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

[dizzle]

I have duplicated this thread in this section as it is pertinent.

[patwil]

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

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'd like to argue that it can be inconsistent in some cases. For example, if you believe that due to sin all deserve death and do not believe in age of accountability - then arguing that it is wrong to kill a fetus when it is ok to kill a criminal is somewhat inconsistent. Now one might say that the criminal has the chance to repent while the fetus does not, but then the argument would be - how much time do we give them? If a criminal is seeking god, and is killed before repenting then have we not committed the same crime as you accuse abortionist of? Or what about the doctrine of Calvinism where grace is predetermined by god? So either the aborted fetus goes to heaven (good) or all aborted fetuses were not given god's grace and would not have achieved salvation anyway.

Your position is not inconsistent (as I see it) when you hold age of accountability as a doctrine since then it can be clearly argued that the criminal chose to commit his acts while the fetus did not. So even if you believe that all who sin deserve death it still gives the fetus an out as it has not passed the age of accountability yet.

The problem arises often when people use too wide a paint brush to describe Christians. It also tends to devolve into inconsequentials surrounding the abortion issue (namely is it wrong or right). Arguing that someone is inconsistent in their views might make a few change their minds, but the vast majority will say "so what?"

Don't know if this helps or adds fuel to the fire, but there you go

Pat

[Little Shepherd]

I'd like to argue that it can be inconsistent in some cases. For example, if you believe that due to sin all deserve death and do not believe in age of accountability - then arguing that it is wrong to kill a fetus when it is ok to kill a criminal is somewhat inconsistent.
I'm going to address this particular statement.

First, the killing of a criminal is a punishment for criminal acts. The killing of a fetus is not. We don't prosecute people according to their nature, but according to their actions. So even if you were to argue that the sinful nature inherited by a fetus makes that fetus guilty before God, you have no grounds on which to prosecute it. And certainly no grounds on which to convict it and carry out its punishment. You might as well argue that you have the right to kill your next door neighbors because they have the sinful nature. You'd immediately realize the flaws in this argument once you apply it to someone else because, when it comes to your neighbor, you realize you punish according to their actions, not their nature.

Second, we as humans only have the right to enact the death penalty when due process has been followed and a criminal has been convicted of violating one of our government laws. There are laws of God that we do not have corresponding government laws for, and as Christians our actions in response to these things is extremely limited. Since the government has no laws for these actions, it cannot prosecute. Since the church knows these laws, members of the church have the right to confront people about these sins(and if they're committed by Christians to break fellowship if things go too far), and that is all. We do not have the right to take things into our hands. We must leave the ultimate punishments for such acts to God Himself.

The two cases aren't analogous no matter how you view human nature because, as I said in the first paragraph, we as humans only have the right to punish based on actions, not on nature. And even then, only when criminal laws have been violated and due process has been followed.

[patwil]

I'm going to address this particular statement.

First, the killing of a criminal is a punishment for criminal acts. The killing of a fetus is not. We don't prosecute people according to their nature, but according to their actions. So even if you were to argue that the sinful nature inherited by a fetus makes that fetus guilty before God, you have no grounds on which to prosecute it. And certainly no grounds on which to convict it and carry out its punishment. You might as well argue that you have the right to kill your next door neighbors because they have the sinful nature. You'd immediately realize the flaws in this argument once you apply it to someone else because, when it comes to your neighbor, you realize you punish according to their actions, not their nature.

The two cases aren't analogous no matter how you view human nature because, as I said in the first paragraph, we as humans only have the right to punish based on actions, not on nature. And even then, only when criminal laws have been violated and due process has been followed.

All of which would be different than my stated argument. Namely you are holding another criteria to determine if ending the life of someone is wrong or right. Your criteria is that we can only end a life based on the actions of a particular person - so in that case holding abortion wrong while holding the death penalty right is not inconsistent (unless we move to arguments around theft by the fetus of food and shelter - which I personally find ridiculous).

The problem is one I addressed in my last paragraph of my post about broad paint brushes. People have multiple reasons for believing things to be right or wrong. We can point to any two and probably find some sort of inconsistency, however when we delve deeper we find (sometimes) that the inconsistencies disappear -as was the case if you held my first two criteria and then added your third.

