Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a pro-life supporter, do you support the death penalty?
If you do, then are you in support of the execution of adults but not infants?
If not, then one must ask if you are pro-life at all.
If you do, then there will be three reasons why you are selective.
Law.
Preferences and Circumstances.
Religion.
If it is a matter of law, then if the law says a mother has the right to abortion, then logic suggests you would support her choice. If not, then your stance on the death penalty and stance on abortion contradict each other.
If it is a matter of preferences and circumstances, then you agree under certain circumstances, you support a woman's choice to have an abortion. If not, then you are forcing your opinions onto others.
If it is a matter of religion, then do those who do not share your religion have a right to have an abortion? If not, then you are forcing your religion onto others.
In all three cases, support for the death penalty and condemnation of the right to an abortion betrays the wish of men to be the masters of others by forcing their own opinions onto others. How can we as a society support the one and not the other?
We are human beings not logical machines, as Neils Bohr once told his kid, you are being logical but you are not thinking. As Kierkegaard said, life is not logic.
One easily passes laws, or forms up morality or ethics with these various "contradictions". Abortion is not capital punishment-these two concepts even have different words (and if one looks inside the concepts one will find different structures as to what they are)! This confusing of categories is only an attempt to confuse the weak minded to direct them into some ideological direction. But keep it up which ever side one falls on as it is obvious today that weak minds are the norm
We are human beings not logical machines, as Neils Bohr once told his kid, you are being logical but you are not thinking. As Kierkegaard said, life is not logic.
One easily passes laws, or forms up morality or ethics with these various "contradictions". Abortion is not capital punishment-these two concepts even have different words (and if one looks inside the concepts one will find different structures as to what they are)! This confusing of categories is only an attempt to confuse the weak minded to direct them into some ideological direction. But keep it up which ever side one falls on as it is obvious today that weak minds are the norm
The right wing approach to these problems should make one laugh. They work to keep a fetus alive at any cost, vote against bills to feed and educate the poor and gloat at the chance to put another major offender into the gas chamber.
One is innocent and one is guilty. One has not had a chance to be of worth to society and the other has chosen to live outside the bounds of society. No comparison to me.
As a pro-life supporter, do you support the death penalty?
If you do, then are you in support of the execution of adults but not infants?
If not, then one must ask if you are pro-life at all.
If you do, then there will be three reasons why you are selective.
Law.
Preferences and Circumstances.
Religion.
If it is a matter of law, then if the law says a mother has the right to abortion, then logic suggests you would support her choice. If not, then your stance on the death penalty and stance on abortion contradict each other.
If it is a matter of preferences and circumstances, then you agree under certain circumstances, you support a woman's choice to have an abortion. If not, then you are forcing your opinions onto others.
If it is a matter of religion, then do those who do not share your religion have a right to have an abortion? If not, then you are forcing your religion onto others.
In all three cases, support for the death penalty and condemnation of the right to an abortion betrays the wish of men to be the masters of others by forcing their own opinions onto others. How can we as a society support the one and not the other?
Interesting. I've always found that this argument in reverse is the best evidence that Democrats are a bunch of damned hypocrites. (Don't mistake me, the Republicans are just as hypocritical in their own ways.)
If you believe that capital punishment is morally wrong even when a man or woman arguably deserves it 100% then you're establishing yourself as someone who believes in the sanctity of human life no matter what. No exceptions, human life must be preserved. So anyone who clings so fiercely to the principal of preserving human life at all costs would logically never in a million years support the practice of snuffing out human life while still in the womb. If putting a serial killer down like a rabid dog is morally reprehensible, then abortion could only possibly be viewed as an indescribably evil abomination - as bad as and probably much worse than the death penalty.
The fact that the Democratic Party supports abortion but denounces capital punishment is insanity at its finest.
Given the choice between them, it's a lot easier to justify putting a murderer to death than an unborn baby. At least you can say that the murderer did something to deserve death. No way you can make that case with the unborn.
