Did you grill enough for the whole world?
toldailytopic: Is support of the Pro Life position AND the death penalty contradictor
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Did you grill enough for the whole world?
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm speaking from a biblical philosophy here. None are innocent, born or pre-born. Therefore there's no reason to treat born people with less respect than the pre-born. (That's my point.)
It's pointless to argue said principle when it can never be reality.
When dealing with reality economics is already part of the equation. Is it worth going through the long process to kill someone, if A. they might be innocent and B. it would ultimately cost less to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives?
Then you can throw in, C the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I think the government should have the right to execute people, but it should be reserved for people that are special cases, serial killers/rapists, mass murderers etc. As it is, the death penalty is often used on the poor and mentally incompetent (those without the money to hire the best lawyers). That being the current state of affairs, the death penalty is unfairly and unjustly applied.
Interestingly you want to discount economics here and then complain later about paying for other people.
Why would you assume that would happen and why would you assume every murderer is going to kill again when they have the chance?
No, I'm defining what being "pro-life" would actually mean. You shouldn't care whether a person is unborn or born to decide what value their life has. And it's completely backwards to assign more value to an unborn person than someone that may be a productive member of society and has family that loves and depends on them.
Is that why there are quite a few studies saying they do? (Or are facts you don't like "myths"?)
Is that why there are individuals losing parents for lack of insurance? Is that why every other industrialized country covers every person in their nation? (They have no "uninsured")
Yes for three times more than they charge an insured person. Ever think how stupid that is?
It will be your problem eventually, even if it isn't at current. Wars stem from lack of resources and opportunity. If half the world is overpopulated and impoverished and they see what we have, they're going to want it and they may not care how they get it.
Not if they make less than a dollar a day.
US spending on halloween alone would pay for contraception for the entire world. But you'd rather let people keep having kids and letting them starve?
I understand that most wars have little to do with saving lives. The Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars saved how many lives exactly?
Huh? I'm not talking about giving that to people on death row . . . or maybe you missed that point.
Oh that means what I think it means, most definitely. Jesus was attacked by the religious leaders for associating with "bad" people.
WizardofOz
New member
:rotfl:
I mean this sincerely, this has to be the funniest thing you have ever said on TOL.
eameece
New member
Probably. You could also look at the liberal position and ask, is it contradictory to be Pro Choice and anti-death penalty?
The liberal point of view being that a fetus is not a person, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.
Also, the death penalty is state-sponsored killing. And it often results in the killing of innocent people, by juries which in America no longer hold a prisoner innocent until proven guilty, but vice-versa.
The abortion pill should take the issue off the table. If it doesn't, then that is probably because the conservatives want the issue for political purposes.
eameece
New member
Unlike Jesus, I don't think Nick can feed the multitudes with 5 chickens.
I'm not at a loss when asked this question. First off, I say punish the offender, not the child and not the woman. I've known women who were raped by relatives. And, because of knowing them, I think that rape, incest, and child molestation should be death penalty offenses.
I would agree with the "pro-choicers" if, and only if, the choice they want the right to make didn't involve another person. Rape and incest make up a very small percentage of the babies who are aborted (If I remember what I read a long time ago, it's at less than 2%.).
If the government didn't make it so hard to adopt children, abortion would be totally unnecessary. I know about this through experience. Even with a step-parent adoption, the process is expensive and extremely drawn out. It discourages a lot of people from wanting to adopt.
You know nothing of what the bible says:
Exodus 23:7
Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.
Deuteronomy 19:10
lest innocent blood be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and thus guilt of bloodshed be upon you.
Deuteronomy 27:25
‘Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
1 Samuel 19:5
For he took his life in his hands and killed the Philistine, and the LORD brought about a great deliverance for all Israel. You saw it and rejoiced. Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?”
1 Kings 2:31
Then the king said to him, “Do as he has said, and strike him down and bury him, that you may take away from me and from the house of my father the innocent blood which Joab shed.
Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.
Deuteronomy 19:10
lest innocent blood be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and thus guilt of bloodshed be upon you.
Deuteronomy 27:25
‘Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
1 Samuel 19:5
For he took his life in his hands and killed the Philistine, and the LORD brought about a great deliverance for all Israel. You saw it and rejoiced. Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?”
1 Kings 2:31
Then the king said to him, “Do as he has said, and strike him down and bury him, that you may take away from me and from the house of my father the innocent blood which Joab shed.
More results from New King James Version
Pays not to make up your own theology. :up:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
ABSOLUTELY!
