is delivered. Until the umbilical cord is severed, they are intricately connected to each other.

Further, it was formed from the woman,

And the man had some input into the unique genetic makeup too.

which is why the woman's body can kill the zygote spontaneously (miscarriage).

Which is a natural process, while abortion unnaturally dilates the cervix from the outside, often causing damage and sometimes difficulty carrying later pregnancies to term.

I'm still not sure why Christians who believe that God is in control of everything, and who worship a God who is reported to have killed many should have such a problem with abortions. Since God is in control of everything, then He is in control of abortions. Why do you insist that killing a fetus is wrong, but that God killing fetuses is OK?

God takes all of our lives at one point or another, yet commanded US not to murder each other. You as a Christian should know that...

[JSDileo]

So does the baby 10 minutes before it is delivered



Neither does the baby 10 minutes before it is delivered. Until the umbilical cord is severed, they are intricately connected to each other.



And the man had some input into the unique genetic makeup too.



Which is a natural process, while abortion unnaturally dilates the cervix from the outside, often causing damage and sometimes difficulty carrying later pregnancies to term.



God takes all of our lives at one point or another, yet commanded US not to murder each other. You as a Christian should know that...
To all the people who claim that an embryo isn't a person because it relies on the mother for nourishment:

The baby is reliant on other people's care up to a very late age after birth. Up to, say, five years old, a child couldn't POSSIBLY survive without help from others. I've seen an embryo equated to a parasite because it relies entirely on the mother for survival. Well, using that logic when a baby is born it changes from a tapeworm (an internal parasite) to a case of head lice (an external parasite). I doubt that's a good argument to support abortion.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Yes.

I am also pointing out that since a human being is not killed in an abortion, then it is not the same as the death penalty, and that a woman should have a right to decide what goes on inside of her body.Snarf, this is scientifically ludicrous, but it is also off topic for this thread. As thread starter I request that whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether a human fetus belongs to the human species or not be regarded as subjects for a different thread if you choose to take it there, but they are not the topic here.

[Darth Executor]

Not really-the zygote is dependent on the woman's body for food and nourishment, not the other way around.

Irrelevant. A woman is dependant on her lungs to provide oxygen, yet you don't call it the lungs' body. Not only that, but the baby provides aid with one of the main functions of life: reproduction. If babies didn't exist, neither would humanity. Meanwhile, I'm hoping you'll stop resurrecting these old, retarded arguments.


The zygote does not have an independent existence.

Nothing has an independent existance. If I put you in a void you'd go up like a New Year firecracker.

Further, it was formed from the woman, which is why the woman's body can kill the zygote spontaneously (miscarriage).

I can kill you spontaneously with a knife in the head, yet I doubt you'd say you were formed from me (unless we're some mutant freaks and were separated at birth). Not that it matters because it seems that you skipped a couple of sex ed classes because it was formed by both the mother and the father's cells.

I'm still not sure why Christians who believe that God is in control of everything, and who worship a God who is reported to have killed many should have such a problem with abortions.

Then you won't have a problem if we return to OT law and start stoning people like you to death.

Since God is in control of everything, then He is in control of abortions.

And justice will be given out accordingly to those that support them to the extent that you do.

Why do you insist that killing a fetus is wrong, but that God killing fetuses is OK?

This is easily the stupidest thing I've read in ages, and considering the forums I've been visiting lately, that's saying a lot. I need to get away from you. :lolo:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Darth, I appreciate the reasons you find Snarf's comments so untenable, but I do ask that this not become a thread about arguments for and against abortion.

If any further posts seek to go down that road, I will have them removed.

[Jedidiah]

In what, that a one-celled zygote is not a human being or that a woman doesn't have a right to do what she wants with her body?
I was attempting to point to your arrogance in "pointing out" the truth of your position on a very much debatable subject. If you can "point out" one side, I can "point out" the other.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

As per my request and comments earlier, I am going to request that posts 47-58 be removed or sent to a new thread. This has become an argument about the ethics of abortion, which I clearly requested it not become.

[neocon_voter]

One more post to delete.... thanks.

...sorry. When people make false claims sometimes I just feel compelled to call them on it.

So, the real question is: "Is Christian opposition to abortion inconsistent with upholding the death penalty?"

How can that be answered without demonstrating whether or not the two positions are morally ethical? (or Biblically ethical?)

At the risk of being 'deleted' again, I am going to try to simplifiy the issue, simplistic guy that I am.

A: Outlawing abortion means protecting innocent human beings, a safer society for the rest of the law-abiding humans, and thats a good thing.

B. Getting rid of murderer/rapists/psychos makes society safer, and thats a good thing.


Therefore, A=good thing, B=good thing

Looks consistant to me.

Voter