Can Pro Lifers Logically be Pro-Death Penalty?

[Firefox]

I'm surprised he doesn't farm out his work load to other deities. After all, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That doesn't mean he can't make them perform more menial tasks while he's dicking around with life and death for people.

[Aeolus]

So pro life is not really holding life sacred in general, just fetus life? I always thought their whole shtick was Life is Sacred....to which they should add "All life is sacred until you are born, then you're on your own."

well a fetus has commited no crime. There is no logical inconsitency

[Petrosjko]

I'm surprised he doesn't farm out his work load to other deities. After all, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That doesn't mean he can't make them perform more menial tasks while he's dicking around with life and death for people.

Oh, I'm sure he's got the angels all strapped down in a soul-injection sweatshop. That's why they don't do any visitations these days either.

Poor bastards. Somebody should organize a protest. 'No sweatshops in heaven!'

[Queeb Salaron]

Oh, I'm sure he's got the angels all strapped down in a soul-injection sweatshop. That's why they don't do any visitations these days either.

Poor bastards. Somebody should organize a protest. 'No sweatshops in heaven!'

Somebody did. His name was Lucifer.

[Firefox]

... So the Christian god is the religious equivalent of Wal-Mart?

[kheegster]

A better contradiction for pro-lifers would be their opposition to cloning. Cloning is, after all, the creation of life. Anyone who calls himself "pro-life" should be all gung-ho about cloning.

Not really. They believe that life is given by God, and cannot be eliminated without just reason. Cloning is an attempt to 'play God', and so it is not permissible.

Having said that, I love pointing out to anti-cloning people that nature does her own cloning by creating identical twins.

[Darth Wong]

A better contradiction for pro-lifers would be their opposition to cloning. Cloning is, after all, the creation of life. Anyone who calls himself "pro-life" should be all gung-ho about cloning.

Not really. They believe that life is given by God, and cannot be eliminated without just reason. Cloning is an attempt to 'play God', and so it is not permissible.

Having said that, I love pointing out to anti-cloning people that nature does her own cloning by creating identical twins.

You're missing the point, which is that their self-description of "pro-life" does not allow for such bullshit positions. If they called themselves "pro-God" they would be accurate, but honesty is not part of their modus operandi, which is (once again) the whole point I was making.

[Queeb Salaron]

Right. Wong is pointing out the hypocrisy in the term "pro-life," which again begs the question, "So what am I? Pro-death?"

And this topic has come full circle.

[Lord Zentei]

There is no hypocrisy in being "pro life". The contention that abortion is a moral wrong can be based on the premise that life begins at conception, rather than birth. To claim that there is a logical contradiction between this premise and support for the death penalty is a non sequitur.

Incidentally, the majority of clones produced in a lab will typically die off; only a small fraction of those initially produced will develop fully.

[Enforcer Talen]

Made me ill to see all these people standing outside the woman in Florida's hospital with tape over their mouths and the word LIFE written on it. Yet I never see this kind of uproar when a person is being executed.

Can someone ethically or logically consider themselves Pro-Life yet at the same time support the Death Penalty?

Also as an addition, how can you be prolife and bomb abortion clinics or assasinate abortion doctors? Life then does have a point where its not so sacred then right?

fetuses are innocent. babies are guilty.

[Avalon616]

There is no hypocrisy in being "pro life". The contention that abortion is a moral wrong can be based on the premise that life begins at conception, rather than birth.

Question: are you applying this idea of moral wrong only to homo sapien life, or to all living things? As in, not approving of eating meat or using animal products? Or is life only in the context of humans? And if this only applies to humans, what differentiates humans from other life forms?

It seems to me that most prolifers (keyword most, I obviously can't speak for all) believe that humans are special because of free will and intelligence, and that raises us above the animals (some describe this as a "soul"). But embryos and young fetuses don't have free will, or discernable intelligence- often their brains aren't formed yet. Wouldn't if follow that if it were wrong to kill those life forms, woudln't in be wrong to kill all?

[Lord Zentei]

There is no hypocrisy in being "pro life". The contention that abortion is a moral wrong can be based on the premise that life begins at conception, rather than birth.

Question: are you applying this idea of moral wrong only to homo sapien life, or to all living things? As in, not approving of eating meat or using animal products? Or is life only in the context of humans? And if this only applies to humans, what differentiates humans from other life forms?

I'm merely pointing out that there is no contradiction between claiming that life begins at conception on the one hand and claiming that certain criminals deserve the death penalty on the other. That is all.

It seems to me that most prolifers (keyword most, I obviously can't speak for all) believe that humans are special because of free will and intelligence, and that raises us above the animals (some describe this as a "soul"). But embryos and young fetuses don't have free will, or discernable intelligence- often their brains aren't formed yet. Wouldn't if follow that if it were wrong to kill those life forms, woudln't in be wrong to kill all?