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
So what is your view on the fall and original sin then?
If people are innocent why did Jesus die on the Cross?
If people are innocent why did Jesus die on the Cross?
Adam made the choice to rebel against God. Since then, men have been born into a world rife with the expression and effects of rebellion against God. No man, save one, has ever been strong enough to resist the pull of the world and to stick with God. All have chosen to go their own ways.
All men are born into a sinful and corrupted world. All men choose to follow the world. Only God can save us from that end. Jesus came because all men chose sin over God. Men are guilty because of their words and actions, not because they were conceived.
But this does not make unborn babies guilty. Clearly.
Alate just likes to make up her own theology.
PureX
Well-known member
It's not just a problem of adoption. It's a problem of stigma, too. As well as economics and the irresponsibility that so often accompanies poverty and addiction.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Pays to read your Bible and understand it. The verses you quote deal with humans killing those that do not deserve death. That does not mean they are innocent by God's measure. I'm telling you classing Christian theology.
Martin Luther said this:
| It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ. |
You're the one making things up. Or did you rip the book of Romans out of your Bible?
| What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” |
Or maybe you forgot this one:
| This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. |
You missed the point. Clearly. Unborn babies are no more AND no less deserving of death than a born human being. That's my point. But in the eyes of God ALL are guilty. That doesn't mean we, human beings, have the right to kill them. Each of us is as guilty as the next person. The problem I have is the desire to save unborn children, and then turning around and complaining about having to pay to take care of them once they are born.
So many are willing to pay extra to kill people but not willing to pay to save lives. It's hypocrisy in the extreme.
Right. Innocent people. In the bible.
And strange how you kinda skip over the fact that these verses all interlock with the idea that those guilty of capital crimes do deserve death.
Sorry. The bible is God's word. Saying those He calls innocent are not innocent by God's measure is flat out heretical.
Who? :idunno:
Please be specific. What was it exactly that I made up?
| What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” |
Men all choose to rebel against God. Did you not read what I wrote? What you need is a verse saying that the unborn are guilty of rebellion against God. That would disprove my stance.
Your point is an invention designed to alleviate your guilt at desiring the option to murder the unborn.
No, they're not.
Why do you support a woman's right to murder her unborn child? :idunno:
Alate_One
Well-known member
You may have missed my other posts but I did not say government does not have the *right* to execute murderers. However, the old testament authorizes many punishments we choose not to use. I do think a consistent stance of "pro-life" wouldn't include the death penalty, or reserve it only for extreme circumstances.
The way the death penalty is handled in the USA is completely against anything pro-life in my opinion.
I quoted you a verse saying "conceived in sin" what else do you want?
Yes. they are. You're the heretical one here.
We're not talking about what *I* support or do not support, we're talking about what would be a consistent stance in terms of being "pro-life".
There is no Biblical basis to claim the unborn are less guilty in the eyes of God than the born. You're making that up on your own. There's no reason to have greater protections for the unborn, than the born. I'm not saying guilt in the sight of God (original sin only) gives anyone the right to kill anyone else, because ALL are guilty.
A verse showing that man is guilty when conceived rather than a quote from some random guy who you think wrote scripture. :up:
Yes. they are. You're the heretical one here.
Romans 8:1
[ Free from Indwelling Sin ] There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
[ Free from Indwelling Sin ] There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
Waving your hands around and pretending God does not see men as innocent and guilty won't help you.
And, we're still waiting. Which words of mine were things I made up? Be specific now. :up:
noguru
Well-known member
Well maybe not the whole world, but it has been almost 17 hours and Nick is still not back.
noguru
Well-known member
The Bible also tells us at what age a person becomes an adult, with the awareness of good and evil, and therefore accountable to a moral code. Until that point a human is in essence innocent.
PureX
Well-known member
I would say that being "pro-life" and in favor of criminal execution is only inconsistent if the reason for being in favor of execution is based on social or moral vengeance. Vengeance is not a "pro-life" motivation. It's a selfish motivation, as it's born in the desire for one's own concept of what is just. And selfishness is not "pro-life", it's "pro-self".
noguru
Well-known member
No, they are not contradictory. Both the death penalty and "anti-abotion" can be used to save lives. There are some people who have no remorse for killing others, so there is nothing stopping them from killing others in the future. Whether in prison or out. So in this scenario the death penalty saves lives. So you cannot put a $ value on that, as you have in comparing lifetime imprisonment vs death penalty.