PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Life and the Death Penalty


Mark
09-28-2009, 11:47 PM
I am Pro-Life and I also believe in the death penalty, is there anything wrong with that? Are they incompatible?

Mac
09-28-2009, 11:56 PM
I am Pro-Life and I also believe in the death penalty, is there anything wrong with that? Are they incompatible?


This is my thoughts on the matter.

I am the same , Pro Life , yet i also support the death penelty.

I believe the reasoning is simple. The unborn Child has done nothing wrong , certainly nothing to diserve death .

Honestly , there isnt even a debate to be had here is there , i mean , it is just that simple , sure there are folks that can turn it into an argument , But your dealing with apples and oranges on this one .

On one hand you have a helpless child dying at the hands of a doctor for no more reason than the mothers petty selfishness .

On the other hand you have Rapists and Murderers being put todeath in far more humane ways than the helpless children are subjected to.

Bonnie
09-28-2009, 11:56 PM
Doesn't GOD provide for this in the bible, something about following "man's laws" and if the death penalty is part of the law... :unsure:

I'm from Texas, Mark, and I don't live too far from Huntsville where they execute them. I, too, believe in the death penalty, but I definitely would want to follow GOD's word regarding this...

Boomer
09-29-2009, 12:01 AM
I am Pro-Life and I also believe in the death penalty, is there anything wrong with that? Are they incompatible?

No. Pro-life is the defense of life in its purest form and state. Even though we are born into sin, sin matures in us just like every aspect of our fallen nature. The childs death is also not their doing.

The death penalty coincides with the law of sowing a reaping. The choices, path, and actions one chooses, most often horrible affecting the lives of others, are producing the product of those actions.
There is grace for all for salvation but often God allows the choices that we make or have made to play out in our lives.

I can't count how many people are dead in this world because of what I do. Just as in war death in necessary, so it is also in civilized society when someone mercilessly takes the lives of others.

rearnakedchoke
09-29-2009, 12:06 AM
I didn't read the other replies, but i guess they are along the same lines ... abortion is the killing of an innocent person, yet the death penalty is someone who has been deemed by the laws of the state that they no longer deserve to live ...

NateR
09-29-2009, 12:25 AM
Usually the death penalty is carried out on those who have proven themselves to be destructive to human life in some way. It's a way of removing a bad element from society like a cancer.

Abortion is a completely unrelated issue, because the baby has done nothing wrong. Even under the worst case scenario, where a baby is conceived as a result of rape or incest, that child's existence is not a crime.

So, no, the ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact they both place a high value on human life. A murderer who kills without remorse has no regard for the right to life of those around him; so in order to protect human life, that person must be permanently removed from society and the death penalty is the only way to ensure that that man never kills again.

Now I have heard some people claim that a baby "using" a woman's body for its own benefit is a violation of that woman's body on the same level as a man raping her. Thus, an unwanted baby living inside a woman's body should be considered a death penalty offense (even though I doubt those same people would consider rape a death penalty offense). However, people who believe that are just crackpots and should not be regarded as intelligent individuals.

My guess is that the argument that Pro-Life and Capital Punishment are incompatible ideas is more of a smokescreen to confuse the abortion debate. I highly doubt many of the people making this argument would support the death penalty. Which is interesting, because wouldn't being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty be an even greater contradiction of values?

Chris F
09-29-2009, 12:36 AM
Mark your view is the most biblical. The bible is very clear that the government does not yield the sword in vain (Romans 13) If one is civil disobedient they can be put to death.

As for pro life in God eyes life begins even before conception so to abort is clearly an act of murder.

NateR
09-29-2009, 12:58 AM
I didn't read the other replies, but i guess they are along the same lines ... abortion is the killing of an innocent person, yet the death penalty is someone who has been deemed by the laws of the state that they no longer deserve to live ...

Well, that's somewhat of a humanist view of the death penalty. I think you'll find that most Americans really only approve of the death penalty in the cases of violent crimes like murder, rape, child molestation, etc. We're not talking about political dissidents, which is just another way to cloud the capital punishment debate. We are talking about violent criminals with no regard for human life. The entire United States was founded by political dissidents, so why would we want to see that squashed?

So, I don't think anyone on this forum, arguing in support of the death penalty, wants to see this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Chinese_execution_of_political_dissidents.jpg
This is a mass execution of political dissidents in China.

que
09-29-2009, 01:13 AM
i am pro life until someone deserves to die then i wish death upon them

rapists, child molesters, murderers, certain things like that cross the line, they all deserve to die. an eye for an eye is how i see it

TexasRN
09-29-2009, 01:26 AM
It is no secret that we have the death penalty so the person committing a crime that is deserving of that punishment has made the choice to be put to death for his/her crimes if he/she gets caught. I feel no sympathy for that person because ultimately they chose it.

With abortion, there is no choice available for the baby. That's the difference for me.


~Amy

Buzzard
09-29-2009, 02:15 AM
I have much to speak of on this issue, but since it is in the Christianity section I will only address one point.

What happens when an innocent man or woman is executed?

I would really like to discuss this more, but do not want to overstay my welcome in this section.

TexasRN
09-29-2009, 02:22 AM
I have much to speak of on this issue, but since it is in the Christianity section I will only address one point.

What happens when an innocent man or woman is executed?

I would really like to discuss this more, but do not want to overstay my welcome in this section.

Innocent men and women being executed is a tragedy and I know it has happened but I wouldn't stop the death penalty because there is a small chance of it happening. My motto: Always have an alibi. :laugh:


~Amy

Chris F
09-29-2009, 02:26 AM
I have much to speak of on this issue, but since it is in the Christianity section I will only address one point.

What happens when an innocent man or woman is executed?

I would really like to discuss this more, but do not want to overstay my welcome in this section.

With modern forensics and DNA evidence that is a near impossibility. Also we are a nation of laws and if a jury of your peers find you guilty and you appeals still say you are guilty then chances are you are guilty. However if it did happen the government still has the authority from God to do it.

NateR
09-29-2009, 02:28 AM
What happens when an innocent man or woman is executed?

Well, that's why we have a system that allows each person a jury trial and only convicts "beyond a reasonable doubt." Is the system perfect? Of course not, it's run by human beings so it can't be. However, do you really believe a system that releases convicted murderers on parole, allows them to kill again, convicts them a second time, then paroles them again after a few years, allowing them to kill again, is a better system? I'm sorry but that is crazy and in no way represents justice.

Mark
09-29-2009, 02:33 AM
I would really like to discuss this more, but do not want to overstay my welcome in this section.

Should I have put this in the woodshed? I want to hear it all.

Chris F
09-29-2009, 02:37 AM
Should I have put this in the woodshed? I want to hear it all.

You or Nate can switch it. Woodshed may be a better place any how

MattHughesRocks
09-29-2009, 02:47 AM
And here we are. Let's hear it :)

Chuck
09-29-2009, 02:50 AM
I have much to speak of on this issue, but since it is in the Christianity section I will only address one point.

What happens when an innocent man or woman is executed?

I would really like to discuss this more, but do not want to overstay my welcome in this section.
That's a fair question.

With modern forensics and DNA evidence that is a near impossibility. Also we are a nation of laws and if a jury of your peers find you guilty and you appeals still say you are guilty then chances are you are guilty. However if it did happen the government still has the authority from God to do it.
That's simply not true. DNA isn't a smoking gun. Often times DNA can do no more then prove a person has been in a specific place.. it does nothing for motive, pre-meditation etc.

What are your thoughts on people on death row who were convicted years ago using out dated science and forensic methods?

Well, that's why we have a system that allows each person a jury trial and only convicts "beyond a reasonable doubt." Is the system perfect? Of course not, it's run by human beings so it can't be. However, do you really believe a system that releases convicted murderers on parole, allows them to kill again, convicts them a second time, then paroles them again after a few years, allowing them to kill again, is a better system? I'm sorry but that is crazy and in no way represents justice.

Where does this fit in with Buzzards question about innocent people being executed? You're not implying this is his view just based off his 1 question are you? :huh:

NateR
09-29-2009, 02:56 AM
Where does this fit in with Buzzards question about innocent people being executed? You're not implying this is his view just based off his 1 question are you? :huh:

It very well might be, that's why I'm asking.

Chris F
09-29-2009, 03:14 AM
That's a fair question.


That's simply not true. DNA isn't a smoking gun. Often times DNA can do no more then prove a person has been in a specific place.. it does nothing for motive, pre-meditation etc.That would be brought up in trial and if they are convicted then they were guilty. That is why were are guaranteed by the constitution to have a trial by jury. DYK you can force the courts to give you a jury trial for a parking ticket?

What are your thoughts on people on death row who were convicted years ago using out dated science and forensic methods? Their lawyers I am sure have filed for a new trial. If they have not then they have appeals and that is what they are for. I firmly believe if their peers convict and the appeal stands they should pay the piper plain and simple


Where does this fit in with Buzzards question about innocent people being executed? You're not implying this is his view just based off his 1 question are you? :huh:

My comments in red above.

