The national discussion on gun control is predicated on the number of lives lost senselessly. The painfully ironic aspect of all this is the ones clamoring to outlaw guns to save lives are the same ones clamoring to ensure mothers can take lives unencumbered.
Sifting Reality 
Not to mention, what do they care? The reason some of them support abortion is over population. Shouldn’t they be clamouring for more guns? Or is it that they know that more people die in situations when fewer guns are present, and that’s they’re angle to help with over population?
I would like to know what one who believes that we’re over populating thinks about gun control.
How about we clamor for no live-taking whatsoever!??? That would include the death penalty. Pro-life means a lot more than just advocating against abortion.
How did you come to such an unbiblical view? Prolife is pro innocent life. Support for capital punishment is consistent with the Prolife view
life-taking … ;)
How convenient…. “innocent” life. And subjective too.
Jesus told us there were two commandments that all the law and the prophets hung upon. “Love God with all of your heart and love your neighbor as yourself…” He didn’t add “your *innocent* neighbor,” did he? Jesus was merciful. I must disagree with you, John. I don’t consider you to be “pro-life” if you are pro-death. You can try and justify it, but it’s not going to fly with me; I’m sorry.
Notice when both Jesus and Paul were before authorities who were condemning them to death, they appealed to their innocence and not the immorality of the death penalty. Paul even says in romans 13 that the government institutes the sword justly. We cant just ignore what we don’t like.
Notice it says greatest, and not “only” commandment
Is it loving to lock someone in a cage for the rest of their life? Surely it isn’t loving to let the criminal go.
Let’s see – Jesus is God, and God said the punishment for murder was execution. SO, yes, Jesus did say that capital punishment for murder is right and moral. And notice it was long before the Mosaic Law – it was a law given to Noah as he stepped off the boat. Noah as representative of every human on earth.
But don’t let that thing called the Bible bother you.
Love is our code now. We are not under the old “eye for an eye,” we are under the law that Jesus Christ laid out as the greatest commandments. Rehabilitation is loving. Imprisonment is just as long as that imprisonment is not torture or harshly punitive. The death penalty serves no one, does not deter crime, and is too expensive to justify. The bible also says do not kill. If you claim to be pro-life, you will have to revise your stances on the death penalty, and war, most especially needless illegal war for oil and greed. It is hypocritical to claim to be pro-life and support killing.
Warrioress
Perhaps you can explain romans 13 and both Jesus and Paul being silent on the impermissiblity of capital punishment when faced with it.
Also, I think the problem here is how one would define love. As I asked earlier, is it loving to the mass murderer and rapist to lock them in a cage for the rest of their life? If not shouldn’t we let them go, out of love?
Ideally I agree with warrioress but realistically it’s unavoidable. But God started with the ideal for us in the garden, we failed and he’s been trying to meet us half way so to speak since then. Look at Matthew 19:7-9 (NKJV)
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
Here’s an example of Jesus saying I don’t want you to get divorced but here’s the only reason acceptable. I think we have to ask ourselves what is acceptable murder if such a thing exists.
I go with what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 26:52: But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
I think this scripture going further into the original Greek word for “take the sword” but I think it means to not be a violent person which doesn’t negate a country having an Army or the death penalty.
Perhaps a Biblical Greek scholar can comment.
typo above i meant to say “I think this scripture merits going further…”
TheWarrioress,
I’m unsure as to why you would castigate John for perceived hypocrisy instead of addressing the issue laid out in the post. Many politicians want gun-control to prevent the loss of innocent life, but overwhelmingly support abortion. John was pointing out the inconsistency, the paradox, to which you have not yet responded.
Perhaps you could respond and then ask John about his own inconsistency, if it is one.
John, here is a wonderful argument against the death penalty as biblical by someone who obviously knows more than I. Please have a look at this and tell me what you think? It addresses the Roman’s 13 issue as well:
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=584
Terrance, I’m not in favor of gun control, though I am in favor of banning assault weapons and items that are unnecessary to protect ourselves against home invasion. I believe in the right to bear arms, but not the right to become a militia. Politicians want gun control to prevent gun violence. As for the adjective “innocent” expressed by John, I do not favor abortion or killing of any kind if there is an alternative. I don’t believe innocent has anything whatsoever to do with it. I see what he is pointing out, but disagree that innocent has anything to do with either gun control or abortion.
