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

[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!

[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.

[kylewayneluck]

Whether the opposition to abortion is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty is partially irrelevant. Capital punishment is simply moronic. The data on lethal injection (the most common method used today at 85%) shows that it actually cost more to perform then it would to just keep people imprisoned for life. Seriously, how do you justify it?
Not to mention that if any of the prisoners on death row were Christians, and had genuinely repented, they would be forgiven and by killing them we are actually setting them free. If you really want justice, why don't you let a criminal sit there? Cheaper, intelligent and much less controversial.

[Rushing Jaws]

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.

## That may be so, but it's artificial to exclude elements if the issue for no stated reason.

God is not a human person, so what God is said to have done to or for or a human person is irrelevant. "God told me to" solves nothing - it's an evasion.

[Teallaura]

Um, that's not exactly the problem. He isn't saying 'God said so, so there! ' - he's saying that the question 'Can God give a command to kill without voiding the commandment not to murder?' is wholly separate from 'Can you logically support the death penalty and be against abortion?' He's not ducking anything - they really are separate questions.

You can open your own thread on the latter question if you like - Theo just likes his threads to remain on topic and the moderators respect the thread starter's wishes as a general rule (not if they violate the rules, obviously).

[LoveAndPeace]

While I won't go into my personal opinions about the death penalty (that would bring us all a lovely rant), I WILL say that no, I wouldn't say that it's hypocritical. From their point of view, an unborn child has done nothing wrong, while a criminal obviously has.