Hope this clarifies,

Pat

[Little Shepherd]

All of which would be different than my stated argument.
What I got from your earlier posts is that you believe that the "age of accountability" doctrine can make a difference in whether one is consistent or inconsistent in believing abortion is wrong while the death penalty is right. My post was formulated to systematically trash that particular argument -- nothing else. Whether one holds to an age of accountability or not has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Holding to an age of accountability doesn't make one consistent where one would be inconsistent if one didn't hold to such an age of accountability. For a number of reasons, that just doesn't logically follow.

[patwil]

What I got from your earlier posts is that you believe that the "age of accountability" doctrine can make a difference in whether one is consistent or inconsistent in believing abortion is wrong while the death penalty is right. My post was formulated to systematically trash that particular argument -- nothing else. Whether one holds to an age of accountability or not has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Holding to an age of accountability doesn't make one consistent where one would be inconsistent if one didn't hold to such an age of accountability. For a number of reasons, that just doesn't logically follow.

Actually it does - as long as you don't hold other criteria for believing something. That is often the problem when accusing someone of inconsistency based on a single position. Namely that other beliefs come along that remove the inconsistency.

Now you are correct that it doesn't bear on whether abortion is wrong or right - which you should see I mentioned in my posts. It only bears on whether the position you hold is consistent with other positions you hold.

Pat

I'm not really arguing with you here - I was just pointing out that the OP used a too broad brush to condemn a particular argument. There are cases when he is right (I would even go so far as to say the majority of which he is right) and some cases he is wrong.

[Little Shepherd]

Actually it does - as long as you don't hold other criteria for believing something. That is often the problem when accusing someone of inconsistency based on a single position. Namely that other beliefs come along that remove the inconsistency.
Let me try this one more time. You're arguing that the age of accountability doctrine changes something. It doesn't. Not in any situation. Killing as punishment for criminal actions is not comparable to the killing of an innocent(action-wise) human being. This is true if you hold to an age of accountability, and it's true if you don't hold to an age of accountability. Period.
Now you are correct that it doesn't bear on whether abortion is wrong or right - which you should see I mentioned in my posts. It only bears on whether the position you hold is consistent with other positions you hold.
No, it doesn't. You have asserted this, but have shown no reason why it would be so. I've shown you two huge reasons why it could not be so, neither of which you've refuted.
I'm not really arguing with you here - I was just pointing out that the OP used a too broad brush to condemn a particular argument. There are cases when he is right (I would even go so far as to say the majority of which he is right) and some cases he is wrong.
In which cases would he be wrong? I've already shown you that changing one's opinion on the age of accountability has no bearing on the consistency or lack thereof concerning anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty stances. Do you have anything else? Perhaps this time something better thought out.

[patwil]

Let me try this one more time. You're arguing that the age of accountability doctrine changes something. It doesn't. Not in any situation. Killing as punishment for criminal actions is not comparable to the killing of an innocent(action-wise) human being. This is true if you hold to an age of accountability, and it's true if you don't hold to an age of accountability. Period.

Ok, I'll try again also. Let's say you believe that abortion is wrong and the death penalty is right. You also hold that all deserve death because of sin. Finally you hold that this penalty is deserved from birth (no age of accountability).

With these 3 positions your views on abortion/death penalty are inconsistent - regardless if you believe that the death penalty is for punishment of criminal actions because of your prior beliefs that we all have committed some crime (namely sin). Since this crime is committed literally from conception arguing that it is ok to kill a criminal but not a fetus because one is innocent is inconsistent (since no one is truly innocent).

Now say you hold that abortion is wrong and the death penalty is right. You also hold that all deserve death because of sin. Finally you hold that a person must make an informed decision to reject or accept god (believe in age of accountability).

At this point your views are not inconsistent since even though both the fetus and criminal have committed a crime deserving death, the fetus has not had a chance to make the informed decision to accept or reject god.

Clearer now?

No, it doesn't. You have asserted this, but have shown no reason why it would be so. I've shown you two huge reasons why it could not be so, neither of which you've refuted.