NateR
09-29-2009, 03:32 AM
That would be brought up in trial and if they are convicted then they were guilty. That is why were are guaranteed by the constitution to have a trial by jury. DYK you can force the courts to give you a jury trial for a parking ticket?


Exactly, the Founding Fathers knew all to well just how corrupt a justice system could be. So, they made provisions to protect people the best way a free society can.

However, no system is perfect, but that's where GOD comes in and why I believe that every trial should begin with a prayer asking that justice be done. I'm pretty sure GOD knows exactly what it's like to be unjustly executed for a crime He didn't commit. :wink:

I think the Constitution says that a jury trial is allowed for any offense that requires a fine of $20 or more. There is nothing in the language about adjusting for inflation; so, yes, you can request a jury trial for the most mundane of offenses.

rockdawg21
09-29-2009, 03:41 AM
A fetus is innocent.

Somebody who intentionally killed another deserves to have the same treatment.

Black Mamba
09-29-2009, 03:50 AM
* http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Some interesting things to note.

* http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Here's a website talking about a few cases of people POSSIBLY innocent that were killed. Out of the 8 listed on here, it's also interesting to note that 5 of them were in Texas. All I can say about that is this: You don't want to kill someone in Texas. "You kill someone, you are put in an express lane."~ Mr. Ron White.

Something else taken from there too that I thought was interesting:

Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005)



* And yes, I know stats can used to say whatever you want them to say. I also know that websites have a slant to them. Normally I try to stay away from .com sites and use .edu or .org but even then there's a degree of bias.

Black Mamba
09-29-2009, 03:55 AM
Another article, but more recent ( 9/7/09)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

*Edit*

This sucker is 17 pages. It gives the full details of everything.

NateR
09-29-2009, 04:32 AM
* http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Some interesting things to note.

* http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Here's a website talking about a few cases of people POSSIBLY innocent that were killed. Out of the 8 listed on here, it's also interesting to note that 5 of them were in Texas. All I can say about that is this: You don't want to kill someone in Texas. "You kill someone, you are put in an express lane."~ Mr. Ron White.

Something else taken from there too that I thought was interesting:

Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005)



* And yes, I know stats can used to say whatever you want them to say. I also know that websites have a slant to them. Normally I try to stay away from .com sites and use .edu or .org but even then there's a degree of bias.

I'd be interested to see a comparison between the number of people who might have been wrongly executed and the number of victims from repeat offenders who have been convicted and released.

Buzzard
09-29-2009, 05:10 AM
Should I have put this in the woodshed? I want to hear it all.

Thanks for bringing up and having the thread moved. I will address this post later tomorrow when I have more time.

Some of my thoughts regarding the death penalty are already on this forum in another thread. They have stayed the same.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-29-2009, 05:30 AM
If they are proven Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Given a fair trail and the state meets a high level of proof, then I can say that certain types deserve the death penalty. The types like Dalmer,Manson,pedophiles and others who represent an extreme threat to the innocent! In the Old Testament some folks were stoned to death. As for the abortion as I think I have said before we must do what we can to protect the innocent!

Quell
09-29-2009, 05:54 AM
Bein a guard....I'm ALL for the death penalty!! Repeat molesters and rapist should be the first to go. The state is looking to make some cut backs....well there ya go! Get rid of them, don't care how you do it. I say let the victims chose.

And with the Pro-Life... would it be a freedom/rights issue? Forcing a woman to endure 9 months for a baby she doesn't want?

NateR
09-29-2009, 06:17 AM
And with the Pro-Life... would it be a freedom/rights issue? Forcing a woman to endure 9 months for a baby she doesn't want?

It is a freedom/rights issue, which exactly why I am against abortion. I believe that the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps the mother's right to choose.

The mother's selfishness-level is irrelevant in the issue of abortion.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-29-2009, 07:34 AM
If you take the Pro Abortion argument to its logical conclusion it would be alright for a Woman to kill any Child or anybody that inconveniences her!

adamt
09-29-2009, 01:04 PM
What happens when an innocent man or woman is executed?





what do you mean? aren't most people who are murdered usually innocent?

thousands upon thousands of innocent people are murdered.

what happens is.... when someone innocent is murdered, you value their life with the life that took theirs......

Chris F
09-29-2009, 05:06 PM
Bein a guard....I'm ALL for the death penalty!! Repeat molesters and rapist should be the first to go. The state is looking to make some cut backs....well there ya go! Get rid of them, don't care how you do it. I say let the victims chose.

And with the Pro-Life... would it be a freedom/rights issue? Forcing a woman to endure 9 months for a baby she doesn't want?

The right to life is in the 5th amendment. The right to choose IE the right to privacy is nowhere in the Constitution and was invented by some judges with an agenda. So no it is not a freedom/rights issue for the mother. If she did not want a baby she should have been more careful. And in cases of rape and incest two wrongs never make it right and the sins of the father should not allow the murder of the child. And in the case of to save the life of the mother. God alone decides if and when we die, so that point is moot.

TheConcretekid
09-29-2009, 06:47 PM
I thought I remember reading this whole "thou shall not kill" thing in this book one time. And there was a man who once said something about how taking an eye for an eye would, ultimately, leave the whole world blind.

And from a legal stand point, DNA testing has over turned rape/murder cases.

What do you guys think about people being saved whilst in prison?

Chuck
09-29-2009, 07:15 PM
The right to life is in the 5th amendment. The right to choose IE the right to privacy is nowhere in the Constitution and was invented by some judges with an agenda. So no it is not a freedom/rights issue for the mother. If she did not want a baby she should have been more careful. And in cases of rape and incest two wrongs never make it right and the sins of the father should not allow the murder of the child. And in the case of to save the life of the mother. God alone decides if and when we die, so that point is moot.

How do you reconcile this with being in favor of the death penalty?

NateR
09-29-2009, 08:05 PM
I thought I remember reading this whole "thou shall not kill" thing in this book one time. And there was a man who once said something about how taking an eye for an eye would, ultimately, leave the whole world blind.

Actually, the correct translation of that verse is "Thou shall not murder." Executing a convicted criminal would not fall under the category of murder.

It doesn't make any sense that GOD would be against the death penalty, especially when He commanded that several offenses would be punishable by death:

Leviticus 20:
The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

" 'I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.

" 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

" 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

" 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

" 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

" 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

" 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

" 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

" 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

" 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

" 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

" 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

" 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

" 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

" 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

" 'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

" 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "


This is no secret to New Testament writers, in Romans 1: 29-32, Paul describes many sins that are "deserving of death."

So the death penalty is not a contradiction of Exodus 20:13.

What do you guys think about people being saved whilst in prison?

It's great and prison is a place where people tend to be more receptive to the gospel. However, getting saved does not necessarily mean that the person should have their sentence dismissed. If they are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, then they might still need to fulfill that sentence. If they are truly born again, then I expect that they would understand that.

Chris F
09-29-2009, 08:11 PM
How do you reconcile this with being in favor of the death penalty?

Romans 13. The Gov found him guilty so it is his/her time to go. If it was not then they would be pardoned or found innocent. It reconciles just fine Chuck.

Chris F
09-29-2009, 08:13 PM
I thought I remember reading this whole "thou shall not kill" thing in this book one time. And there was a man who once said something about how taking an eye for an eye would, ultimately, leave the whole world blind.

And from a legal stand point, DNA testing has over turned rape/murder cases.

What do you guys think about people being saved whilst in prison?

1. It is better and more accurately translated Thou shall not commit murder. God killed plenty of people in scripture and he would not contradict himself.

2. Yes science has done wonder to sure up the legal process.

3. Just because they get saved does not make them immune from the seed they sowed. They committed a crime and were found guilty. At least when they are executed they can be assured of heaven then.

Buzzard
09-29-2009, 09:45 PM
I am Pro-Life and I also believe in the death penalty, is there anything wrong with that? Are they incompatible?

I believe that they are incompatible. I explain my thoughts more addressing Mac's post.

This is my thoughts on the matter.

I am the same , Pro Life , yet i also support the death penelty.

Then you aren't pro-life since you support the death penalty. Do you consider someone who is pro-choice yet against the death penalty to be pro-life?

I believe the reasoning is simple. The unborn Child has done nothing wrong , certainly nothing to diserve death .

Aren't all people born into original sin according to your religion? If they are, then wouldn't they already have sinful ways prior to birth, or is the act of birth how they gain their sinful ways?

Honestly , there isnt even a debate to be had here is there , i mean , it is just that simple , sure there are folks that can turn it into an argument , But your dealing with apples and oranges on this one .

Sure there is. I can compare apples and oranges very easily if you wish me to. Pro-life is what it states, being for life. Not life with exceptions.

On one hand you have a helpless child dying at the hands of a doctor for no more reason than the mothers petty selfishness .

