My gf seems to be bothered that I am 'white and privileged'.

Post Reply New Topic

It may have a lot to do with the religious and political beliefs of those "traitors".  It is strange that the same people who are against abortion because they allegedly respect life also favor the death penalty.

In a word: Hypocrisy.

Well what I don't understand is, if sexist men are anti-abortion and do not women having them the why would the patriarchy even invent abortion to begin with? This seems contradictory to me.

Why assume patriarchy invented abortion? Odds are that it was mostly women who figured out how to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Punishing someone for choosing to abort a pregnancy reduces agency.
Forcing someone to abort a pregnancy they wish to keep also reduces agency.

Either way, if one seeks to reduce the ability for individual women to make the choice that's right for themselves they're acting in a manner that harms women. Taking the decision away from the individual means that the system isn't trusting women to make their own decisions and that is inherently harmful to their rights.

Did the "Patriarchy" invent abortion?  If so, can you prove it?

It’s not strange. If you are pro-life, then don’t want anyone dead. If someone is a murderer and is a risk to the community, you can save a bunch of people by killing one guy. If an armed robber attacks your home, you save more lives by getting rid of him. People are all going to die, one way or the other. The death penalty isn’t a matter of killing one more person, but rather taking at least one step to preserve the security, safety, and life of others.

Of course, you can just sentence someone to life in prison. But with population increasing and people living longer, condemning someone to rot for 40 or 50 years hardly seems humane to me. A murderer who has no future shouldn’t be compelled to live.

What has an unborn person done to be denied even the chance to try? Killing a murderer who has already forfeited his life is logical. Destroying innocent people who have done nothing wrong is NOT logical. Even Margaret Sanger understood and SUPPORTED abortion as a life-saving medical procedure.

If you're a Christian I question why you're prioritizing their mortal being over their immortal soul. Someone who's been executed can no longer be saved, so execution condemns them to more than mere death.

Religion is irrelevant. Besides, a quick execution after a trial is consistent with Biblical teachings on the matter—to let punishment fit the crime.

As to the immortal soul: What about the immortal soul of the murderer’s victim? That person can no longer be saved if he wasn’t already. Why should the murderer get the mercy he couldn’t even give his victim?

Also, there’s one glaring logical hole here, and to me this is the most important point: Why assume a convicted murderer WILL be saved? A person’s salvation is between him and God. The likelihood that someone with a life sentence will be saved is no greater than one condemned to death. People facing certain death have a greater impetus to become Christians than those who have all their lives, but nevertheless those who will be saved, WILL be saved. You cannot hijack justice on a “maybe.” You can only do what’s right for the living while they are still ALIVE. Denying justice by removing deadly consequences for deadly actions on the basis that they MIGHT convert is cruelty to everyone.

I mean…I don’t really have a problem with it. I feel bad for anyone condemned to eternal separation from God and the ongoing torment of existence in such a state. But a person who has been spiritually and mentally healed by God’s grace isn’t going to want to murder anyone. I would question how it is anyone claiming to be a Christian COULD commit murder in the first place. I wouldn’t question a repentant person sentenced to death if they claimed to be a Christian. I don’t deny the possibility that someone serving life could become repentant and saved. But a person either will accept Christ before death or he won’t, and you have no real idea whether letting him serve out a life sentence would make any difference at all.

IDK…I think God works these things out for the best. Take the Manson family, for example. Susan Atkins wasn’t executed because her sentence happened at just the time California overturned the death penalty. I think that denied a number of good people justice, but that Atkins became a Christian shows how God can take the actions of evil people to deny others compassion and justice, and I’m NOT talking about Manson, and bring about a positive result through her conversion and subsequent positive influence on other criminals and innocent people. But…it’s also possible the same would have happened if she’d been sentenced to death.

So, yeah, no. There is no inconsistency between being pro-life and pro-capital punishment as long as preserving life, freedom, and justice are always in view.

Last word on death penalty: I firmly believe the punishment should fit the crime. I think incarceration is used entirely too much and that human potential is wasted trying to “correct” convicts. Forced labor for specified period of time is plenty acceptable since convicts can still be useful within society. And once one’s sentence is over the convict will have strength and skills to remain productive. It doesn’t make sense to condemn a drug trafficker to a lengthy sentence when the problem is an inability to support himself financially. Punishment for non-violent crimes such as drug trade is excessive as-is. Have him repay his debt to society and let him move on. It is impossible to repay a debt to society when the cost is a human life. The death penalty is the only merciful thing you can offer that person. That he MIGHT convert if allowed to live doesn’t really convey a very optimistic outlook for the murderer, the victims, or any other segment of society—much less the prospects for the afterlife.

While I'm not Catholic they have a much more logically consistent pro-life position than pro-death penalty Protestants.

I see no difference.

Oh yeah…Catholics are anti-death penalty. We’ll, sure, but the problem with Catholics is they glorify death and suffering. They don’t really want justice because that would mean SOME people get to be happy. Naturally, they oppose the death penalty. It makes them look good. I recall that once Catholics not only supported the death penalty—they were quite active in carrying it out.

I don’t get hard over people getting executed for murder. It breaks my heart that they killed anyone in the first place. But denying justice for murderers is neither compassionate nor merciful nor just. And that strikes at the heart of everything Catholics stand against when they oppose the death penalty. Of course, not all Catholics are in lock-step agreement on the death penalty. Opposing the death penalty also means opposing justice and mercy. Same as 100% opposing abortion means denying women the right to live when things go wrong with a pregnancy and their lives are placed in danger. Denying someone the right to self-defense is also standing in opposition of life.

As long as evil exists in the world, you will ALWAYS be compelled to choose who lives and who dies. If you remove the death penalty, you stand in favor of murderers. If you stand against ALL abortion, you stand in favor of killing women. If you stand against weapons, you stand in favor of violent people. Without a balance to murder, violence, and any life-threatening situations caused by another person whether intentional or not, you are in favor of killing innocent people. It’s just a matter of deciding whether you want innocent people or guilty people to die, but removing consequences for evil deeds will always result in a worse disaster.

One is sentient and can feel/hurt. The other is not.

Honestly what has this got to do with your g/f?

Oh I was just trying to understand her POV on it being sexist and where she was coming from with that.

You seem to have collected an enormous amount of data on her. She may be creeped out at how much we randoms are discussing her personal thoughts.

All that matters to me is if it is human or not. All other qualifications are irrelevant.

You can make similar statements or arguments regarding the elderly and all kinds of disabled people. If you are in favor of euthanasia and eugenics, then I really can’t say anything.

I prefer to think of life as beginning at conception, with conception defined as when an embryo implants in the womb. I understand this is somewhat arbitrary, but I base that on the fact not all embryos make it to that stage. In fact, b.c. methods don’t always prevent fertilization, but rather prevent implantation. Even chemical pregnancies occur when an embryo stops developing yet implants, and most women aren’t even aware when it happens. Some folks consider personhood as when a heartbeat can be detected. Whatever…but sentience/feeling I think sets too low a standard that excludes some children and even adults. The photo of the child—how can you tell from a photo that the child is sentient? I can’t tell from the photo that the other pic is even human. We’re having to make assumptions about both (that one is sentient and one is not) and draw conclusions that may not even be reasonable.

Again…I don’t see the difference.