No, what you have done is add another criteria to the ones I posted. Namely that killing a person can only be acceptable based on their actions - which is not part of the doctrine of age of accountability (which says nothing really about whether or not you don't deserve death for sin, but that until you make an informed choice you basically get a pass on the punishment)

In which cases would he be wrong? I've already shown you that changing one's opinion on the age of accountability has no bearing on the consistency or lack thereof concerning anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty stances. Do you have anything else? Perhaps this time something better thought out.

Actually you have not - you have added criteria for your position. Which is what I was arguing for in the first place - namely that calling something inconsistent is very difficult because few people hold one justification for their beliefs. But those people do exist, and many times I have heard the abortion issue argued based on one not killing an innocent and in the next breath the phrase we are all sinners who deserve death.

Perhaps you are under the opinion that all who oppose abortion have logical reasoned criteria for doing so. If that was the case this issue would not be nearly as decisive as it is. Most pro-choice advocates don't regard abortion as a wonderful thing, something to do every weekend. a lot tend to regard it as a necessary evil. If the debate didn't so often degrade into shouted insults on both sides (often due to not thought through reasons or inconsistent views) then perhaps we could have come up with a proposal that would have eliminated the need for abortions before now.

Pat

[Little Shepherd]

With these 3 positions your views on abortion/death penalty are inconsistent - regardless if you believe that the death penalty is for punishment of criminal actions because of your prior beliefs that we all have committed some crime (namely sin).
No, sorry. That's not how it works, and you don't get to redefine the terms to fit your goals. In the case of people who believe that all are sinners guilty before God from conception, that is guilt by nature, not by action, which places it outside of the human realm to prosecute immediately. To say that one is allowed to prosecute things that fall under one's jurisdiction but not things that don't fall under one's jurisdiction is not inconsistent.
Clearer now?
For your sake, I wish it wasn't. You've also added your own criterion, too -- that to be considered guilty by nature(rather than by action), if that's the case, is also to be considered subject to judgment and punishment by men. That just isn't the case.
No, what you have done is add another criteria to the ones I posted. Namely that killing a person can only be acceptable based on their actions - which is not part of the doctrine of age of accountability (which says nothing really about whether or not you don't deserve death for sin, but that until you make an informed choice you basically get a pass on the punishment)
I didn't add that criterion to the equation. It was added for me. That's just how things work. Period. In your special scenario, again I point out that you wouldn't be able to oppose any killing consistently. It would be just as moral to perform the death penalty as to shoot your grandma or the girl who sat in front of you in reading class. If you oppose one of those killings, well . . . you're adding criteria(or just accepting the criteria provided by reality, as I'd say), and that's bad. Puh-leeze.

[Chocobear]

I look at it this way.

1.) The death penalty was established by God to punish those who have committed terrible crimes. Abortion, on the other hand, was established by human beings for the sake of getting rid of unwanted children and elevating selfishness and cowardice, and putting blood money in the hands of greedy doctors. :glare:

2.) The person who is on death row has been found guilty of a heinous crime. If he is not guilty, then I believe God will make that fact clear. However, the unborn child has not committed a crime. He is innocent. :innocent:

Quite frankly, the people who oppose the death penalty and yet support a woman's "right to choose" are the hypocrites. They're saying that a blood-thirsty murderer should be shown mercy, but then they are turning around and saying that a woman has the right to show absolutely no mercy to her unborn child. How can they fight to protect someone who has made a terrible decision that has resulted in the death of a human being, and yet say that it's perfectly fine to murder our most innocent and defenseless members of society? It simply makes no sense. :eh:

This is yet another example of the consequences of removing God from public life. :frown:

[joel]

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."
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...
The Roman Catholic Church does not condemn birth control because it is the "killing of a person". I have never heard anyone make that argument against birth control. Rome condemns birth control because they state that it shows a grave lack of respect for human life and a misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of human sexuality.
I disagree with Rome on birth control, but let's not put words in their mouth.


So, 'pro-life' actually means 'pro-life that we think has a right to exist, death to those we want killed.'
The anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty position results from a consistent application of the principle of individual rights. It is not ambiguous (or subject to personal opinion) as you suggest here.

[theosis10565]

In what way is the death penalty established by God? That is rather inconsistent with the typical notion that God cannot do any evil.