Do you apply that statement to the victim of a rapist who gets pregnant because of the act of rape? Do you think a woman should be punished twice and forced to carry the child of the violent rapist?

On the other hand you have Rapists and Murderers being put todeath in far more humane ways than the helpless children are subjected to.

How do you determine how much suffering a week old embryo endured during a first week abortion? Do you believe that the rapist should be put to death but his rape induced child should get to live, constantly reminding the mother of the act of rape against her while she is carrying the rapist's child?



I am pro-life by the way

Usually the death penalty is carried out on those who have proven themselves to be destructive to human life in some way. It's a way of removing a bad element from society like a cancer.

And sometimes it is carried out on an innocent person. Would you think the same if you were in the innocent condemned mans shoes?

Abortion is a completely unrelated issue, because the baby has done nothing wrong. Even under the worst case scenario, where a baby is conceived as a result of rape or incest, that child's existence is not a crime.

The topic is whether you can be pro-life and for the death penalty. It is related. Life is life; there are no caveats involved. The act which allowed the sperm to bond to the egg was a crime against society and the woman who was raped. Are you willing to pay for all of the expenses related to the carrying to full term and the expenses after birth of all raped woman who become pregnant? Should the woman be forced to pay for them?

So, no, the ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact they both place a high value on human life. A murderer who kills without remorse has no regard for the right to life of those around him; so in order to protect human life, that person must be permanently removed from society and the death penalty is the only way to ensure that that man never kills again.

A non-remorseful person may have regard for other people around him, just not the person he/she murdered. This is not defending murder or the murderer, only showing that your argument is flawed. Keeping the man in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is also a way to ensure he/she never kills again. Heck, the murderer could help to keep someone alive through organ donation.

Now I have heard some people claim that a baby "using" a woman's body for its own benefit is a violation of that woman's body on the same level as a man raping her. Thus, an unwanted baby living inside a woman's body should be considered a death penalty offense (even though I doubt those same people would consider rape a death penalty offense). However, people who believe that are just crackpots and should not be regarded as intelligent individuals.

Sorry to ask this question again, but I have to ask. Do you think it is right to force the woman to carry this child? Do you think the government should step in to make sure all women who become pregnant not do anything which could possibly endanger a fetus' life?

My guess is that the argument that Pro-Life and Capital Punishment are incompatible ideas is more of a smokescreen to confuse the abortion debate. I highly doubt many of the people making this argument would support the death penalty. Which is interesting, because wouldn't being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty be an even greater contradiction of values?

It's not a smokescreen. You are either for protecting all life, or you're not. If you're not, you aren't pro-life. It's simple. Being pro-choice and anti-death penalty also goes against the term pro-life. You have to be for life in all respects to be labeled pro-life. Since you are for the death penalty, should we label you as pro-death the way you label pro-choice people as pro-abortion?


Again, I am pro-life*. Though since I don't believe a woman should be forced to carry a rapist' baby, I don't think I am able to accurately label myself as pro-life.

Mark your view is the most biblical. The bible is very clear that the government does not yield the sword in vain (Romans 13) If one is civil disobedient they can be put to death.

As for pro life in God eyes life begins even before conception so to abort is clearly an act of murder.

What about folks like myself who don't believe in God? While I can use some of the Bible to guide my actions, I can't say that because God says it's ok to kill people, that we can kill people. I don't want the government using the Bible as a basis for allowing the death-penalty.

Since you say that according to God life begins before conception, when does it begin? If you spill your seed by yourself, is that abortion? Is it abortion when a woman menstruates? They both discard egg and sperm.

Innocent men and women being executed is a tragedy and I know it has happened but I wouldn't stop the death penalty because there is a small chance of it happening. My motto: Always have an alibi. :laugh:


~Amy

What do you think is fair recompense for the execution of an innocent man/woman? I doubt that folks who were wrongfully executed and didn't have an alibi would think your joke all that funny, that's just me though. One innocent person executed is one too many.

With modern forensics and DNA evidence that is a near impossibility. Also we are a nation of laws and if a jury of your peers find you guilty and you appeals still say you are guilty then chances are you are guilty. However if it did happen the government still has the authority from God to do it.

Chuck addressed this point well, so I'll leave this alone.

I don't believe the government has any authority from God since I don't believe there is a God. Do you believe in the authority of God in the Islamic religion? What if I said the God I believe in gave me the authority to kill at my own discretion. Should I be allowed to kill others because of this? If not, why not? The answers you give to say no to my question can also apply to you.

Well, that's why we have a system that allows each person a jury trial and only convicts "beyond a reasonable doubt." Is the system perfect? Of course not, it's run by human beings so it can't be. However, do you really believe a system that releases convicted murderers on parole, allows them to kill again, convicts them a second time, then paroles them again after a few years, allowing them to kill again, is a better system? I'm sorry but that is crazy and in no way represents justice.

In no way have I ever implied this.


My comments in red above.

That would be brought up in trial and if they are convicted then they were guilty. That is why were are guaranteed by the constitution to have a trial by jury.


They aren't necessarily guilty just because a jury of their peers says they were. Humans get things wrong. Not saying that a jury conviction is wrong and should never mean anything, just that with the death penalty, the possibility of error is too great to stake a human life on it.


However, no system is perfect, but that's where GOD comes in and why I believe that every trial should begin with a prayer asking that justice be done. I'm pretty sure GOD knows exactly what it's like to be unjustly executed for a crime He didn't commit. :wink:

Pray on your own if you wish. Please keep religion out of the courtroom and not force prayer on anyone.


If you take the Pro Abortion argument to its logical conclusion it would be alright for a Woman to kill any Child or anybody that inconveniences her!

Care to explain this? I am having a hard time trying to follow your logic here.


what do you mean? aren't most people who are murdered usually innocent?

Innocent of what?

thousands upon thousands of innocent people are murdered.

What is your point?

what happens is.... when someone innocent is murdered, you value their life with the life that took theirs......

Using your logic, should someone who is guilty of something and is murdered, should the killer be allowed to go on with life because the person killed was guilty of something?

It is a freedom/rights issue, which exactly why I am against abortion. I believe that the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps the mother's right to choose.

So you believe that a one day old embryo has more rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the person carrying this embryo? Can you tell me when the government gives an in utero child the status of person-hood?

The mother's selfishness-level is irrelevant in the issue of abortion.

Do you consider her selfish in the case of rape or incest? What if she can't provide for the child? What if she can't provide for herself and the health of the fetus when she is pregnant? Should the taxpayers be obligated to fork up the money? What if carrying the child to full term could kill the mother? Who has more right to life?

The right to life is in the 5th amendment. The right to choose IE the right to privacy is nowhere in the Constitution and was invented by some judges with an agenda. So no it is not a freedom/rights issue for the mother.

Does it state that a fetus is a person? Is it implied? If you say it is implied, then do you think that the 14th amendment implies the right to privacy?

If she did not want a baby she should have been more careful. And in cases of rape and incest two wrongs never make it right and the sins of the father should not allow the murder of the child.

Are you saying then that an embryo has more rights than the mother in the cases of rape and incest?

And in the case of to save the life of the mother. God alone decides if and when we die, so that point is moot.

If God alone decides, (which I do not believe) then why have pre-natal exams and such? If a person has an abortion, didn't God then decide that the child should not live? If God alone decides, then he either decides everything or nothing.


Romans 13. The Gov found him guilty so it is his/her time to go. If it was not then they would be pardoned or found innocent. It reconciles just fine Chuck.

Actually a jury of his peers if they had a jury trial found him guilty, not the government. You could say the jury was acting in accordance with the government, but the actual government didn't find him guilty. If he was innocent and still found guilty and then executed, how would you personally reconcile that? It has and still can happen.

1. It is better and more accurately translated Thou shall not commit murder. God killed plenty of people in scripture and he would not contradict himself.

There are many contradictions in the Bible. That is a fact. Since God killed innocents, is it a good thing and should we follow His lead?

2. Yes science has done wonder to sure up the legal process.

Hasn't done enough wonders. Innocent men/women can still be wrongfully convicted.

3. Just because they get saved does not make them immune from the seed they sowed. They committed a crime and were found guilty.

What about the ones who were innocent? Should the person who kills an innocent be guilty of a crime?

At least when they are executed they can be assured of heaven then.

To me it seems that that is too easy of a way out. Sin, repent, sin, repent, etc............


Again, I am pro-life* and have not meant to sound condescending in any of my replies nor have I meant to belittle anyone's beliefs.

Thank you for bringing this out into a forum where I can participate. If I missed anything someone wishes me to respond to, please let me know and I will do my best to reply to your questions and comments.

NateR
09-30-2009, 02:29 AM
We seem to have a problem here with defining terms. The terms "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are simply pieces of propaganda created for the abortion debate. At some point, pro-abortionists decided that it was easier to market themselves as "Pro-Choice" instead of "Pro-Abortion." So, in response anti-abortion groups took on the name "Pro-Life."