I read that article, and I would say it is a horrible abuse of Scripture to justify a position. Typical of anyone who doesn’t like what the Bible really says.
Well, that’s the trouble though, isn’t it, Glen? You can read whatever you want to into scripture. You’re conservative Republican.You support the death penalty. You’ll make scripture say whatever you want it to say. Those of us who are *really* pro-life can do the same. ;)
Warrioress,
You shouldn’t make such assumptions about me. While I am conservative in my belief system, I am NOT a Republican. I don’t affiliate with any political party.
I don’t read what I want into Scripture – that is called eisegesis. Like the guy you linked to practiced. I practices exegesis – reading out of the text what it actually says.
You should try it sometime.
TheWarrioress,
In other words, you’re in favor of gun-control…
Regardless, I don’t care what your opinion on gun-control is, but I’m happy you finally addressed the issue at hand, sorta. Earlier it seemed as though your motive was to make a cheap political point by pushing some brand of pseudo-philosophy. The definition of “pro-life” with respect to abortion is uncomplicated and totally unrelated to one’s opinion on the death penalty. It’d be like chastening the left for not being “pro-choice” with respect to school prayer, et cetera…
And certainly an innocent life is more worthy of being saved. You may think you disagree, but you don’t. If someone broke into your house with the intention of raping and murdering you, would you let them or blow their head off? We all know the answer, and that answer implies you are not “pro-life” either. If we’re going to stretch the definition outside the issue of abortion, then nobody is truly “pro-life.”
Terrance, I wouldn’t blow anyone’s head off unless I was forced to in order to defend myself, so yes, I am pro-life. I am not in favor of killing — any kind of killing, except when there is no other choice, meaning self defense.
The definition of pro-life as it relates to abortion is hypocritical held by one who doesn’t value life; not just innocent life either. If you are pro-life, you value life, period.
TheWarrioress,
If you’re going to stretch the definition of “pro-life” outside the bounds of abortion, then in no sense are you “pro-life.” You have admitted already that you would take a life in certain circumstances.
In fact, you and John aren’t that far apart on the issue. John believes that those who do great harm to another person should be killed so that they can’t harm someone else. You believe someone who intends to do great harm should be killed. Am I missing something? Is that not your position?
Would you kill someone who only wanted to rape you? Yes, you would. So the bottom line is that you favor killing in certain circumstances, even when your own life is not at stake, the same as everyone else. The same as me, John, Glenn, and everyone else. You’re no different in that respect, so quit pretending you are.
The death penalty is an expression of high regard for life. When one is sentenced to death in this country, it is because the accused was convicted of murder. Capital punishment is not murder, but the justifiable killing of one who has murdered. This punishment has the murder victim’s life in mind and is the just consequence for the murderer. Denying this justice belittles the life of the murder victim. Each life is so valued that to murder one’s fellow man demands the murderer be sentenced to death, as no other punishment satisfies justice. Capital punishment, especially after having carried out such a sentence, tells society how serious it is to murder. If one truly values life, particularly the lives of those murdered, then capital punishment is the most fitting punishment for the murderer.
It’s disgusting that abortion and the death penalty appear in the same sentence. Only in liberal La-La Land is the justified killing of a child rapist and murderer likened to the unjustified slaughter of unborn children. In no sense are the two comparable issues, quite aside from whatever brand of pseudo-philosophical balderdash one wishes to put forth.
I do not favor our government being allowed to murder its citizenry through the death penalty. Innocent people have died by the hundreds, thanks to this nightmare. Whoops, Terrance, there’s that “innocent” word again. I’m very different from you and John. You two favor government-ordered/okayed murder; I do not. You two favor war and ongoing murder and killing for whatever purposes government approves of, ethical or otherwise; I don’t. You two favor killing, no matter the reason, evidently; I don’t. The only killing you don’t favor is the murder of the unborn. Well, nice; I’m glad there’s something we can all agree upon. I don’t think the “pro-life” label fits you. It’s a misnomer. You’re not consistent.
Warrioress
Please provide evidence that an innocent person has been wrongfully put to death with capital punishment in the last 50 years. I ask because I already know there is no convict having been put to death has been shown to be innocent afterwards. None.
Also use of the word murder to describe capital punishment is flat wrong. It also means you believe God commanded murder when he instituted the death penalty.
Your use of the term murder for convicts who are put to death and war casualties is wholly dishonest and only serves to cloud and confuse the issue. I think you know this.