Anyway, I see little reason -- but not necessarily no -- reason for being strongly against abortion yet advocating the death penalty. Firstly, while I realize that the fetus is quite innocent (that is, inasmuch as it has done no sin; as for what its status is in regards to the inheretance of original sin is to be ignored for the time being), it seems a tad bit inconsistent -- namely with regards to the New Testament -- to consider the state a means of taking one's life. This is a duty meant for God and God alone. Our job is to adhere to Christ's hardest command: forgiveness. In the eys of God, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven; therefore, it is our job -- nay, our necessary duty -- to provide whatever aid is needed for a sinner to see the light.

Secondly, we are not unbiased judges. "He who is without sin may cast the first stone," says Christ to the mob about to stone the adultress. We are all sinners. The State, being a product of human effort, is unable to remain unbiased. To use a Platonic reference (see "Crito"), the Laws -- which are "above" the impurities of the judge/jury/government workers/etc., are henceforth the only items we can have any assurence in. As Christians, this "Law" can be seen as either the Ten Commandments or the lessons of Christ, and neither can contradict one another, for the law is perfect in its very essence. It is our duty to uphold these Laws in our political life.

Thirdly, it is clear both are unnatural. Abortion ceases the life of a fetus before it can go into the world; the death penalty steals the life of a criminal before s/he reaches his/her natural death. Either way, we are "playing God." I don't care if the criminal went on a brutal massacre, really. His/her act is unnatural as well and clearly a product of the Fall, but so is ours in actively utilizing the death penalty to take such a "creature" away from society.

In a more practical sense, the death penalty actually costs more than life in prison. It also is rather difficult to reverse if the individual is later found to be innocent. If we truly want to reform society, we must reform those individuals who wreak havok upon it.

God Bless --
Hannah

[Teallaura]

Well, you got the financial part right. Read the OT - God clearly establishes the death penalty.

God is not evil. God establishes the death penalty. Therefore the death penalty is not evil (substitute 'immoral' - it still works). You're arguing the reverse but that requires an a priori assumption that the death penalty is evil. It's not a compelling argument to those who disagree with that premise.

(Yeah, my argument has the same problem but since Christians already accept my premise it has greater strength in this setting.)

If you don't care that someone committed mass murder the first person you need to reform is you. I'm against the death penalty but I find that line of argumentation disgusting and idiotic. If killing innocent people doesn't bother you then why does killing guilty people?

Justice that ignores the victim is not justice; justice that centers on the victim is also not justice. If you can't strike that balance - or at least try to - you have no credibility in this kind of argument. The logical conclusion to that line would be anarchy - you're not gonna be able to pawn that one off on anyone.

Stick with the cost effectiveness argument.

[theosis10565]

Um, when did I say I didn't care about innocent people dying? I figured the fact that their lives mattered was to be assumed.

There is no perfect justice in this life. That's essentially my point. Perfect justice can only be had through God. I probably should stop citing Plato constantly...

I don't mean that God does evil, as, well, obviously He cannot. Similarly, I don't necessarily mean that the death penalty is always evil (e.g. Levitical laws and those of the Old Covenant; I do not mean these were products of man. I believe the laws in the OT were more or less meant to show us that our actions are worthy of the punishment of death because of our vile and sinful behavior which themselves bring death into the world through our sins). In light of the New Covenant, however, we should have a penal law that tries to focus more on granting criminals, even the worst of them, an opportunity for true repentance in this lifetime rather than attempting to imitate/approach God's justice, Whose "righteousness is an everlasting righteousness." We need to do what is spiritually beneficial to both the guilty and the injured (e.g. victims/family members/etc.).

As an Orthodox, I realize the Fathers have a variety of judgments on the justness of capital punishment and/or its role in the state. I don't mean to be too standoffish or seem pompous, as, again, there is some truth to it.

[joel]

...This is a duty meant for God and God alone. Our job is to adhere to Christ's hardest command: forgiveness. In the eys of God, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven; therefore, it is our job -- nay, our necessary duty -- to provide whatever aid is needed for a sinner to see the light.

Secondly, we are not unbiased judges. ...

Thirdly, it is clear both are unnatural. ...Either way, we are "playing God."

In a more practical sense, the death penalty actually costs more than life in prison.
Whether the death penalty is forbidden by Christianity or otherwise wrong or impractical does not indicate that it is inconsistent with opposition to abortion.