I don't believe that abortion is murder. I know that other people disagree with me. I don't think that a fetus that cannot live outside the mother's body is a baby. I don't think anyone should be forced to bring a life into the world. I am pro choice. This is not to say that I believe abortion is a good thing - I just think that it's not my decision to make for other people.
I am against the death penatly. I believe that it makes us no better than the murderers themselves. I know that other people see this differently as well.
These are my feelings on these subjects. To me, this is not a double standard as the two have little to do with each other in my mind.
Interesting. I've always found that this argument in reverse is the best evidence that Democrats are a bunch of damned hypocrites. (Don't mistake me, the Republicans are just as hypocritical in their own ways.)
If you believe that capital punishment is morally wrong even when a man or woman arguably deserves it 100% then you're establishing yourself as someone who believes in the sanctity of human life no matter what. No exceptions, human life must be preserved. So anyone who clings so fiercely to the principal of preserving human life at all costs would logically never in a million years support the practice of snuffing out human life while still in the womb. If putting a serial killer down like a rabid dog is morally reprehensible, then abortion could only possibly be viewed as an indescribably evil abomination - as bad as and probably much worse than the death penalty.
The fact that the Democratic Party supports abortion but denounces capital punishment is insanity at its finest.
Given the choice between them, it's a lot easier to justify putting a murderer to death than an unborn baby. At least you can say that the murderer did something to deserve death. No way you can make that case with the unborn.
My point is, the reasons that Pro-Lifers have for abolishing abortion either are contradictions, personal preference or religious and the strong arm tactics used is an attempt to force onto others what you think is right.
If it is a matter of law, then if the law allows it, a pro-lifer should be fine with abortion. If not, that is a contradiction.
If it is a matter of religion, then the moral standard can only be applied to religious peers. If pro-life views are forced onto people of religions not against abortion, then that is religious fanaticism like the Taliban.
If it is personal preference, then that applies only to you as a person. If you force it onto others, then you are a fascist.
For those three reasons, Pro-Lifers have no business telling people who get abortions where legal that they are murderers.
My point is, the reasons that Pro-Lifers have for abolishing abortion either are contradictions, personal preference or religious and the strong arm tactics used is an attempt to force onto others what you think is right.
If it is a matter of law, then if the law allows it, a pro-lifer should be fine with abortion. If not, that is a contradiction.
It's a pretty weak argument really. A pro-lifer is defending a human life that isn't guilty of any crime. Anti-death penalty folks are defending a person who has proven quite thoroughly that all of humanity would be better off without them. So rather than killing them we lock them in a box for the rest of their life, overcrowd prisons, and taxpayers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping the murderer locked away and never making a useful contribution to society. It's both cruel and insanely wasteful of government money.
Quote:
If it is a matter of religion, then the moral standard can only be applied to religious peers. If pro-life views are forced onto people of religions not against abortion, then that is religious fanaticism like the Taliban.
I think that abortion is bad enough on it's own. You don't need any religion to tell you it's a horrible crime (current laws notwithstanding.) You can talk people into believing that anything should be legal. The fact that so many have been duped into accepting the legality of something so disgusting is one of my greatest disappointments in the human species in general.
Quote:
If it is personal preference, then that applies only to you as a person. If you force it onto others, then you are a fascist.
For those three reasons, Pro-Lifers have no business telling people who get abortions where legal that they are murderers.
While we're at it, drugs, under-aged alcohol and tobacco consumption, shoplifting, rape and murder should all be legal. What right do we have to tell rapists that they can't live their lives as they see fit!?!
The reality is, there are laws out there. Every nation has them. Some are there to protect people from others. Some are there to protect people from themselves. The only world where there isn't people telling you what you can and can't do is a government-less anarchy, and past experience has demonstrated that anarchy as a society goes very, very badly. The strong prey upon the weak with no repercussions. And in the long run, government always ends up re-inventing itself.
If the entire debate really is about personal choice, then we need to repeal every law that tells anyone what they can or can't do: Drugs, murder, rape, theft, etc. But I think it's fair to say that the prohibition against some choices is actually a good thing. Don't you agree?
So in your eyes, godofthunder9010, if abortion is legal, then everything else should be legal as well?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