Not so. The most vocal pro-lifers (fundamentalists) claim that a foetus possesses a soul. This is not the same thing as "free will" or "intelligence". Anyway, a baby has discernible brain activity as does a third trimester foetus.

P.S. I'm not a fundamentalist nor do I beleive in souls. I am mostly pro-life though.

[Avalon616]

Not so. The most vocal pro-lifers (fundamentalists) claim that a foetus possesses a soul. This is not the same thing as "free will" or "intelligence". Anyway, a baby has discernible brain activity as does a third trimester foetus.

The question is, what is the definition of a soul? That's a rather intangible thing to label, while free will and intelligence are easier to spot.

P.S. I'm not a fundamentalist nor do I beleive in souls. I am mostly pro-life though.

P.S. I'm not a fundamentalist (nor a Christian at all, nor any Abramic religion), and I do believe in souls, and I'm pro-abortion. (or "pro-death", however anyone wants to say it.)

P.P.S. by some dictionary definitions, a "soul" is "A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music", along with other definitions.

[Lord Zentei]

Not so. The most vocal pro-lifers (fundamentalists) claim that a foetus possesses a soul. This is not the same thing as "free will" or "intelligence". Anyway, a baby has discernible brain activity as does a third trimester foetus.

The question is, what is the definition of a soul? That's a rather intangible thing to label, while free will and intelligence are easier to spot.

"It's whatever your mind wants it to be!"

P.S. I'm not a fundamentalist nor do I beleive in souls. I am mostly pro-life though.

P.S. I'm not a fundamentalist (nor a Christian at all, nor any Abramic religion), and I do believe in souls, and I'm pro-abortion. (or "pro-death", however anyone wants to say it.)

I surmise that you mean "soul" as intelligence or free will, then. Question: does a newborn infant have a soul by your definition?

P.P.S. by some dictionary definitions, a "soul" is "A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music", along with other definitions.

It seems as good a definition as any.

[Avalon616]

I surmise that you mean "soul" as intelligence or free will, then. Question: does a newborn infant have a soul by your definition?

nope, I definitely do not see it as intelligence or free will. I believe everything has a soul, from the largest tree to the smallest ant, the rocks, the sky... everything. So yes, obviously a newborn infant does.

[tharkûn]

A better contradiction for pro-lifers would be their opposition to cloning. Cloning is, after all, the creation of life. Anyone who calls himself "pro-life" should be all gung-ho about cloning.

Assuming you meet a a prolifer who knows what cloning is, they tend to hold the position that a clone is ethicly equivalent to an identical twin.

The big push against cloning comes from the "thou shalt not play God" crowd and a smaller more intelligent crowd, though very influential group, who know that creating clones is a premature death sentence and object that willfully creating life under such circumstances is unethical.

Besides virtually all of the cloning to be had at this stage, outside of whatever crap the Raelians are trying, is experimental or therapeutic. Both of those end up with embryo's in the trash can, and thus condoning them would be ethicly equivalent to them condoning murder (given their human life and rights begin at birth). At this point the failure rate is still ludicriously high for even more forgiving mammals, even if someone just wanted to have a younger twin they'd have to run through many, many "lives" to get a success.

In any event the pro-life movement is hardly a monolithic bloc. You have the Catholics who despise birth control, but do advocate cycle timing , and you have others who are gung-ho contraception as a means of preventing "murder". Certainly advocating that a procedure which currently results in many, many "dead" be banned is no more 'anti-life' than a condom.

[Darth Wong]

It's very easy to decry cloning based on the practical issue that we can't make it work safely. But hypothetically, if it did work safely, the vast (nigh-universal) majority of the anti-cloning crowd would still be anti-cloning and you know it.

[Lord Zentei]

It's very easy to decry cloning based on the practical issue that we can't make it work safely. But hypothetically, if it did work safely, the vast (nigh-universal) majority of the anti-cloning crowd would still be anti-cloning and you know it.

I'm not sure how opposition to the termination of innocent life should translate to the idea that we should produce it by whatever means available (although if cloning - and by this I surmise you refer to reproductive cloning - can be made safe, I personally would have no qualms about it).

In any case, in order to create a set of clones one has to split apart a cluster of stem cells that otherwise would grow into an individual, effectively destroying that individual, hence the opposition of extreme pro-lifers/anti-cloners to the idea - apart from their religious opposition, which I won't go into.

[tharkûn]

It's very easy to decry cloning based on the practical issue that we can't make it work safely.