If someone's opposition to abortion were based merely on "it's unnatural" or "it's playing God." then yes, you are right that then the two positions would be inconsistent. But it is possible for people to have other/additional reasons for opposing abortion.

[Lightknight]

I think all Christians percieve the notion that an unborn child is someone who could not possibly have broken any laws deserving death whereas an inmate is someone (idealy) guilty of a crime deserving that punishment. Any Christian can point out that old testament Law (God's Law in that covenant) required the execution of individuals for crimes they committed. Murder was one of those crimes.

If Christians or pro-lifers base their positions on the belief that abortion is murder, or the unjust killing of human life. Then there can be no comparison to the execution of a man guilty of such a crime.

I guess the misconception is when people think that we mean that all ending of human life is wrong. But that isn't what prolifers all mean (though some do, of course).

[MetalMark]

It very much is.

[joel]

It very much is.
Care to elaborate?

[Neohuman]

Yes.
Mistakes happen i.e. innocent people convicted.
God is the ultimate judge.

[Jedidiah]

I seriously doubt that innocent people are wrongly convicted multiple times for serious crimes. It is relatively rare that people who have no criminal history are executed for their first arrest.

[Jedidiah]

This entire thread shows the flaw of describing a position of "pro-life." I am no pro-life, I am anti-abortion.

[avaya]

The 10 commandments that some Christians want placed on courthouses do not have an asterisks* after thou shall not kill. Perhaps most Christians consider thou shall not kill to have an asterisks *, and think sometimes it is okay to kill. If that is the case then non-theists who call pro-life pro-death penalty Christians inconsistent are wrong.

[joel]

The 10 commandments that some Christians want placed on courthouses do not have an asterisks* after thou shall not kill. Perhaps most Christians consider thou shall not kill to have an asterisks *, and think sometimes it is okay to kill. If that is the case then non-theists who call pro-life pro-death penalty Christians inconsistent are wrong.
Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder."
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

[avaya]

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder."
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."


dont' leave out:

The men of her city must stone her to death because she has committed such a godless act in Israel: She had sex before marriage, while she was still living in her father's house. You must get rid of this evil.

[joel]

dont' leave out:

The men of her city must stone her to death because she has committed such a godless act in Israel: She had sex before marriage, while she was still living in her father's house. You must get rid of this evil.
What is your point?
The verses I quoted were sufficient to show that the supposed inconsistency does not exist, regarding the 10 commandments.

(As an aside, it's helpful when you refer to a Biblical passage if you you cite the location.)

[avaya]

What is your point?
The verses I quoted were sufficient to show that the supposed inconsistency does not exist, regarding the 10 commandments.

(As an aside, it's helpful when you refer to a Biblical passage if you you cite the location.)

The hypocrite argument comes from Christians who want "thou shall not kill" displayed in courtrooms. It implies some type of complete moral statement, when really the Christine doctrine is more complicated.

[joel]

The hypocrite argument comes from Christians who want "thou shall not kill" displayed in courtrooms. It implies some type of complete moral statement, when really the Christine doctrine is more complicated.
So what are you saying--that in order not to be hypocritical, they must want the entire text of the Torah displayed, rather than just, say, a passage from Exodus 20?

Every state has a law that can be summarized as "Thou shall not murder." Any state could post such a notice as a summary of their law. But it is always more complicated than that. It would only appear hypocritical or inconsistent to someone who interpreted the statement simplemindedly.

[avaya]

So what are you saying--that in order not to be hypocritical, they must want the entire text of the Torah displayed, rather than just, say, a passage from Exodus 20?

Every state has a law that can be summarized as "Thou shall not murder." Any state could post such a notice as a summary of their law. But it is always more complicated than that. It would only appear hypocritical or inconsistent to someone who interpreted the statement simplemindedly.

I'm pointing out where the misconception comes from - call them simplemindedly or not. I'm not suggesting what might be done to fix it (though not posting it at all seems like a more logical first idea then posting the entire Torah).

[Lightknight]

Murder should not be confused with execution. Murder implies unjust killing, execution implies just killing. There is no contradiciton in abhoring unjust killing while upholding just killing.