I don’t think Warrioress understands the definition of murder. Apparently any killing other than HER killing in self defense just happens to be murder.
Murder is the unjustifiable killing of someone; i.e., it does not include self-defense, capital punishment or war.
Liberals always make up their own definitions for words. Just like “marriage” now includes same-sex unions and will soon include multi-partner unions.
John,
“Please provide evidence that an innocent person has been wrongfully put to death with capital punishment in the last 50 years.”
John Ray Conner: He couldn’t do what witnesses said he did.
Odell Barnes: Deficiencies in forensic evidence.
Leonel Herrera: The murderer was his brother.
Isu
Are you saying that their cases were evaluated and found that they were innocent of their crime? Or are you saying that people believe they were innocent even though it has never been determined so.
Do you have links I can see where their convictions were overturned?
John,
You asked for evidence, not for judicial postevaluation. Those got killed but there are other cases which later they were “determined” innocent.
You asked for innocents, not for been determined so by justice. Are you saying Christ was guilt of blasphemy?
Justice makes mistakes and innocent people can be killed. By that sole reason I’m against capital punisment. You can get back from jail but not from death.
Citing anti death penalty activists isn’t evidence, judicial over turning is.
John,
“Citing anti death penalty activists isn’t evidence, judicial over turning is.”
What about Ray Krone over turning?
Isu
Point me to where I can see that this person was proven innocent after they were executed
Ray krone wasn’t wrongfully executed. He was exonerated. It is a testament to the system, an innocent person was not executed. This helps my case, not yours
If you truly cared about life, why modify your statement with the term “innocent”? Why not simply say, “People have died by the thousands.” Are you admitting that only innocent lives are worthy of saving?
You know absolutely nothing about me. Where did I say I favored capital punishment? Can you find it? Anywhere? No, you can’t. Nowhere have I argued in favor of capital punishment. I was merely defending John from your scandalously asinine attacks.
For your information, I don’t know how I feel about the death penalty. At times, I think it’s justified. Other times, not.
What the hell are you talking about now? You sound like a female Dan Trabue. You just say random shit without regard for any sense of truth. That’s when you know Dan has been beaten.
Right. ‘Cause we said that.
Let me get this straight. You tell us what we’re supportive of and then thrust a label on us? Can you verify any of what you said? Other than John supporting the death penalty, can you support the rest of your accusations? No, you can’t. You’re just rambling.
However, I can support the accusation that TheWarrioress favors killing in certain circumstances, just like everyone else. So right away we know that “life” is not something she holds in very high regard all the time, thus her opposition to capital punishment must be ground in something else….But what? Perhaps the loss of innocent life. Okay. Answer this: If the government could prove beyond all doubt – to a moral certainty – that John Doe raped and murdered Baby Doe, would you support the death penalty?
No? But why? You don’t hold life in high regard all the time, so it can’t be that. So what is it?
STATE
EXECUTIONS,
1608-1976
Virginia
1,277
New York
1,130
Pennsylvania
1,040
Georgia
950
North Carolina
784
Texas
755
California
709
Alabama
708
South Carolina
641
Louisiana
632
Arkansas
478
Ohio
438
Kentucky
424
New Jersey
361
Mississippi
351
Illinois
348
Massachusetts
345
Tennessee
335
Florida
314
Maryland
309
Missouri
285
West Virginia
155
Oklahoma
132
Indiana
131
Connecticut
126
Oregon
122
Washington, DC
118
Washington
105
Arizona
104
Colorado
101
New Mexico
73
Montana
71
Minnesota
66
Delaware
62
Nevada
61
Kansas
57
Rhode Island
52
Hawaii
49
Iowa
45
Utah
43
Nebraska
34
Idaho
26
Vermont
26
New Hampshire
24
Wyoming
22
Maine
21
South Dakota
15
Michigan
13
Alaska
12
North Dakota
8
Wisconsin
1
Since 1976, there have been about 1300 executions in the U.S.
All together, about 16,000. SINCE 1608!
About six days worth of abortions.
It would take 70 times the average yearly executions to equal one day of abortions in America.
So, I ask you: if you’re “truly” pro-life, and you want to make a difference, where should you spend your energy? Helping convicted murderers, or innocent (yes, innocent) babies?
Terrance,
I don’t think I like you much. Of course, I think this is fairly obvious, isn’t it? (lol).
