Can Pro Lifers Logically be Pro-Death Penalty?

[Stravo]

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?

[Petrosjko]

Certainly they can, and I've always thought this was one of the weakest approaches in the whole abortion debate.

Simply put, in their view life begins at conception, and at that point is virtually innocent.

(Although of course we're all inherently sinful creatures, so somehow the new fetus is sinful regardless.)

On the other hand, the death penalty is levied against those who have been convicted in court of serious crimes.

Other than perhaps mangling the meaning of the term 'pro life' a bit, there's no inconsistancy.

[Stravo]

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."

[Firefox]

The pro-life, pro-abortion clinic bombing attitude is apparently justified by the notion that by terrorizing, wounding, or killing abortion providers (and sometimes, those who help the providers), they're saving countless lives. Fortunately there haven't been any such incidents at the two clinics in town for the past ten years, although Dr. Tiller was shot in the early '90s.

[Jalinth]

It seems to depend on which flavour of Christianity they belong to. Catholics seem to be consistent (no abortion, no death penalty, no suicide or assisted suicide). But the evangelicals seem to favour the "eye for the eye" bit, so consistency isn't perfect.

While this is a broad generalization, it seems to hold from the situations I've seen.

[Kuroneko]

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."

It does not need to be that extreme. The only thing that would be necessary is that there a system of desert that can trump the right to life, but not being free from child-bearing. This seems rather unproblematic--it is difficult to imagine that being forced to bear a child is as bad as, say, being murdered (a typical example of what would remove the right to live for a murderer for those that support capital punishment), so there does not need to be logical inconsistency between them. However, the real problem is that the two positions do not exist in a vacuum; in the same way that "the moon is made of cheese" is perfectly consistent with "cheese is edible", the real question is whether or not those positions are logical in themselves. That does not seem to be the case, at least in the case of pro-life (a position I've explored in more detail than that of capital punishment).

[Junghalli]

Yes. A fetus is not a dangers to others and hasn't comitted a crime. A murderer is a danger to others and has comitted a crime.

[Petrosjko]

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."

There are some truly sincere evangelicals who hold all forms of killing to be murder, and they have spoken out against the bombers and snipers. There's little direct support for the bombers and snipers among the Pro Life community as a whole, but a good deal of that is rooted in the extrajudicial nature of the killings as well as the bad PR. Past that, while most of them would never contemplate doing anything of the sort themselves, they can't get too worked up over the deaths of those they consider to be murderers. If they had their druthers abortion docs would be up on charges for capital crimes anyway, with the same sort of disgust attached to the 'crime' as it would be for someone who routinely butchered infants.

[General Zod]

The pro-life, pro-abortion clinic bombing attitude is apparently justified by the notion that by terrorizing, wounding, or killing abortion providers (and sometimes, those who help the providers), they're saving countless lives. Fortunately there haven't been any such incidents at the two clinics in town for the past ten years, although Dr. Tiller was shot in the early '90s.

they're basically fundie extremists. just the non religious variety of fundie extremist. along with greenpeace and peta nutters.

[RedImperator]

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."

They hold innocent life to be sacred, which includes fetuses and adults who wish to die. But a murderer, in their view, forefits his right to life by taking someone else's.

Not all of them hold this position. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty as well as abortion and euthanasia.

[Firefox]

Indeed, and as Junghalli said:

Yes. A fetus is not a dangers to others and hasn't comitted a crime. A murderer is a danger to others and has comitted a crime.

So their logic is that since abortion providers are committing murder en masse, they are more than justified in being judge, jury and executioner in bombing abortion and family planning clinics.

[Tommy J]

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?

Stravo also remember that Fundi Christains have an interesting intrepretation on the 10 Commandments. "Thou Shall Not Committ Murder"

Many of them re-intrepret this to mean in translation: It's ok for people who have MURDERED or broken gods commandments e.g. put to death for doing such because that's justified 'killing'. In their minds that's not murder but giving out 'Gods' justice.

While this may not be logical to us, it is to them for what ever reason. I've challenged a couple of them who believe this with regard to the passage in the Bible that also says, only god can kill; and of course it's the fingers in the ears response back to that.

So in the mind of a Fundi it's within societies right to punish the wicked who have 'murdered' by 'killing' that person, which TO THEM have vastly different meanings. A true Christain to me would be a complete pacifist to the like of Ghandi (refuse to go to war, end the death peanlty etc.) unless a booming voice from the sky came down and told them to dispense his justice. <if they followed their own document, the bible>

And like that happens as often as we execute someone in prisons.

[tharkûn]

Stravo also remember that Fundi Christains have an interesting intrepretation on the 10 Commandments. "Thou Shall Not Committ Murder"

Not really if you read through the rest of the book you find that the punishment for breaking that commandment is exactly what the Fundies want - kill the murderer.

Many of them re-intrepret this to mean in translation: It's ok for people who have MURDERED or broken gods commandments e.g. put to death for doing such because that's justified 'killing'. In their minds that's not murder but giving out 'Gods' justice.

