How can a person be Anti-Abortion and Pro-Death Penalty? Explain that to me please?

Question

Isnt there an inherent ideological conflict?

Answer 1

Not at all, really. People on death row earned a spot there. They committed some horrible crime that earned them the death penalty. Unborn babies have done nothing to earn death for themselves.

Answer 2

Not really one of those people, but I understand their distinction between the innocent and the guilty.  A fairly strong argument, but only part of either debate.

Answer 3

A person receives the death penalty after doing a heinous crime, and is judged worthy of death by a jury.

A baby is killed for convenience, being nothing more than inconvenient.

Answer 4

I think that a lot of it comes from the assumption that the person being put to death is guilty of some heinous crime and unable to be rehabilitated, whereas the baby has not had the opportunity to prove that it is capable of evil.  

Answer 5

The to this question is not as open ended as one would think.  It is a matter innocence and guilt.  Who is the innocent one and who is the guilty.  Since an unborn child can't be blamed for the actions of parent(s), why should he still be put to death, a man or woman that has had years of being taught the difference of right and wrong should remain alive though they either have intentionally murdered someone in the first degree or have committed mass murder or genocide.  It is a matter of Innocence and guilt.  I believe that life begins at conception and that life is sinless up to the age of accountability (8 years of age).  

Answer 6

Thats easy.

No conflict. You do not take the life an innocent. The Bible teaches this. This covers abortion.

As to the murder issue in the Death Penalty question:

Anyone who takes the life of another, will forfeit his OWN life. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." That is Gods way of dealing with people who place no value on anothers life.

Next question?

P.S. God is NOT unfair, mean or stupid. Try reading His Word and studying it so that you can see HIS reasons. He is infinitely more wise than we are , and you would do well to learn from him instead of trying to find ways to criticize or cast doubt. Not a good idea when dealing with your CREATOR.

www.graceteacher.com

Answer 7

That is a pretty common question here, but I think linking capital punishment and abortion is oversimplifying both issues

There is no inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-capital punishment, OR vice-versa. The abortion issue generally comes down to where you believe that life begins. Pro-lifers think life begins at conception (and therefore, logically, abortion is murder), whereas pro-choicers believe life begins at birth. Both sides will dazzle you with scientific studies and supposed evidence to support their case, but there simply is no way to prove either side - it boils down to what you BELIEVE.

The death penalty is a completely unrelated issue.  I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it.  In the end, several factors changed my mind:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 30 years in the U.S., over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

[And for those here who say that death row inmates have done something to "deserve" to die, please read the above paragraph again.]

Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death.  In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible.  For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39).  James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice.  Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to).  In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 8

Unborn babies haven't committed capital murder.

Answer 9

Well maybe because each prisoner costs taxpayers $400 a day. The money saved could help find the cure for cancer ect.  

Answer 10

Let's see now ... equating the execution of convicted murderers with the slaughter of innocent babies, still inside their mother's womb ...

The only inherent ideological conflict appears to exist in your own mind.

Answer 11

there is a difference in taking a life b4 he even has the chance to prove his self worth

and taking a life who has proven he is in-human and incompetent of living w/o causing harm

bottom line...every human should have the chance to live, but when a human proves 2 be in-human wat significance is that?

Answer 12

For many people these are separate issues.  While you can make up your mind on both on the basis of religious beliefs, there are also many pragmatic reasons to oppose the death penalty.

When you look at the death penalty system in action, you realize that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge and that there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people.

129 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents  reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront=before and during the initial trial)

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org,  for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

FBI   http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/tab...  

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcostte... page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-surviv... for statements of victims’ families

Answer 13

It takes a special type of mind-set to be able to compartmentalise so successfully.

~

Answer 14

Could be because one is an innocent life and the other is not.

Answer 15

As a pro-life person, I believe that pro-life means exactly that, or, in the words of the late John Paul II:

"We must protect ALL lives, from conception to natural death."

If one is truly pro-life, they are also anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-poverty.

I hate the attitude of "love the fetus, hate the impoverished child who turns to a life of crime".

Answer 16

Some people told me I couldn't be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

They said, if you're going to kill babies, why not kill guilty adults?

LOL

At the time, their argument that it was inconsistent seemed to make sense, but I can't remember it now.

Answer 17

I can only agree on the opposite version of those.

Answer 18

The fetus, regardless of it's location, never violated anyone...

Answer 19

I find it illogical too, which is why I'm against both.  But it's still more logical than being against the death penalty and for abortion.  At least with an execution, the one dying is guilty of something.