You said:
“It’s disgusting that abortion and the death penalty appear in the same sentence. Only in liberal La-La Land is the justified killing of a child rapist and murderer likened to the unjustified slaughter of unborn children. In no sense are the two comparable issues, quite aside from whatever brand of pseudo-philosophical balderdash one wishes to put forth.”
In the above comment, you infer that I’m in “liberal La-La Land,” so I thought I would return to favor and show you what it’s like to have someone assume things about you that aren’t true. Yes, you sound just like a narrow-minded, hard-headed, fogie that is living in the dark ages of society, which explains your willingness to play devil’s advocate for die-hard, conservative-leaning John and the death penalty.
Again, I don’t favor killing of any kind except when I am forced to in order to save my own life. Period. I do not support the death penalty for any reason whatsoever. I don’t support war, except when we are forced into it to save our lives or someone else’s, (our allies).
Now, why don’t you let John fight his own battles. I’ve always thought enough of him to believe that he is quite capable of doing so. ‘Kay? ;)
Warrioress,
My point is that you don’t seem to get that we’re on the same side. If someone is against abortion, then they agree with you and you should help them. Why on earth would you nitpick over whether someone is “really” pro-life? I wonder if you’re truly pro-life where abortion is concerned, when all you seem to want to do is make us look silly. GET ON BOARD, to the extent you can. Work with us, or get out of the way. Write anti-death penalty peices somewhere else. Just don’t bring it up in order to discredit us “semi-pro-lifers”. We’re doing good work here!
That is, unless you don’t think speaking out against abortion is good.
Glen, you’re the same as Terrance; that’s irritating. You assume I’m a liberal. I think we’re done here.
Now, I *know* John is conservative Republican; I know where he stands on this issue and we were moseying along just fine in our little argument. No need to tag team me, bud, okay? (eye-roll). Your definition of murder is baloney.
Murder is the unnecessary taking of human life for subjective purposes which are rationalized as necessary or appropriate.
Now as to John…. John, yes, I do believe God committed murder, don’t you? He committed a lot of murder through out the Old Testament. Genocide might be a better word for it. Thankfully, we’re no longer under God’s Old Testament Law, thanks to Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. We’re now under the law of love where we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, which is the 2nd greatest commandment, btw.
God cut us all a break. He became merciful. He allowed us a way out and now we are to live according to that 2nd commandment, according to Jesus Christ. We are no longer under the “eye for an eye” ruling.
Killing and murder are wrong. Both are unnecessary except in self defense. I’m against abortion, but I’m also logical. I realize that women will get abortions, no matter what, and they will die doing so. I believe we must work in bi-partisan fashion to reduce abortion and limit it only to save the life of the mother or in cases in which there is no other alternative, like rape, incest, etc., where the woman who is impregnated absolutely cannot carry the child due to her young age, mental health, etc.
I believe I truly am someone who fits the term “pro-life.” I don’t mean to offend you, John, because I do respect you quite a lot, but you don’t seem at all “pro-life” to me. You seem as if you are typical of most conservative Republicans, who rationalize that term as they please, to mean what they please, despite the fact that they are engaging in supporting a primitive, brutal way of thinking and behaving in the year 2013. I also don’t see any real Christ-like Christian love within that kind of thinking. Please note that I said CHRIST-LIKE, not Old Testament-like.
Conservative 2-cents,
I would love to get on board with you guys on abortion, but I’m not sure we agree on it either. I support abortion in order to save the life of the mother, or in cases of incest and rape, if there is no other alternative possible. If a minor is pregnant through rape or incest, she should not be forced to have that baby if she does not want to carry it full term. Ideally, she would, but it’s her choice.
The reason I bring up this “pro-life” business is because I am sick and tired of alleged pro-lifers who are not really pro-life at all! It’s a serious problem. I’m tired of hypocritical false labels that don’t really fit the individual’s perspective. That’s all… just sayin’ my piece on the matter. ;)
How Christian of you.
I know what I said, but that comment alone gives no indication of my position on capital punishment. Regardless, the two are not comparable issues. If I oppose the death penalty, I do so for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.
I read your blog. You’re a liberal who claims to be a Christian. My favorite post was your defense of transexuals.
No. I sound like a moderate conservative annoyed with the way unthinking liberal ideologues throw accusations at those who view issues with a measure of logic. Besides that, I’m 27. I’m not old.