In the English language "murder" entails unlawful killing. If the laws of the state, whatever they are, proscribe death then it is not murder - ditto for lethal force in self-defense. The only real problem then is when they describe some massively nefarious regime like the Third Reich or Stalin's Russia as "murderous".

While this may not be logical to us, it is to them for what ever reason. I've challenged a couple of them who believe this with regard to the passage in the Bible that also says, only god can kill; and of course it's the fingers in the ears response back to that.

It is quite explicit that Hebrew law entailed convicts due the death penalty would be executed by being taken outside of the village and mere mortals would indeed carry out the sentence.

A true Christain to me would be a complete pacifist to the like of Ghandi (refuse to go to war, end the death peanlty etc.) unless a booming voice from the sky came down and told them to dispense his justice.

The actual text makes a clear distinction between murder, accidental death, retributive killing, and self-defense. There were specific rituals proscribed for holding a trial of sorts, presenting evidence, and then killing the guilty. It is abundently clear that two witnesses before the magistrate could establish guilt, and then that mortal men were to bash the offenders brains out with stones.



Really I don't see what the problem is. Holding that all life is "sancrosanct" doesn't mean there are not times when it is to be taken or sacrificed. While it is rather dry and boring reading, the Hebrew law in the Bible is quite clear the killing a murderer is acceptable. Even as a general rule sancrosanct items, like houses of worship, ceremonial foods/utensiles, and priests can be and were destroyed by the faithful when it was warrented.

Really anyone who beleives that a fetus is a full human person, or whatever legal term you want to pick to denote "fully human", then a pro-life stance should follow irregardless of support for the death penalty.

[Pick]

The Catholic Moral Norm I learned was that life is sacred from conception to natural death. According to Catholic dogma, since they cite this as their reason, it does not make sense. This is the only one I can cite, however, but I felt I'd add it (why not.)

As for in general, being pro-choice and pro-death penalty (though with more restriction than most of my peers in that regard) I suppose that my perspective is intrinsically skewed on this issue in the eyes of anyone who doesn't already agree with me for the most part (hence redundancy isn't too productive to type, is it?)

To summarize in the most cynical, nasty way possible (and not necessarily my view, but I feel something I can add anyway), I am reminded of a quote... whose source I cannot recall. Great apologizes to whomever it is due.

How are they [death penalty and abortion] really all that different? It's just culling the lives of people that we don't really want --even if we're somewhat loathe to admit it. [...] And the people against both are the ones who seem most assured that they won't have to deal with the results of disallowing either. Go figure.

[Queeb Salaron]

The latter half of that quote is a fantastically brilliant observation. I'll have to write that down.

[RedImperator]

Indeed, and as Junghalli said:

Yes. A fetus is not a dangers to others and hasn't comitted a crime. A murderer is a danger to others and has comitted a crime.

So their logic is that since abortion providers are committing murder en masse, they are more than justified in being judge, jury and executioner in bombing abortion and family planning clinics.

Who are "they"? The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers don't condone pro-life terrorism. The Catholic Church as an official body certainly doesn't.

[Firefox]

Obviously there are members of the pro-life movement who believe such tactics are permissible, and there are groups, such as the Army of God (no idea how large a group) that approve of such tactics, though not all members participate, apparently.

[Rogue 9]

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?

Yes, the logic being that the person being executed was found guilty of a crime deserving of said punishment. The child/fetus/whatever you want to call it has not.

[Queeb Salaron]

And for the record, if you've ever seen news coverage of an execution, there is this kind of uproar, though maybe not always to this extent. You have to understand that these people want to get on TV as much as the next guy, thinking that being pro-life on TV will convert people to being pro-life so they won't have to waste as much money hiring lobbyists.

Bitter enough for you?

[RedImperator]

Obviously there are members of the pro-life movement who believe such tactics are permissible, and there are groups, such as the Army of God (no idea how large a group) that approve of such tactics, though not all members participate, apparently.

I'm quite aware of that. Your statement, however, was unclear, especially coming right after, and apparently in response to, mine. It appears you were conflating the terrorist wing of the movement with the rest of it.

[Firefox]

You had said this:

They hold innocent life to be sacred, which includes fetuses and adults who wish to die. But a murderer, in their view, forefits his right to life by taking someone else's.

Emphasis mine. This bit was what I was addressing, in suggesting the justification such terrorists use in their bombings and shootings. Sorry if my comment was a bit nebulous.

[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.

[Petrosjko]

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.

[Fundy]Only GOD can create life, you heathen blasphemer![/Fundy]

[Firefox]

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.

[Petrosjko]

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.

Precisely so. Apparently God crams souls into each and every fertilized egg.

Hmm... given the population growth from biblical times, this could serve as an explanation for why there are no more miracles... God's just too feckin' busy.

Of course, if he got on board for birth control that would lessen his workload a bit, but you know these workaholic types...