I believe that most people on here use the term "Pro-Life" to specifically reference the issue of abortion. You can apply it to other issues as well, but that was not the original intent of those who coined the term.

If you expand the terms beyond abortion, then EVERYONE could accurately refer to themselves as Pro-Choice AND Pro-Life in one way or another.

So, to be specific, I am Anti-Abortion and Pro-Death-Penalty. So, let's not get hung up on terminology since it sidetracks the debate.

Buzzard
09-30-2009, 02:44 AM
We seem to have a problem here with defining terms. The terms "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are simply pieces of propaganda created for the abortion debate. At some point, pro-abortionists decided that it was easier to market themselves as "Pro-Choice" instead of "Pro-Abortion." So, in response anti-abortion groups took on the name "Pro-Life."

I believe that most people on here use the term "Pro-Life" to specifically reference the issue of abortion. You can apply it to other issues as well, but that was not the original intent of those who coined the term.

If you expand the terms beyond abortion, then EVERYONE could accurately refer to themselves as Pro-Choice AND Pro-Life in one way or another.

So, to be specific, I am Anti-Abortion and Pro-Death-Penalty. So, let's not get hung up on terminology since it sidetracks the debate.

Perhaps you should address the terminology with Mark as he is the one who brought up the terminology in this thread. It seems that anything you personally don't agree with is propaganda.

It seems to me that folks who are pro-choice are for the option to carry to term or abort, so your term pro-abortion makes it sound like they are only for abortion. That sounds an awful lot like propaganda to me.:wink:

Is it fair to say that you are then pro-death because you favor the death penalty even when an innocent person could be wrongfully executed?

If you favor the DP and are against abortion, you should come up with a term which doesn't imply that you favor all life.

While we are on the subject of death and killing, what are your views on hunting for sport and recreation? Do you favor killing something for your mere pleasure and joy?


I

NateR
09-30-2009, 02:59 AM
Perhaps you should address the terminology with Mark as he is the one who brought up the terminology in this thread. It seems that anything you personally don't agree with is propaganda.

It seems to me that folks who are pro-choice are for the option to carry to term or abort, so your term pro-abortion makes it sound like they are only for abortion. That sounds an awful lot like propaganda to me.:wink:

Is it fair to say that you are then pro-death because you favor the death penalty even when an innocent person could be wrongfully executed?

If you favor the DP and are against abortion, you should come up with a term which doesn't imply that you favor all life.

While we are on the subject of death and killing, what are your views on hunting for sport and recreation? Do you favor killing something for your mere pleasure and joy?


I

Propaganda is a neutral term, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Any form of advertising or informing about any person, place, thing, idea, etc. is propaganda. The negative connotation is a recent development. There is good propaganda out there (like this pro-Matt Hughes website, for example).

I do believe there is value in all life, however, some individuals forfeit their right to continue living by actions they commit. Those actions would include premeditated murder, rape, child-molestation, etc. However, the death penalty should only be carried out after any reasonable doubt of their guilt is established in a fair trial. I am in no way supporting vigilantism or lynch mobs.

As for hunting, as long as the meat the animals provide is being used, then I have no problem with it. However, certain animals (like coyotes) need to be hunted in order to preserve livestock. So, I don't expect someone who hunts coyotes to eat any of the meat.

I don't equate animal life to human life, so these issues are unrelated as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not really a big hunter, either, I've been hunting once in my life.

Buzzard
09-30-2009, 07:18 AM
Propaganda is a neutral term, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Any form of advertising or informing about any person, place, thing, idea, etc. is propaganda. The negative connotation is a recent development. There is good propaganda out there (like this pro-Matt Hughes website, for example).

I do believe there is value in all life, however, some individuals forfeit their right to continue living by actions they commit. Those actions would include premeditated murder, rape, child-molestation, etc. However, the death penalty should only be carried out after any reasonable doubt of their guilt is established in a fair trial. I am in no way supporting vigilantism or lynch mobs.

As for hunting, as long as the meat the animals provide is being used, then I have no problem with it. However, certain animals (like coyotes) need to be hunted in order to preserve livestock. So, I don't expect someone who hunts coyotes to eat any of the meat.

I don't equate animal life to human life, so these issues are unrelated as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not really a big hunter, either, I've been hunting once in my life.

I realize that animal life and human life are different and not really related to this topic. I just wondered about your take on hunting and killing of animals for sport purposes. I could understand the killing of coyotes if one had livestock to protect, but killing them for sport to satisfy their bloodlust is just plain wrong in my opinion. I just wondered how you and others felt about it since we were talking about the terms pro-life and pro-choice and such. I threw it in since it is related in terms of how one values all life.

Thanks for the responses too.

J.B.
09-30-2009, 07:26 AM
I am Pro-Life and I also believe in the death penalty, is there anything wrong with that? Are they incompatible?

Absolutely not.

All of God's children are innocent.

The death penalty deals with those who are not only past the point of childhood innocence, but also found guilty of atrocious crimes.

This is a black and white issue. No grey area here. :wink:

Buzzard
09-30-2009, 07:34 AM
Absolutely not.

All of God's children are innocent.

The death penalty deals with those who are not only past the point of childhood innocence, but also found guilty of atrocious crimes.

This is a black and white issue. No grey area here. :wink:

Sorry that you feel that way
The only thing there is to say
Every silver lining's got a
Touch of grey.

Many thanks to the Grateful Dead for those lyrics.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
09-30-2009, 07:36 AM
If you take the Pro Abortion argument to its logical conclusion it would be alright for a Woman to kill any Child or anybody that inconveniences her!

I think its an easy jump to make! The abortion lobbies argument is all about the Pregnant Woman's convenience! Because its more convenient for the Woman to take her Child's life than to have the Child. So since by that logic its alright to kill a helpless child out of convenience why not kill anybody else that inconvenience's the woman? To me that's what they are saying. Set the woman up as some Queen to decide who lives and dies at her convenience! Not destroy that which is a menace to the innocent but kill that whatever they want. I think its a simple conclusion to come to that the abortion lobby does not value life so that's where it leads.

J.B.
09-30-2009, 08:01 AM
Many thanks to the Grateful Dead for those lyrics.

At least you gave credit where credit is due... :)

I mean, it's not like you would have come up with such a clever response. :laugh:

NateR
09-30-2009, 04:23 PM
I think its an easy jump to make! The abortion lobbies argument is all about the Pregnant Woman's convenience! Because its more convenient for the Woman to take her Child's life than to have the Child. So since by that logic its alright to kill a helpless child out of convenience why not kill anybody else that inconvenience's the woman? To me that's what they are saying. Set the woman up as some Queen to decide who lives and dies at her convenience! Not destroy that which is a menace to the innocent but kill that whatever they want. I think its a simple conclusion to come to that the abortion lobby does not value life so that's where it leads.

I have heard of cases were feminist or pro-abortion groups are claiming that a woman should have the "right" to terminate her child's life up to 2 years of age. So, yes, once people begin to accept practices like partial-birth abortion as a "medical procedure" and not a gruesome form of murder, then allowing these "doctors" to kill live babies is the next logical step.

Buzzard
09-30-2009, 04:33 PM
At least you gave credit where credit is due... :)

I mean, it's not like you would have come up with such a clever response. :laugh:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3767724435_29070a7057.jpg


This stuff writes itself.

Buzzard
09-30-2009, 04:42 PM
I have heard of cases were feminist or pro-abortion groups are claiming that a woman should have the "right" to terminate her child's life up to 2 years of age. So, yes, once people begin to accept practices like partial-birth abortion as a "medical procedure" and not a gruesome form of murder, then allowing these "doctors" to kill live babies is the next logical step.

Any links to your first statement? I just find that to be absurd. Crazier things have happened I guess.

If some folks begin to accept a practice like partial-birth abortion as a "medical procedure", then those folks who accept it may find the killing of live babies the next logical step. Others would hopefully see it for what it is.

NateR
09-30-2009, 06:11 PM
Any links to your first statement? I just find that to be absurd. Crazier things have happened I guess.

If some folks begin to accept a practice like partial-birth abortion as a "medical procedure", then those folks who accept it may find the killing of live babies the next logical step. Others would hopefully see it for what it is.

Not exactly what you asked for but this does give some decent information on the history of Infanticide.
http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Infanticide.html

Not sure of the reliability of the source, but it is an interesting and disturbing read and it covers a lot of stuff that I've never heard before.

For instance, I never knew that, in some cultures, twins were considered evil and immediately killed after they were born.

I'm still looking for more information on the modern fight to make infanticide legal in America, but I just thought that this link was worth posting in the meantime.

rearnakedchoke
09-30-2009, 06:14 PM
I don't know about in the US, but in Canada, infanticide is considered non-culpable murder by a mother who has been deemed suffering from post-partum depression ..

Neezar
09-30-2009, 06:20 PM
I don't know about in the US, but in Canada, infanticide is considered non-culpable murder by a mother who has been deemed suffering from post-partum depression ..