So you would allow yourself to be raped? No. If someone broke into your house with the sole intention of raping you, you would put a bullet in his head just as fast as me and John.
Why not? You believe it is justified to kill someone in self-defense, therefore you understand the difference between justified and unjustified killing. The question, therefore, is why capital punishment is unjustified. You’ve not given a satisfactory answer.
In other words, you support war.
John is my friend, but more than that, this is an open thread. In fact, the name of the post is Open Thread: Guns & Abortion. I have every right to comment. If you can’t handle the questions, then you needn’t respond to me.
So John isn’t pro-life because he supports the death penalty, but you are – even though you believe unborn children should suffer death for the crimes of their father.
Not even with respect to abortion are you pro-life. You, ma’am, are a phony.
So quit calling yourself pro-life. You’re okay with unborn children suffering the death penalty for the crimes of their father. In no sense are you pro-life. You are a phony, plain and simple.
Again, Warrioress, it’s about the numbers. I’m pretty sure that if a law was proposed to outlaw every abortion except in cases like rape, incest, and the life of the mother, most of us would be for it. The die-hards would still argue over the others, and probably call you “not really pro-life” because you would allow rape and incest babies to be killed. It’s not an all or nothing proposition. Go ahead and fight against the death penalty. I respect your position, though I disagree with it. Labels be damned! Don’t worry about the labels. The label “pro-life” doesn’t even precisely apply to you. And that’s ok.
I would prefer that you say, “It’s good that John and Terrance oppose abortion”. At least give them that.
Someone needs to teach you how to debate. Even if you believe that the lives of some unborn children aren’t valuable because their fathers are rapists, you don’t say that in a debate after taking the position that all life is valuable, period.
In fact, your exact words were:
Then you say:
What a bumbling mess your argument has become…
A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. – Proverbs 29:11
Conservative2Cents
Every argument against abortion crumbles the minute you support abortion in cases of rape and incest. Every argument regarding the life and personhood of the child is destroyed the second you grant such an exception. You have become a contradiction at that point. So it has nothing to do with being a “die-hard.” It has to do with common sense and consistency.
I’m a die-hard. I agree with you. Rape and incest DO NOT make a baby less valuable. But, I’d vote for it, if it would stop millions of abortion. I’d vote for it in a heartbeat.
Is it just me or has warrioress made exceptions for allowing the killing of babies through abortion, but under no exception for the criminally murderous? And at the beginning she said I wasn’t pro life because I wasn’t pro all life?
Does this strike anyone else as a bit odd?
Conservative2Cents,
If that’s the best we could do, I would vote for it as well. But I would be nervous about its chances in front of the Supreme Court. It’s an inconsistent position. If unborn children are persons, they are persons regardless of any crimes their parents committed.
Ughh… That’s a good point. The law needs to treat them all the same.
She strikes me as a typical liberal who tries in vain to defend an inherently indefensible position. She basically claimed moral superiority to start with, which makes this most recent revelation all the more hilarious.
I swear now, Charlie, I ain’t neva met me a lib who wasn’t a hypocrite.
John,
“Point me to where I can see that this person was proven innocent after they were executed”
You asked me about a judicial overturning and this is a clear case of judicial overturning on death penalty.
“Ray krone wasn’t wrongfully executed. He was exonerated.”
Ray Krone was wrongfully sentenced to death.
“It is a testament to the system, an innocent person was not executed.”
It is evidence of innocent people being sentenced to death.
“This helps my case, not yours”
This helps my case: Justice makes mistakes and innocent people can be killed.
Isu
I asked you for evidence of someone being shown innocent after being wrongfully executed. The fact that krone was not wrongfully executed shows the system works to prevent it. It helps my vase that people aren’t wrongfully executed.
You gentlemen seem to forget the life and rights of the “innocent” mother who has been impregnated by a rapist, or perhaps her own father. What if she’s a child herself? What then? What if she’s 12 years old? You’re going to demand she carry the baby full term? Would you? What if she cannot physically do so safely? What if she cannot do so and be safe mentally? How ridiculous of you. If you were women, you would think differently, but it’s not your bodies that carry children…so typical of men, sheesh.
