i'd bet my bottom dollar that an overwhelming majority of pro lifers who put so much emphasis on the value of human life are simultaneously for the death penalty........i smell hypocrisy

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by radx.

Um. Really? Hypocrisy? Let's see. How about we take your logic for a spin. What's more innocent and blameless than a newborn (or soon to be newborn) baby? Maybe that stuffed bear from the old Snuggle commercials, but that's another discussion. Let's plop the baby on one side of the scale. Now let's take the dirtbag who shot up Giffords, that 9-year-old girl, and a bunch of innocent bystanders. He goes on the other side of the scale.

You're saying that I'M screwed up for wanting to protect the baby while being fine with a premeditated murderer being called to account for his actions.

If I indeed equated babies to capital criminals, then call me hypocrite all day long. What astounds me is YOUR apparent "logic."

I would say look at your magic book for guidance


Nr 5. "You shall not kill!" "You shall not murder!"


but it seems you guys figured it all out for yourselves..

wikipedia:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Damn theres always a loophole...

Kalle -

I would discourage your mocking use of my "magic book" to support your arguments unless you actually understood what's in it.

You shall not kill/murder is number 6, for starters. This is also a commandment of personal conduct. The very same section of the Bible outlines various capital crimes, almost none of which carry the penalty of death in this day and age. I'm just pointing out that the sixth commandment does not preclude capital punishment. I should not personally seek revenge through a crime of passion, but society was granted recourse at that level. See also Romans 13, particularly verse 4. Governing authorities have not been given "the sword for no reason."

Please, dispense with the shrill atheistic arguments of breaking the Sabbath being a capital crime. The whole point of the law, from the Christian perspective, is to illustrate that we all fall short of it. The penalty for sin...all sin...is death. You're talking to someone who has been spared from the death penalty through the sacrifice of my savior. I am not a "hang 'em high" proponent of the death penalty. In all cases, I would prefer grace.

You managed to completely circumvent the entire point of my argument. Instead of addressing the injustice of killing innocent life, you chose to dilute the need to punish criminals to normalize the difference between the two.

Just because God loves to kill babies, doesn't give you permission!

Genesis 7:23
Genesis 19:24-25
Psalms 137:9
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Exodus 21:17
Exodus 21:15
2 Kings 15:16
Hosea 13:16
Hosea 9:16

Sorry I come from a catholic background my version of the magic/holy book says its Nr.5

And killing is wrong no matter what anyone says.

Ah, yes. God dispenses wrath and judgment on nations, so He must be pro-abortion. He's either sovereign to judge ALL nations, or He's subject to being judged by your own intellectual evaluations. Good luck with that.

If the God talk is tainting your emotional objectivity, choose from an array of secular arguments. Look at what the Nazi's did to the mentally handicapped via medical experimentation after they were deemed not fully human. How about the pre-emancipation notion that slaves were a fraction of human value. How did our humanity stack up in those cases? Saying an unborn baby <> a mother as long as they're making physical contact with the birth canal is a slippery slope of morality. I just don't understand how few of you see that.

Just to save you some time so you dont need to write another paragraph

I just said killing is wrong and that your holy book says so..

I`ll probably disagree with everything you will have to say about anything so no need to argue..

Have a nice day

Not seeing how anyone could disagree with your opinion is a good sign that you should take a better look at both sides of the argument yourself before trying to judge or influence others.

If banning abortion (or limiting access to the blue states on the coasts) would guarantee the safe delivery of each fetus to an enthusiastic mother or foster home, I expect that more people would support this intrusion of government authority into private decisions. Anyone who was alive before Roe (or has cracked a book) knows that this isn't the case. Banning abortions doesn't prevent them. It sends desperate women into the hands of back alley surgeons, coat hangers, and household chemicals. It condemns many of them to painful deaths.

You may argue that they deserve it. You may argue that public policy should be decided on principle and not on actual outcomes. You may argue that the potential lives of unconscious pre-humans outweigh the lives of adult females. Some of these arguments can be compelling. However if any of them were infallible, someone much more eloquent and intelligent than you would have won over your opposition already.

I wonder if with new medical technology, we could eventually transplant unwanted fetuses into anti-abortionist bellies. Win/Win, right? Would you be willing to give up 9 months of your life to bring an unwanted baby to term in order to save its life? Or would you let that baby die? >> ^Jesus_Freak:

Ah, yes. God dispenses wrath and judgment on nations, so He must be pro-abortion. He's either sovereign to judge ALL nations, or He's subject to being judged by your own intellectual evaluations. Good luck with that.
If the God talk is tainting your emotional objectivity, choose from an array of secular arguments. Look at what the Nazi's did to the mentally handicapped via medical experimentation after they were deemed not fully human. How about the pre-emancipation notion that slaves were a fraction of human value. How did our humanity stack up in those cases? Saying an unborn baby <> a mother as long as they're making physical contact with the birth canal is a slippery slope of morality. I just don't understand how few of you see that.

i think the greater point i was trying to illustrate, and failed miserably at it would seem, is that religion, any religion and politics dont mix. plain and simple. now being a man of faith, of religious persuasion myself, it certainly influences my political spectrum. but when i or anyone use that religion to justify a bill or a political policy, that is morally irresponsible particularly in a free and diverse country such as ours.

but if you want to use your holy book, the same holy book i revere, to thump all of us morally inept heathens on the head and tell us, especially woman, what to do with their bodies with their uterus, or try to place some sort of higher value on a fetus life over that of anyone else (ya, even murderers, drug dealers, whatever) then you are the one that is on a slippery moral slope