Yes, they should have mercy and put those women out of their misery. If they ever do get well then guilt will eat them away. They don't have a chance at a good life after something like that.

Neezar
09-30-2009, 06:22 PM
Any links to your first statement? I just find that to be absurd. Crazier things have happened I guess.

If some folks begin to accept a practice like partial-birth abortion as a "medical procedure", then those folks who accept it may find the killing of live babies the next logical step. Others would hopefully see it for what it is.

And what would 'it' be?

NateR
09-30-2009, 06:27 PM
And what would 'it' be?

My guess is that he is referring to "it" as murder. At least that's how I took it.

Buzzard
09-30-2009, 09:16 PM
My guess is that he is referring to "it" as murder. At least that's how I took it.

Winna winna chicken dinna!

Buzzard
10-01-2009, 05:33 AM
Another innocent man convicted of murder and executed. Happened in the dear old state of Texas.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/texas_has_state-sanctioned_mur.php

Some of the comments there also express my feelings in words I have not yet used.


EDIT:
This is the 2nd article I have read since yesterday on this man. This one I linked to is a little less newsy in the way it was written. There are others out there which are more news like in the reporting.

Hopefully the United States will end this uncivilized barbaric practice soon.

MattHughesRocks
10-01-2009, 05:43 AM
I'm not going to read it but I assume there was proof, like dna or something that it wasn't him?

MattHughesRocks
10-01-2009, 05:46 AM
Ok I read it :laugh: Seems that he didn't do it so yes...then it should be alright to kill unborn babies to :blink:

:doh:

Buzzard
10-01-2009, 05:53 AM
Ok I read it :laugh: Seems that he didn't do it so yes...then it should be alright to kill unborn babies to :blink:

:doh:

How the heck did you come up with that?

NateR
10-01-2009, 01:22 PM
Another innocent man convicted of murder and executed. Happened in the dear old state of Texas.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/texas_has_state-sanctioned_mur.php

Some of the comments there also express my feelings in words I have not yet used.


EDIT:
This is the 2nd article I have read since yesterday on this man. This one I linked to is a little less newsy in the way it was written. There are others out there which are more news like in the reporting.

Hopefully the United States will end this uncivilized barbaric practice soon.

Again, I'd like to see some statistics that compare the number of people who might have been wrongfully executed with the number of murders committed by criminals who were released or paroled from prison too early.

What's really barbaric is releasing known murderers back into the population and allowing them to take more innocent* life.



* "innocent" in the sense that they have done nothing to deserve being murdered/raped/etc., not intended to mean that they are not sinful and in need of GOD's grace.

MattHughesRocks
10-01-2009, 05:24 PM
Very easily. It was past my bedtime. How ya like me now? http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e292/skysrock/Smileys/02cda2bd0cff.gifHow the heck did you come up with that?

Buzzard
10-01-2009, 09:03 PM
Again, I'd like to see some statistics that compare the number of people who might have been wrongfully executed with the number of murders committed by criminals who were released or paroled from prison too early.

Why do you need a statistic? Isn't even one person who is wrongfully executed one too many? I don't understand how you can think that an innocent person being executed is good.

What's really barbaric is releasing known murderers back into the population and allowing them to take more innocent* life.

You're straying off topic and trying to use that argument to support the execution of innocent people. Even I can see through that. Do you have problems with any other criminals who have served their time and are released? Do you not trust the judge and jury when the sentencing phase ends and the convicted have served the time in accordance with what their sentence called for?


* "innocent" in the sense that they have done nothing to deserve being murdered/raped/etc., not intended to mean that they are not sinful and in need of GOD's grace.

On the page I linked has links to 2 youtube videos where they talk about the faulty science used to convict this man, and interview the prosecutor. He is now a judge. I hope he gets served up with some prison justice. By his logic, if you listen to heavy metal music you could very well be a devil worshiper and prone to murder.


Very easily. It was past my bedtime. How ya like me now? http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e292/skysrock/Smileys/02cda2bd0cff.gif

Please refrain from making any life or death decisions then if it is past your bedtime. You could hurt yourself. :)

NateR
10-01-2009, 09:30 PM
Why do you need a statistic? Isn't even one person who is wrongfully executed one too many? I don't understand how you can think that an innocent person being executed is good.

Well, isn't even one person killed by a repeat offender too many? I want a statistic because I want to know if the risks of NOT permanently removing violent criminals from society is worth the risk of possibly executing an innocent person.

For instance if there are 10 people murdered each year by repeat offenders for every one innocent person executed, then I would say that we need to be more careful about who is sentenced to death; but clearly it would be more dangerous to eliminate the death penalty than to keep it.

No system is going to be perfect and, for all the complaining you do about people leeching off of taxpayers for free healthcare, I would think that you would also object to supporting violent criminals for the rest of their natural life with your tax money.

Bonnie
10-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Very easily. It was past my bedtime. How ya like me now? http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e292/skysrock/Smileys/02cda2bd0cff.gif

Ya know, something seems to be wrong with that angel's wing. :huh:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Buzzard
10-01-2009, 11:01 PM
Well, isn't even one person killed by a repeat offender too many? I want a statistic because I want to know if the risks of NOT permanently removing violent criminals from society is worth the risk of possibly executing an innocent person.

You keep throwing in this red herring. What does the DP have to do with a released inmate? Absolutely nothing. Are you inferring that if the DP is abolished they will somehow release all death row inmates back into society? Come on NateR, quit trying to fit your agenda into this.

For instance if there are 10 people murdered each year by repeat offenders for every one innocent person executed, then I would say that we need to be more careful about who is sentenced to death; but clearly it would be more dangerous to eliminate the death penalty than to keep it.

Red herring alert! This has nothing to do with the DP and the execution of innocents.

No system is going to be perfect and, for all the complaining you do about people leeching off of taxpayers for free healthcare, I would think that you would also object to supporting violent criminals for the rest of their natural life with your tax money.

Since no system is going to be perfect, the DP should not be in place.

Please show me "all the complaining I do about people leeching off of taxpayers for free healthcare." Don't make up stuff to try to bolster your argument or lack of argument. That's quite dishonest and below you, or at least I thought it was below you.

Also, I have never stated that I am against my tax dollars going to house and support criminals. I'd much rather my money go to that than to go to a system which executes innocent people. You see, I am for all life. Now at times I feel that I could myself kill some of the folks I read about, but those are just thoughts from emotion rather than from a rational decision.



Answers in red.

NateR
10-02-2009, 01:15 AM
Please show me "all the complaining I do about people leeching off of taxpayers for free healthcare." Don't make up stuff to try to bolster your argument or lack of argument. That's quite dishonest and below you, or at least I thought it was below you.

Not making anything up, just the logical conclusion drawn from these comments in the Fines for Healthcare thread:

I actually think that many people don't buy health insurance not because they can't afford it, but because they won't go without a cell phone, cable TV, internet services, and other amenities that they could easily live without, but won't.

What do you propose to do with people who don't have insurance but use ER's, hospitals etc. and can't afford it, thereby sticking the cost to others? Just wondering because that is a problem and I know of someone who has racked up over 1/4 million in hospital bills but can't pay and is going into bankruptcy.

What do we do with the problem of people sticking their debt onto the public when they can't afford health care but use facilities and can't pay for it? As it is, I pay for it now in increased premiums and probably through other ways in which I am not aware.


Red herring alert! This has nothing to do with the DP and the execution of innocents.

Not a red herring. When someone isn't given the death penalty, then they could conceivably get paroled or be released because of good behavior. This brings up the problem with people being released and then killing again. However, with the death penalty in place, this would never be a problem. Thus, if someone is guilty of murder and put to death, then the chances of them being released and killing again are absolute zero. This is why it is relevant to the death penalty.

So, how many people are convicted of murder, not put to death, released for one reason or another only to kill someone else?

I believe the risks of releasing convicted murderers back into the general population where they can kill again (whether it is 5, 10, or 20 years later) is greater than the risk of the occasional wrongful execution.

Mark
10-02-2009, 01:21 AM
This should be the real "3-strikes, you're out" policy:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/charlie-executed.jpg

NateR
10-02-2009, 01:41 AM
This should be the real "3-strikes, you're out" policy:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/charlie-executed.jpg

I think Charles Manson is an excellent case for why the death penalty is necessary.

Buzzard
10-02-2009, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by Buzzard
Please show me "all the complaining I do about people leeching off of taxpayers for free healthcare." Don't make up stuff to try to bolster your argument or lack of argument. That's quite dishonest and below you, or at least I thought it was below you.

Not making anything up, just the logical conclusion drawn from these comments in the Fines for Healthcare thread:

Originally Posted by Buzzard
I actually think that many people don't buy health insurance not because they can't afford it, but because they won't go without a cell phone, cable TV, internet services, and other amenities that they could easily live without, but won't.

How do you draw that conclusion from this statement. Where do I complain about people leeching in the above post? That's right, I don't.