I’m thinking of life all right, but there are limits to an unborn child’s rights when it will destroy and kill it’s own mother’s life. Certain situations have to be taken into consideration. Yes, the child is a person, born or not, and an innocent person at that, but when the mother is innocent as well and has been raped by someone, who are you to demand that she put her own life in danger; I’m not at all sure that government or anyone else should have the right to butt into and make final decisions in a situation like that.
I must say, it is truth that conservative-types always care more about unborn children than they do breathing children outside the womb. Ya’ll probably couldn’t care less if these kids lose their Head Start, or their families have to live in a tent or a shelter, right? When’s the last time you were worried about how many kids are going to lose their medical care when Medicaid is slashed to the bone? Do you care if these kids have access to a food bank or do you want that program cut too?
I’m sorry; I’m just not impressed with your various stances on abortion or otherwise. You don’t take into consideration so many, many things, which I hate to say seems typical of conservative individuals these days. The lack of compassion and empathy for others is just nauseating.
I’m done. Typical liberal junk reasoning. Compassion, indeed. First of all, I should have known that “The Warrioress” was a liberal feminist blinded by what she thinks is conservative oppression, or some such nonsense. I almost believed she was as pro-life as she said she was.
My mistake.
How about this? If abortion is illegal, and you absolutely must have one, find a willing accomplice. After all, is stealing bread wrong if you’re starving? But, I’m not about to say that I must allow millions of pointless abortions if I’m to be compassionate towards the fraction of a percent of abortion cases that “really” need it.
The Warrioress,
I figured you’d be off in a corner whimpering by now. I never dreamed you’d actually try to revive your floundering mess of an argument.
The rights of the mother aside, you said, “If you value life, you value life, period.”
Those were your words, not ours. So by your own definition of “pro-life,” you do not qualify, since you don’t value the life of unborn children who, through no fault of their own, have a rapist for a father. Therefore, you are a hypocrite. You came here with a smug sense of moral superiority and got e-slapped. Instead of admitting your folly, you come back for more. Okay. I’ll bite.
Since when do the crimes of our parents dictate our humanity? If one is a person, one is a person aside from anything else. Your status as a human being is not contingent on your fathers criminal history.
Your emotive rant is totally illogical. If one is a person, one is a person. Humanity is not something attained or achieved; it is a static state of being conditional on – nothing!
Furthermore, if human beings do not first have a right to life, then on what basis are we to demand any other rights, including the “right” of bodily autonomy (which you seem to be arguing here)? None.
Lastly, all of us make exceptions for the life of the mother. If the mother’s life is truly in danger, then of course something should be done. I have never met a pro-lifer who argued differently.
As I said, if the mother’s life is truly in danger, then of course something needs to be done. But if the child poses no immediate threat to the mother, then abortion should not be an option, plain and simple. YOU have no right or authority to place a higher value on the life of the mother. Both human beings involved, the child and mother, are innocent.
Oh, goody. Yet more liberal cliches.
None of this has anything to do with the issue of abortion, so why are you bringing it up? Regardless, I have no problem with Head Start, EBT Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, or Medicare. And since John is a good friend of mine – we talk often apart from this blog – I know he supports all these programs as well. He wants the system checked for abuse, as do I, but he doesn’t favor cutting benefits to those who truly need it.
So, don’t you feel like a complete lummox? You should.
I have no “various stances on abortion or otherwise.” I am 100% pro-life. You are not. You believe the lives of some unborn children are less valuable than others; I do not.
You mean to say that we don’t get all emotive. Yep. Guilty!
I don’t lack compassion or empathy at all. But my compassion and empathy is for both women and children, born and unborn alike. Your “compassion” and “empathy” has limits, as we’ve seen. You care more about child murderers than you do children. Sickening. Nauseating. Disgusting.
In no sense are you a Christian. You are the biggest phony I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering, Cynthia.
Yeah. She’s a joke, Conservative2Cents. She’s a complete and utter hypocrite without the good sense God gave a goose.
Abortion being absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother is an incredibly rare circumstance indeed. It happens, but it’s rare. Either way, I’ve never met a pro-lifer who didn’t believe the life of the mother should be protected.
Granting the “rape exception,” however, is totally inconsistent with every pro-life message and argument there is, and those who grant that exception are neither pro-life nor logical. To oppose abortion but grant the rape exception is to formulate an unsustainable and self-contradictory position.
To force a woman to give birth to her attacker’s child is tragic, but the innocent child’s right to life must take precedent. There are two reasons government may prohibit abortion even in cases of rape & incest.