In order to be a true clone, you are giving the clone a premature death sentence. Even the simple fact that telomeres are shorter mean that the statistical odds of getting cancer have gone significantly up. Even if there were NO failures, a clone - by definition and genetics - would die 'young'. It would be tantamount to conceiving a child with the intent of infecting it with a degenerative disease.

But hypothetically, if it did work safely, the vast (nigh-universal) majority of the anti-cloning crowd would still be anti-cloning and you know it.

The vast majority don't know what cloning is and will follow their pastors, who also don't know what cloning is.

There are pro-lifers who are against fertility treatments. And a slightly larger stretch they are for contraception. The idea that because one beleives fully human life begins at conception one must also hold that all methods by which life can be created should be accepted, encouraged, and employed is non sequentor.

Yes most pro-lifers hold other views, beleifs, and opinions beside the one that fully human life begins at conception; but nothing inherit to that beleif logicly demands that they support (or for that matter oppose) reproductive cloning.

[Sam Or I]

I am Pro-Life. (Not a raging looney though, I am still debating it), and I am against cloning. Why am I against it, it is experimenting with life. Even if it was 100% safe, it would still seem, unnatural.

But if there was a clone made of a human being, it has every right to live, and not be destroyed.

[Stravo]

I am Pro-Life. (Not a raging looney though, I am still debating it), and I am against cloning. Why am I against it, it is experimenting with life. Even if it was 100% safe, it would still seem, unnatural.

But if there was a clone made of a human being, it has every right to live, and not be destroyed.

You know its unnatural to have open heart surgery, take drugs for depression, take an aspririn for a headache, just about any medicine used goes against what nature has planned for us so why suddenly call cloning unntaural?

Was it unnatural to create prosthetic limbs? Use blood transfusions?

I don't mean to come down this hard but the whole 'unnatural' angle as an opposition to cloning seems very silly when you consider the extremely unnatural state of our world as it is.

[Queeb Salaron]

You know its unnatural to have open heart surgery, take drugs for depression, take an aspririn for a headache, just about any medicine used goes against what nature has planned for us so why suddenly call cloning unntaural?

Was it unnatural to create prosthetic limbs? Use blood transfusions?

I don't mean to come down this hard but the whole 'unnatural' angle as an opposition to cloning seems very silly when you consider the extremely unnatural state of our world as it is.

It seems to me that there is no such thing as an unnatural act of creation. Human beings naturally developed the brain power necessary to understand, conceptualize and execute various medical processes, technological advancements, methods of synthesis, etc. If man is naturally endowed with the brain power that yeilds ability to create clones, how is their creation unnatural?

[jegs2]

Remember, that cloning is not only playing god, it's creating a human without a soul! Or at least, that's an old argument I remember.

Is cloning the creation of life from scratch, or is it the combining of living elements already present that are necessary to create life? On perhaps another issue entirely, has any cloned animal led a life normal by comparison to the original, without a shortened life span or complications? So far as I'm aware, the animal clones that have been produced had relatively short life spans.

[Firefox]

As far as I'm aware, Dolly's lifespan was short only because she was kept in small quarters with little or no ventilation. She died from a respiratory infection, not because her telomeres were too stunted.

[tharkûn]

As far as I'm aware, Dolly's lifespan was short only because she was kept in small quarters with little or no ventilation. She died from a respiratory infection, not because her telomeres were too stunted.

Dolly is one data point. Japanese researchers looked into a more systematic study with mice a few years back and found stasticly significant shorter life spans.

In any event the procedure used to make Dolly is on seriously lousy ethical ground given the fully human life begins at conception premise. Cloning without denucleation is far less forgiving than anything Dolly went through.

In any event the telomeres tend to be among the weakest effects, I mentioned it because it is readily understandble by the layman. What was seen in the mice, and other mammals as well, premature deaths tended to be dominated by weak immune function and poor liver function; the mechanisms are complex and poorly understood - assuming the current theories are correct. Cloned sheep would likely have weaker immune systems and would more likely get a respiratory infection and more likely succomb to it. One cannot say for certain that Dolly died because she was a clone, but it would fit theory.

Is cloning the creation of life from scratch, or is it the combining of living elements already present that are necessary to create life?

Cloning is a process by which a new life is formed with identical genotype as the parent. Several natural reproduction methods utilize cloning; just not in humans or other mammals. In the strictist sense of the term, most 'unnatural' clones aren't technicly clones - mitochondrial DNA and a few other important tidbits are not identical to parent stock.

On perhaps another issue entirely, has any cloned animal led a life normal by comparison to the original, without a shortened life span or complications? So far as I'm aware, the animal clones that have been produced had relatively short life spans.

How do you define cloning? Some species utilize cloning naturally. For most mammals, cloning will reduce lifespan - ceteris parabis. The best study I recall had something around 500% higher incidences of premature mortality for cloned mice vs a control group.