Originally Posted by Buzzard
What do you propose to do with people who don't have insurance but use ER's, hospitals etc. and can't afford it, thereby sticking the cost to others? Just wondering because that is a problem and I know of someone who has racked up over 1/4 million in hospital bills but can't pay and is going into bankruptcy.

Where do I complain here, and how can you equate the above post with me thinking that I'd have a problem with keeping folks alive with my tax dollars rather than executing an innocent? Different topic means I have differing opinions because the topics are different. I thought that concept was easy.




Not a red herring. When someone isn't given the death penalty, then they could conceivably get paroled or be released because good behavior.That can still happen today even with the death penalty. Maybe when someone is given life in jail, it should mean life in jail. This brings up the problem with people being released and then killing again. However, with the death penalty in place, this would never be a problem.Faulty argument again. With the death penalty in place, some could still be released and kill again if he/she wasn't given a death sentence and only made to serve an amount of time. Thus, if someone is guilty of murder and put to death, then the chances of them being released and killing again are absolute zero. This is why it is relevant to the death penalty.When you start with a faulty logical base, of course you can manipulate it to get the conclusions you want. You are being dishonest again in your arguments. I don't feel like wasting my time if you are going to continue on being dishonest and twist things to fit your agenda

The other posts of mine which you used for examples are also horrible examples and a reasonable person should be able to see the differences.

So, how many people are convicted of murder, not put to death, released for one reason or another only to kill someone else?

Why don't you tell me? But that again is a faulty question you use to try to make it fit into your agenda. Wouldn't the question apply better if you asked it with the caveat of people convicted of murder, sentenced to death, released and then killed another? If so, I would ascertain that the number hovers around 0.

I believe the risks of releasing convicted murderers back into the general population where they can kill again (whether it is 5, 10, or 20 years later) is greater than the risk of the occasional wrongful execution.

The only person talking about releasing these folks back into society is you. You are being quite dishonest and I believe that you know that. Maybe I have given you too much credit in the past. It's quite sad that you value an innocent persons life so little that you are willing to let an innocent person be executed because of your desire for bloodlust and vengeance. How you can reconcile that is appalling. Would you be so willing to let the mistake be made if it was your mom or dad, brother or sister, or someone else close to you who was going to be wrongfully executed because of inept judges, juries, police etc.?

I should have brought my fishing pole with me as there are many red herrings out here. Here would be a great place to teach a person to fish.

I actually feel sick to my stomach that you are for willing to let an innocent person die because of your desire to see someone executed. Sad, sad, sad.

Play The Man
10-02-2009, 01:58 AM
NateR has brought up the point of released prisoners committing crimes. I would like to point out that even if a prisoner is given a life sentence and never is released, he can still be a danger to corrections officers, nurses, chaplains, doctors, psychologists and fellow prisoners.

For example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/national/main4212047.shtml
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/06/26/image4212146g.jpg
Authorities say an inmate raped and murdered a female corrections officer at a Daytona Beach prison.

The Department of Corrections reports that Enoch Hall attacked Officer Donna Fitzgerald Wednesday night while she was on duty at the Tomoka Correctional Institution. The Port Orange woman had worked at the prison for 13 years.

WESH-TV in Orlando reported that Fitzgerald, 50, discovered Hall hiding in a warehouse area of the prison after lights-out on Wednesday night. The inmate then attacked her.

State prison records show that Hall, 39, is already serving two life sentences for sexual battery with a weapon and kidnapping convictions from a 1993 case.

Or who could forget the case of the "Texas 7", who murdered a police officer after their prison escape?:

http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=2754&mid=0

At approximately 11:20 a.m. on December 13 2000, the notorious Texas Seven began to orchestrate their grand escape from the John B. Connally Unit, a maximum-security state prison in Karnes City, Texas.

Reported ringleader George Rivas, 30, was serving 18 life sentences. The rest of the group was made up of Michael Anthony Rodriguez, 38, Larry Harper, 37, Joseph Garcia, Patrick Henry Murphy, 39, Donald Keith Newbury, 23, and Randy Halprin, 23.
Over the next few days, the seven struck several businesses in a series of robberies. On Christmas Eve, the gang held up Oshman's Super Sports in Irving, Texas and stole 20 automatic weapons and approximately $70,000 cash. When Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins responded to the store's burglary alarm, he was immediatley ambushed and killed. His autopsy revealed that he was shot eleven times and run over by the gang.

I am sure a thorough internet search could come up with similar cases by the dozens.

NateR
10-02-2009, 02:02 AM
Buzzard, you really should take a few moments to think things through before jumping off on one of your irrational tirades:

Not making anything up, just the logical conclusion drawn from these comments in the Fines for Healthcare thread:

Read what I said, I'm talking about all three quotes in context with each other. However, it's funny that you were so intent on proving that you aren't complaining about people leeching off of taxpayers for healthcare, that you deliberately skipped over the third quote where you are complaining about people leeching off of the taxpayers for healthcare. :laugh:


I actually feel sick to my stomach that you are for willing to let an innocent person die because of your desire to see someone executed. Sad, sad, sad.

Okay, now who is deliberately being dishonest and misrepresenting what the other person is saying? I'm trying to protect innocent life by not allowing dangerous criminals back onto the street. Let go of your anger and hatred for a moment and think this through logically, because I can guarantee you that none of my opinions are based in hatred, bloodlust, or a sense of vengeance.

When you have calmed down and are capable of rational thought again, then maybe we can continue this discussion, but obviously your emotional state makes you incapable of logic and reason right now.

NateR
10-02-2009, 02:09 AM
NateR has brought up the point of released prisoners committing crimes. I would like to point out that even if a prisoner is given a life sentence and never is released, he can still be a danger to corrections officers, nurses, chaplains, doctors, psychologists and fellow prisoners.

For example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/national/main4212047.shtml
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/06/26/image4212146g.jpg


Or who could forget the case of the "Texas 7", who murdered a police officer after their prison escape?:

http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=2754&mid=0




I am sure a thorough internet search could come up with similar cases by the dozens.



Thank you, I hadn't considered the risks to corrections officers and police, but it makes a great point in addition to what I was talking about.

Buzzard
10-02-2009, 02:52 AM
Buzzard, you really should take a few moments to think things through before jumping off on one of your irrational tirades:



Read what I said, I'm talking about all three quotes in context with each other. However, it's funny that you were so intent on proving that you aren't complaining about people leeching off of taxpayers for healthcare, that you deliberately skipped over the third quote where you are complaining about people leeching off of the taxpayers for healthcare. :laugh:

I guess you couldn't bother to read where I addressed the other posts later in that very post. Nah, wouldn't be able to twist things for your own agenda if you did that.

What do we do with the problem of people sticking their debt onto the public when they can't afford health care but use facilities and can't pay for it? As it is, I pay for it now in increased premiums and probably through other ways in which I am not aware.

Maybe if you wouldn't try putting words in my mouth and read what I wrote in the context it was written, you wouldn't keep making assumptions. Nowhere in the above do I complain, I ask what we do about the problem. Wouldn't fit your agenda if you kept things in the correct context.

Okay, now who is deliberately being dishonest and misrepresenting what the other person is saying? I'm trying to protect innocent life by not allowing dangerous criminals back onto the street. How do you come up with the conclusion that I am for releasing convicted DP inmates back into regular society? You are being deliberately dishonest in making an argument where there is none to be made.Let go of your anger and hatred for a moment and think this through logically, because I can guarantee you that none of my opinions are based in hatred, bloodlust, or a sense of vengeance.Yes Yoda. "Twisted by the Dark Side, young NateR has become."

Then why are you so willing to keep a policy where innocents can be caught up in the system and executed? Your bloodlust comes out because you wish these people killed instead of locked up for life.

When you have calmed down and are capable of rational thought again, then maybe we can continue this discussion, but obviously your emotional state makes you incapable of logic and reason right now.

How sweet and condescending. I'll accept that you know you are being dishonest and are OK with it. Funny thing is, I have been rational and you keep throwing out red herrings. Please don't think that you have used anything but misguided and ill informed logic to twist things so that they fit your agenda. Nice try in trying to deflect your own errors by saying I am being emotional and incapable of logic and reason.

NateR
10-02-2009, 03:01 AM
How sweet and condescending. I'll accept that you know you are being dishonest and are OK with it. Funny thing is, I have been rational and you keep throwing out red herrings. Please don't think that you have used anything but misguided and ill informed logic to twist things so that they fit your agenda. Nice try in trying to deflect your own errors by saying I am being emotional and incapable of logic and reason.