1). Quite simply, there is no legal right to do with your body what you wish. You can’t inject yourself with heroine, snort cocaine, or drop acid. You can’t sell organs for profit, and you can’t kill yourself. There are many things you simply cannot do with your body. Therefore, bodily autonomy is not absolute.
2). In no legal sense is the right of private property heralded over life. If I want someone off my property, I can’t shoot them if they refuse to leave. I can only use deadly force if they pose an immediate threat to me or someone else. This is because the right to life exceeds all other rights; it is the basis for all other rights. Your status as a human being is quite simply the basis for demanding liberty.
Therefore, government has every right to prohibit abortion even in cases of rape & incest. It is not only the right of government to do so, but its responsibility to do so! This is something unthinking liberals like TheWarrioress lose sight of during their emotive, illogical rants, and it’s why they should go largely ignored. They don’t belong in serious conversations with serious people because they are anything but, as you see from her last comment. It was nothing but argumentative fallacies and liberal cliches.
Lastly, since there is no real way of verifying who was and wasn’t raped, you have to wonder how many “victims” will suddenly come out of the woodwork if abortion is ever criminalized except in cases of rape and incest…Just food for thought. It’s really neither here nor there, since the right of the child to live must take precedent.
John,
The system has sentenced real innocent people to death.
Your argumentation based on saying that they are not really innocent because the same system fallible evaluation doesn’t serve as system evaluation.
Isu
Spare me. I said no such thing. What I did say is no innocent person has been executed. The system has a mechanism to find the innocent.
warrioress,
“Murder is the unnecessary taking of human life for subjective purposes which are rationalized as necessary or appropriate.”
This is not a true definition. It is your opinion. Murder is the illegal and intentional taking of a life. That’s the legal definition. It can also be said to be the unjustified and intentional taking of a life. Capital punishment is justified by law. It is carried out for the convictions of crimes for which the sentence is applicable. There’s no “rationalization” in the sentence being applied for particular crimes, specifically murder. As I said earlier, it recognizes the value of life that the unjustified taking of the life of another will lead to your own life being taken. It’s not “eye for an eye” as that “law” allowed YOU to take a murderer’s life for his crime. That is, if someone killed your brother, you could kill the murderer. But that is not allowed under our laws. If the guy you said killed your brother is convicted in court for the crime, the state renders the sentence and executes the sentence. I hope this clears this up for you.
Terrance makes a good point. Make the exception for rape and reports of rape will go through the roof!
On the other hand, it might make a guy think twice before engaging in reckless sex. I doubt that overcoming the “I might get pregnant” objection would go like “Just tell the doctor I raped you”.
No one ever thinks about how the availability of abortion allows men to use women. I guess it’s ok with feminists that a one night stand can result in a woman “needing” to pay for a risky “procedure” that may or may not kill a “person”, while the guy just goes on his merry way, perhaps never even knowing what he’d put her through.
Hooray for choice!
As for TheWarrioress’s concern about rape and incest, let’s make the punishment for rape and incest so bad that many fewer are likely to occur. How about a million dollar fine, since the death penalty is so objectionable? Or ten times your highest reported yearly income or a million (whichever is higher)? That way, really rich people don’t have a “cheap” out of jail card. PUNISH them!
So many liberal solutions to problems are only ways to clean up the messes their tolerance for bad behavior invite.
Terrance, you said:
“Regardless, I have no problem with Head Start, EBT Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, or Medicare. And since John is a good friend of mine – we talk often apart from this blog – I know he supports all these programs as well. He wants the system checked for abuse, as do I, but he doesn’t favor cutting benefits to those who truly need it”
You may support these programs with your mouth, but you don’t support them with your vote. You voted for Mitt Romney, I assume? John voted Mitt Romney? There you go. You two do not support those programs because the person you voted for does not support those programs. President Obama supports the poor & under privileged. The conservative side of the aisle does not give a hoot in Hades about the poor, and everybody knows it. Paul Ryan’s budget made that very clear and Romney supported Paul Ryan’s budget. You’re full of baloney.
You said:
“In no sense are you a Christian. You are the biggest phony I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering, Cynthia.”
Who on earth is Cynthia? I’m not Cynthia. As for your comment on Christianity, since you’re obviously not one either, how do you have a clue as to my heart and how a Christian is defined? Grow up.
