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

[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.

[Glenn P]

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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

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.

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.

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

[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