You are obviously angry and flustered and not even bothering to read what I am saying. You are so intent of trying to call me out as a liar that you are deliberately twisting my comments and, honestly, you are starting to come off like a raving lunatic. So, you should go get some rest, drink some nice herbal tea, and it will be all better in the morning. :)

que
10-02-2009, 03:14 AM
I actually feel sick to my stomach that you are for willing to let an innocent person die because of your desire to see someone executed. Sad, sad, sad.

i bet hundreds if not thousands of people are wrongfully imprisoned every year. does that mean we should get rid of jails altogether and not put criminals in jail? at least one human being has been wrongfully accused of speeding. does that mean we should get rid of speeding rules?


tyler durden: "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet."

spock: "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. or the one."

flo
10-02-2009, 03:18 AM
Very interesting discussion, many places won't talk about this subject as it is so very emotional.

I also see my viewpoints as compatible - I am pro-life and against the death penalty. I'm often so outraged by certain crimes - especially against children - that I can understand wanting to "pull the switch", so to speak. But if I am totally objective I oppose the death penalty, it is the state killing people, no matter how evil or sick they are, they are still being killed.

So although I'm a conservative, I take the liberal stance on this issue.

flo
10-02-2009, 03:22 AM
Well, isn't even one person killed by a repeat offender too many?
Yes, and even one innocent person killed by the state is also too many. Life in prison needs to mean life in prison so that these people never get out to commit more crimes.

flo
10-02-2009, 03:28 AM
There are no easy answers, I can see validity in all these viewpoints, it sure is a concern about these violent inmates who are killing guards (and other inmates as well).

I guess that's why it's such a tough discussion.

Bonnie
10-02-2009, 03:35 AM
NateR has brought up the point of released prisoners committing crimes. I would like to point out that even if a prisoner is given a life sentence and never is released, he can still be a danger to corrections officers, nurses, chaplains, doctors, psychologists and fellow prisoners.

For example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/national/main4212047.shtml
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/06/26/image4212146g.jpg


Or who could forget the case of the "Texas 7", who murdered a police officer after their prison escape?:

http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=2754&mid=0




I am sure a thorough internet search could come up with similar cases by the dozens.



I do not agree with women being guards in the male prison population.

NateR
10-02-2009, 03:38 AM
There are no easy answers, I can see validity in all these viewpoints, it sure is a concern about these violent inmates who are killing guards (and other inmates as well).

I guess that's why it's such a tough discussion.

It is a complicated issue, especially when a Federal judge orders the state to release prisoners to relieve overcrowding:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/102256/early_release_for_prison_inmates_in.html

Early Release for Prison Inmates in California - A Solution to the Overcrowded Prison System?

California has the largest prison system in the United States consisting of 173,000 inmates, which is more than the state system is designed to hold. This over population is proving to be unsafe for the prison guards and has even been the cause of some inmate deaths. A federal judge has given California officials six months to reduce the inmate population.

Or the state government just can't afford to keep them locked up anymore:
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808566.html

California prison officials propose releasing 8,000 inmates to cut costs

State prison officials have proposed reducing their inmate population by 8,000 by the middle of next summer as part of the $400 million budget hit Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger laid on them earlier this year.

The death penalty would solve much of the overcrowding issue. Plus the prisoners wouldn't be such a drain on the taxpayers, who are forced to pay for their food, clothing, college education, etc.

Neezar
10-02-2009, 03:40 AM
More innocent people are killed by Medicare everyday than there have ever been by the death penalty. Medicare has got to go!


:laugh:

NateR
10-02-2009, 03:40 AM
I do not agree with women being guards in the male prison population.

Neither do I, especially guarding violent criminals who are sex offenders.

Neezar
10-02-2009, 03:45 AM
i bet hundreds if not thousands of people are wrongfully imprisoned every year. does that mean we should get rid of jails altogether and not put criminals in jail? at least one human being has been wrongfully accused of speeding. does that mean we should get rid of speeding rules?


tyler durden: "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet."

spock: "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. or the one."

good point.

MattHughesRocks
10-02-2009, 04:01 AM
:laugh:

More innocent people are killed by Medicare everyday than there have ever been by the death penalty. Medicare has got to go!


:laugh:

Buzzard
10-02-2009, 05:19 AM
You are obviously angry and flustered and not even bothering to read what I am saying. You are so intent of trying to call me out as a liar that you are deliberately twisting my comments and, honestly, you are starting to come off like a raving lunatic. So, you should go get some rest, drink some nice herbal tea, and it will be all better in the morning. :)

Ah, how condescending still. I knew you had more of it in you.

Nice deflecting there again too. Read what you wrote about me and then we'll talk about twisting. I pointed it out to you.

Since you are so untrustworthy and can't post trustworthy links, why should I bother reading your blather.:wink:

i bet hundreds if not thousands of people are wrongfully imprisoned every year. does that mean we should get rid of jails altogether and not put criminals in jail? at least one human being has been wrongfully accused of speeding. does that mean we should get rid of speeding rules?

Please tell me you're joking when making this comparison. You have to be, I don't see you as being stupid. I was going to say "that stupid", but that would imply that I thought you were stupid which I don't.

tyler durden: "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet."

spock: "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. or the one."

It is a complicated issue, especially when a Federal judge orders the state to release prisoners to relieve overcrowding:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/102256/early_release_for_prison_inmates_in.html

Are these convicted death row inmates being released? Probably low level drug possession criminals who probably shouldn't have been locked up in the first place.


Or the state government just can't afford to keep them locked up anymore:
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808566.html

Again, why type of criminal are they releasing.

The death penalty would solve much of the overcrowding issue. Plus the prisoners wouldn't be such a drain on the taxpayers, who are forced to pay for their food, clothing, college education, etc.

That has got to be one of the more stupid things I have ever read from you. Do you honestly believe that? Here, read the numbers from this link and see if you still believe that nonsense.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year

If you don't like the link (which I'd be almost willing to bet you'll find something wrong with it), do some research yourself.


No anger here, nothing but love. Amazement yes, anger no.

MattHughesRocks
10-02-2009, 05:34 AM
Oh shut up, all of you! :laugh:

que
10-02-2009, 05:43 AM
Ah, how condescending still. I knew you had more of it in you.

Nice deflecting there again too. Read what you wrote about me and then we'll talk about twisting. I pointed it out to you.

Since you are so untrustworthy and can't post trustworthy links, why should I bother reading your blather.:wink:





No anger here, nothing but love. Amazement yes, anger no.

no i wasn't joking.

but i see your point. you think killing someone is a bigger deal than giving someone a speeding ticket. and you're right... it is.

but that is not the point.

we are talking about right, and wrong. and rules.

you say the death penalty should not exist because someone was wrongfully put to death.

yet you (obviously) reject the idea that speeding laws should not exist even though people have been wrongfully accused of speeding.

if you believe that, then you are cherry picking.

nater is right. no law is perfect. no law will ever be perfect. you have to get over that fact, and you have to look at the bigger picture.

Buzzard
10-02-2009, 07:05 AM
no i wasn't joking.

but i see your point. you think killing someone is a bigger deal than giving someone a speeding ticket. and you're right... it is.

but that is not the point.

we are talking about right, and wrong. and rules.

you say the death penalty should not exist because someone was wrongfully put to death.

Incorrect, that is only one small reason I have against the death penalty. That is not the reason I say it shouldn't exist.

yet you (obviously) reject the idea that speeding laws should not exist even though people have been wrongfully accused of speeding.

Here is where you lose it. I'm not against enforcing the law when someone speeds or murders someone, but I am against the application of the penalty of death for the crime of murder and other offenses.

if you believe that, then you are cherry picking.

Sorry que, your logic is flawed there.

nater is right. no law is perfect. no law will ever be perfect. you have to get over that fact, and you have to look at the bigger picture.

Actually I disagree here too. The law of not being allowed to commit murder I think is perfect. The penalty phase of that law I believe isn't in regards to the death penalty and allowing convicted murderers out prior to their sentence being completed. If they are sentenced to life in prison, then they should serve the remainder of their life in prison. I'm not going to overlook an innocent person being murdered/executed by the state for a bigger picture of the death penalty. An innocent life means something to me. Your mileage may vary. I don't believe that man should take another mans life through state sponsored executions.

Chuck
10-02-2009, 01:38 PM
Good topic with a lot of obviously diverse opinions. I enjoy that about this site. I enjoy the eclectic mix we have here and the diversity of opinions. What I don't like is the close minded approach where an opinion is stated as fact and if you don't agree with it you must be an idiot.

I've stayed out of this one for a while because my thoughts are as complex as the issue itself. I am Pro Life. To me that means I value human life and don't think anybody has a right to take it. Not a pregnant woman looking for an abortion. Not a criminal on the streets and not a jury or judge. It's not theirs to take. It's a gift from God and no amount of twisting Scripture to support someones opinion will change that.

If God gives us life who are we to take it? I don't think the Bible endorses either side of this discussion. I think we're on our own to figure this one out. I do know this much... the message of Christ is grace, mercy, unconditional love and forgiveness. Quoting some Old Testament scriptures when we were all bound by the Law doesn't change that.