You’re not 100 percent “pro-life.” You’re someone who claims the label, whom the label does not fit. You claim to be pro-life when it comes to abortion, but you are not really pro-life at all. You vote with those who are anything but pro-life.
Now as to the rest of the ad hom here, it’s pointless to attempt actual “debate” with you, Terrance, and I knew that from the beginning. The only reason I bothered posting here at all was to have my thoughts go on record, so that the various readers bothering to digest this little chat get the other side of the story — along with the vestiges of the pissing contest. Have a great rest of the day, boys.
One more thing… Isu, you done real good. ;)
Knocked it out of the park. Thanks.
Marshalart, you said:
“Capital punishment is justified by law.”
So is abortion; that doesn’t make it right. And it is in no way “pro-life.” It’s revenge and government-ordered murder/killing. There is nothing pro-life about it.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/
http://listverse.com/2010/01/12/10-convicts-presumed-innocent-after-execution/
How_many_innocent_people_have_died_from_the_death_penalty
Read more at http://madamenoire.com/73840/exonerated-after-execution-12-men-and-one-woman-found-innocent-after-being-put-to-death/#1t253CQZQcEIgWX7.99
TheWarrioress,
I can’t believe you’re back for more. You’re a glutton for punishment, I guess.
Lie.
Mitt Romney on Food Stamps: I want to make sure we get people off food stamps, not by cutting the program, but by getting them good jobs.
Romney on Medicare & Social Security: I will never go after Medicare or Social Security. We will protect those programs.
Romney on Medicaid: We’ll take that health care program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently. States like Arizona [and] Rhode Island have taken these Medicaid dollars [and] have shown they can run these programs more cost-effectively.
Romney did support a plan that would cut Medicaid, but that’s only because he plans to overhaul the system to improve cost effectiveness. Ryan’s plan is similar. It doesn’t wantonly slash these programs without regard for the people that depend on them, it saves the programs money so that they be around for future needy people.
Those with at least a modicum of economic knowledge know that Obama’s policies are hurting the poor. Obama added $6 trillion to our national debt, which further exacerbated the devaluation of the U.S. Dollar. In response, food, gasoline, and energy prices are higher and savings are worth less.
The stock market has gone up 30% under Obama because of this. Millionaires and Billionaires in Asia and Europe are buying cheap U.S. Dollars, investing them in the stock market, and making money hand over fist.
Under Obama, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.
I am a Christian. And while it’s possible that you could be one, your words and actions run counter to Christianity. You have judged me, John, and others. You support the murder of unborn children. You support homosexuality. You support transsexuality. You support Obama, a man who voted against the Infant Born Alive Act in Illinois.
I am totally pro-life, unlike you. I do not support the murder of any unborn children; you support the murder of unborn children who have criminals for fathers. You are disgusting.
Yes. You are a joke. Debating you is like debating an infant. You contradict yourself, you issue fallacy after fallacy, and your arguments are weak.
You do no justice for “the other side of the story.” It would have been better served had you said nothing at all. You lost pitifully. You contradicted yourself and all but admitted to being a flaming hypocrite. You are the worst debater I have ever seen.
Regarding your silly remark to Marshal Art,
No, abortion is not justified by law. Roe v. Wade is the best example of judicial activism that exists. Read the Fourteenth Amendment and tell me there’s a “right to abortion.” There isn’t. It was judicial activism 100%, and I can prove it.
Prove to me that capital punishment is an example of judicial activism or imaginary legal doctrine.
John,
“Spare me. I said no such thing.”
It was implied in your sentences.
“What I did say is no innocent person has been executed.”
According to the innocence evaluation of the same system that says some innocents are guilty.
“The system has a mechanism to find the innocent.”
False:
1.- Ray Krone was found guilty, so the mechanism fails.
2.- The system couldn’t predict that future DNA testing would be used as evidence to exhonerate him. It wasn’t even taking into account in the second trial when it was used as evidence.
3.- The money spent for his exhoneration didn’t came from the system but from him and his supporters (his cousin). Poor people could have not the same chances.
I heard of a case of revision denial after death warrant even having potential exhonerating evidence. If that is systematic, then it is false that the system has a mechanism to “find the innocent” after death.
The SCOTUS’ rational for the “right” to murder the unborn was that it was in the “emanations” of a “penumbra” found in a “right to privacy.”
Talk about your twisting and reading into a document what you want!