Besides, the concept of not killing a fetus is not necessarily religious at all. A fetus is alive (i.e. it is growing) by any standards of science and it is not deer-life or plant-life or mouse-life. It must logically be considered human-life, albeit not presently sentient. It must therefore be considered the ending of human life from a purely scientific standpoint.

There is another thing to consider, however, and that is that the widely agreed upon concept that murder is bad is a moral concept that has no foundation in non-religious circles. If you ask me why I believe murder is wrong, I have something to go to for added authority even if you don't believe in it. An athiest has nothing. In fact, it might be more beneficial for an individual to murder someone.

[Darth Executor]

Care to elaborate?

Apparently not.

[humanevitae]

There is another aspect of this problem that hasn't been brought up so far on this thread.
In the past criminals were executed because they could not be jailed. There was no jail. The people of the community didn't want a murderer among them so the murdered was killed. It was always left up to the state to decide what would happen to the criminal. There was no overruling the state. No one overruled the state as far as killing a criminal.
Now we have entered a modern day position where we don't have to kill a murderer. We can just put him in jail until he dies. The citizens are not threatened by his behavior. No one has to be killed.
The answer to our dilemma is:
1) Eliminate the death penalty.
2: Eliminate abortion.

[Darth Executor]

I oppose jails in their current state. Replace them with slavery.

[laffer]

I'm not a Christian but I will defend the notion of opposing abortion while allowing the death penalty.

If you consider a fetus to have the same value as any other human being, then this could be considered killing an innocent human.

Death penalty is punishment, and I think many Christians are fine with this.

I think comparing the death sentence with abortion is rather silly as they're very different things.

[DuraGizer]

I oppose jails in their current state. Replace them with slavery.

And put people out of a job? No way! :teeth:

[Neohuman]

If in principle you can be 100% sure that the individual is guilty sure, but as there are many cases of innocent individuals ending up on death row no I do think it is inconsistent. One argument put forward by Pro-Life is that since there is doubt about the personhood status of the foetus that in itself is enough to argue against general abortions. If doubt works for the foetus I see no reason why it shouldn’t for a murder suspect.

Secondly if I or a family member we innocent of a charge of murder I sure as hell would want the benefit of the doubt and unless those here feel free to wave that sort of benefit I think do think it doubly hypocritical to be pro death penalty and Pro-Life.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Remember that being pro-death-penalty does not mean being anti-judicial-process, especially the appeals process which is a definite part of most modern western judicial systems. I believe that most people who are pro-death-penalty believe that it should only be exercised in cases where the process has run its course and there is no longer any grounds for reasonable doubt about the person's guilt. (Trying to get the conviction overturned on a technicality doesn't establish reasonable doubt about his guilt, of course.)

The (and there is no doubt about the personhood of a baby in utero) Curtmudgeon

[joel]

Interesting. Yes, I think Curtmudgeon is right that a difference is that the person on death row had due process while the aborted baby did not.

On the other hand I think uncertainty (even that "beyond reasonable doubt") does create some difference between the death penalty and other penalties. If someone has, say, a life sentence (due to guilt having been "proven beyond reasonable doubt") and we find out later we were mistaken, then we can release him, offer him something towards restitution, and beg his forgiveness. We cannot do that if we find we executed the wrong person. On the other hand we also cannot do that for someone who has already finished serving a life-in-prison sentence.

[Neohuman]

Remember that being pro-death-penalty does not mean being anti-judicial-process, especially the appeals process which is a definite part of most modern western judicial systems. I believe that most people who are pro-death-penalty believe that it should only be exercised in cases where the process has run its course and there is no longer any grounds for reasonable doubt about the person's guilt. (Trying to get the conviction overturned on a technicality doesn't establish reasonable doubt about his guilt, of course.)

The (and there is no doubt about the personhood of a baby in utero) Curtmudgeon


Its easy to talk about reasonable doubt when it happens not to be your life at stake esp when you still have cases of police evidence fabrication and corruption. That and the inherent flaws in the jury system and witness evidence; -when psychology has shown how fallible it is – so I don’t trust any legal system even with due process, as it isn’t 100% perfect.

& while a life sentence isn’t an ideal situation I think many of the prisoners would still prefer it to death and there is at least a chance for substantial financial compensation.


So unless you can catch them red handed with video evidence there is still doubt.