Our legal system and prison system are both flawed to the point of corruption at times. A jury finding someone guilty of a crime just isn't compelling enough for me. Have we forgotten OJ already? :blink: Jury's are wrong all the time. Evidence is often times ambiguous and attorneys on both sides are experts at manipulation. A group of people all deciding the same thing isn't justice any more then it's fair. Salem Witch trials? Segregation?

It's been brought up in this thread that if a jury and judge decide someones guilty and an innocent person is executed then that's just collateral damage. To me that's barbaric. :huh:

Taking all of that into consideration there are still some times when I support the death penalty. I'm just not sure that I should. :unsure-1: I can't help but think that it's my own heart crying out for vengeance that's not mine.

Neezar
10-02-2009, 02:02 PM
Good topic with a lot of obviously diverse opinions. I enjoy that about this site. I enjoy the eclectic mix we have here and the diversity of opinions. What I don't like is the close minded approach where an opinion is stated as fact and if you don't agree with it you must be an idiot.



You'll learn to live with it.


















:laugh:

NateR
10-02-2009, 05:08 PM
That has got to be one of the more stupid things I have ever read from you. Do you honestly believe that? Here, read the numbers from this link and see if you still believe that nonsense.

Really? I'm sure I've said far stupider things. :unsure-1: :laugh:

The real problem is that not enough people are given the death penalty. Too many murderers simply get life in prison. So, using only death row numbers is missing the point.

(which I'd be almost willing to bet you'll find something wrong with it)

Well, it did take a long time to load up. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I understand your point of view and I understand completely why you would be totally against the DP. I've had family killed in Auschwitz, so I know the dangers of the government having unlimited control over life and death (which is why I oppose government run healthcare, but that's a different topic).

But it's unfortunate that you are allowing your emotions to take over and you are so intent on insulting me that you won't even attempt to understand my point of view. So much for open-mindedness I guess.

Buzzard
10-02-2009, 06:31 PM
Really? I'm sure I've said far stupider things. :unsure-1: :laugh:

The real problem is that not enough people are given the death penalty. Too many murderers simply get life in prison. So, using only death row numbers is missing the point.

Do you still believe your statement to be true? I see you trying to deflect again.


Well, it did take a long time to load up. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I understand your point of view and I understand completely why you would be totally against the DP. I've had family killed in Auschwitz, so I know the dangers of the government having unlimited control over life and death (which is why I oppose government run healthcare, but that's a different topic).

But it's unfortunate that you are allowing your emotions to take over and you are so intent on insulting me that you won't even attempt to understand my point of view. So much for open-mindedness I guess.

Me insulting you????? You've called me emotional, having an irrational tirade, said my sources aren't trustworthy, won't read things I put time in to make a point etc. You have thrown in so many red herrings to try and twist things to fit your agenda and I am the one insulting you. What I feel is amazement that you are deliberately twisting things and throwing up false arguments to bolster a (IMHO) sadistic view in terminating a human life. Why are you so adamant about killing people and letting it go on when innocents get caught up in it too? Why do you not value the innocent life that gets wrongfully executed?

I understand your point of view. You wish more people were executed and don't really think innocent lives being caught up in it is a problem or enough of a problem to end a barbaric practice. I value human life where your stance on this topic shows that you don't value it as highly as I do.

If I were ever to look up to someone and their religious beliefs to want to be more like them in their walk, it sure wouldn't be you. Chuck and a few others on here are the ones I think have gotten the right message.

If you really feel that I insulted you, then I'm truly sorry for that. I don't like your views and my responses are in regard to those views.

NateR
10-02-2009, 08:04 PM
Do you still believe your statement to be true? I see you trying to deflect again.

I'm not deflecting anything, just correcting your false assumptions of my opinion. Not everyone who commits murder is sentenced to death. Thus, there are more people in prison who probably should be put to death for their crimes than just the ones sitting on death row.

So for you to just bring up death row numbers is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I said. This is where I would have to accuse you of being dishonest in this discussion as well.

I understand your point of view.

Well, no, your comments show that you clearly don't. It's because I value innocent life that I believe the way I do about the death penalty. I'm not trying to deny the tragedy of people being wrongfully executed. However, I feel the danger of dangerous criminals being released from prison and killing again is greater.

Again, we're not just talking about death row here, because not everyone who commits murder is sentenced to death. Many violent murderers can make deals with judges and police to get the death penalty removed as a possible sentence. However that doesn't diminish the seriousness of their crimes.

If I were ever to look up to someone and their religious beliefs to want to be more like them in their walk, it sure wouldn't be you. Chuck and a few others on here are the ones I think have gotten the right message.

I think you are being more than a little disingenuous here.

If you really feel that I insulted you, then I'm truly sorry for that. I don't like your views and my responses are in regard to those views.

Well, we've established that you don't trust my integrity and I don't trust your integrity; so there is really little point in continuing this discussion.

Buzzard
10-02-2009, 09:25 PM
I'm not deflecting anything, just correcting your false assumptions of my opinion. Not everyone who commits murder is sentenced to death. Thus, there are more people in prison who probably should be put to death for their crimes than just the ones sitting on death row.

That's not what you said. Again, you want vengeance and death. I value life.

So for you to just bring up death row numbers is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I said. This is where I would have to accuse you of being dishonest in this discussion as well.

Here is your statement:

The death penalty would solve much of the overcrowding issue.

Since we already have the death penalty, how has it eased the overcrowding issue? Look again at the numbers of people on death row. They probably amount to less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the inmates in prison.

Nice denial of the deflection. I'm not going to make assumptions about what you might have meant with your statement. Make an accurate statement instead of trying to deflect when what you said wasn't what you meant to write. That is dishonest plain and simple.





Well, no, your comments show that you clearly don't. It's because I value innocent life that I believe the way I do about the death penalty. Oh, so you value the innocent life except for the poor schmuck being wrongfully executed. I'm not trying to deny the tragedy of people being wrongfully executed. However, I feel the danger of dangerous criminals being released from prison and killing again is greater.Another instance of you injecting your own agenda into this. Death penalty convicts have no chance of parole or of being released. Your argument of being afraid of them being released has no merit right now because they wouldn't be. Do you actually think that if they abolish the death penalty, they will release these folks back into society? Can you show me some examples of this from states that have abolished this where the inmate who was on death row was release after the death penalty was abolished and went on to commit murder?


Again, we're not just talking about death row here, because not everyone who commits murder is sentenced to death.

Since we are talking about the death penalty, aren't we talking about the sentence of death for the crimes committed? The ones who haven't been sentenced to death play no part in this. They aren't involved in having the sentence of death placed upon them for the crime they committed. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to comprehend this.

Many violent murderers can make deals with judges and police to get the death penalty removed as a possible sentence. However that doesn't diminish the seriousness of their crimes.

I never said it did. So what you have a problem with is the possibility of bargaining away the death penalty, which again isn't really isn't part of the death penalty debate because these folks haven't been sentenced to death.


If I were ever to look up to someone and their religious beliefs to want to be more like them in their walk, it sure wouldn't be you. Chuck and a few others on here are the ones I think have gotten the right message.


I think you are being more than a little disingenuous here.

Nope, not at all.



Well, we've established that you don't trust my integrity and I don't trust your integrity; so there is really little point in continuing this discussion.

At least I am comfortable in the fact they I haven't been deflecting anything and throwing in red herrings to bolster my own agenda. I'll sleep just fine knowing that I made honest answers and opinions in regard to valuing human life.

Chuck
10-03-2009, 03:30 PM
If I were ever to look up to someone and their religious beliefs to want to be more like them in their walk, it sure wouldn't be you. Chuck and a few others on here are the ones I think have gotten the right message.



I think you are being more than a little disingenuous here.


Care to expand on that? :unsure-1:

NateR
10-03-2009, 05:10 PM
Care to expand on that? :unsure-1:

Nothing against you Chuck at all, I was just doubting the sincerity of his claim.

que
10-03-2009, 05:52 PM
chuck i look up to you for everything! you are my hero in life!


just kidding.:laugh:

Chuck
10-03-2009, 06:25 PM
Nothing against you Chuck at all, I was just doubting the sincerity of his claim.

:D

Whew!!

Chuck
10-03-2009, 06:26 PM
chuck i look up to you for everything! you are my hero in life!


just kidding.:laugh:

:angry:

Tyburn
10-11-2009, 06:56 PM
I am Pro-Life and I also believe in the death penalty, is there anything wrong with that? Are they incompatible?

No. I am the same. with the first in the exception of rape at the freewill choice of the mother. for the latter, I was told that I wouldnt feel that way if I knew someone on deathrow...so I became part of Humanwrites, a befriending service to criminals on deathrow in the US...you know...it didnt change my mind at all.

but then...as my user name would suggest, I am definatley pro-the death pentalty, I even hope they bring it back in England one day.

Tyburn isnt a fabrication of mine. It the name of a place which served as the main site of criminal executions for over 600 years...thats nearly twice the age of the US :laugh:

See the link in my siggie, it explains where Tyburn was, and what happened there.