toldailytopic: Is support of the Pro Life position AND the death penalty contradictor

[noguru]

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".

While I agree with your overall conclusion, I disagree with your premise that "selfishness" is necessarily evil. Selfishness with empathy for others leads us to be concerned for others. Selfisheness without empathy lead us to evil.

 

[PureX]

While I agree with your overall conclusion, I disagree with your premise that "selfishness" is necessarily evil. Selfishness with empathy for others leads us to be concerned for others. Selfisheness without empathy lead us to evil.

But selfishness by definition is antithetical to empathy. This is the inherent contradiction in claiming that a selfish motive like moral or social vengeance is "pro-life". Vengeance, especially vengeance that seeks the deliberate extermination of a human life, is anything but "pro-life". It's all about forcing one's own concept of justice on the world through the deliberate destruction of other human beings. And I oppose capital punishment for that reason.

I do, however, have to acknowledge that being "pro-life" under all conditions and circumstances is unrealistic, and even irrational. Instances of self-defense are a case in point. Being "pro-life" when someone is set on murdering me or others is irrational because it doesn't work. It would result in more loss of life, rather than less.

So although I am "pro life", I have to recognize that practicality dictates that we will sometimes have to destroy life to preserve it. And this is why I say that one can be in favor of the killing of other human beings, under extreme circumstances, and still rightfully call themselves "pro-life".

I do not believe, however, that people who want to kill other human beings for the sake of moral or social vengeance can honestly claim they are "pro-life". For the reasons I posted above.

 

[Nick M]

You assume that the unborn are innocent

It isn't an assumption. Of course, you are too stupid to know that innocent and righteous are not the same thing.

Romans 7

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

Since there are plenty of instances of innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit

Chewbacca

I would see a consistent "pro-life stance"

"Pro life" is not an accurate position, unless you are refering specifically to shedding innocent blood. I am anti-abortion and anti-choice.

This would include preventing death from lack of health insurance,

Obama is setting up his death panels. Just thought I would throw that one out there.

ensuring people across the world have sufficient good quality food to eat.

There is no shortage of food on this planet. Some of it is getting expensive because of liberalism and socialism. Inlfation in the US is close to 10%.

Jesus did not come to save the righteous, but the guilty.

Chewbacca again. But just for good measure, the Lord Jesus Christ will grind your evil self into powder.

Matthew 21:44

44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

 

[noguru]

But selfishness by definition is antithetical to empathy. This is the inherent contradiction in claiming that a selfish motive like moral or social vengeance is "pro-life". Vengeance, especially vengeance that seeks the deliberate extermination of a human life, is anything but "pro-life". It's all about forcing one's own concept of justice on the world through the deliberate destruction of other human beings. And I oppose capital punishment for that reason.

I do, however, have to acknowledge that being "pro-life" under all conditions and circumstances is unrealistic, and even irrational. Instances of self-defense are a case in point. Being "pro-life" when someone is set on murdering me or others is irrational because it doesn't work. It would result in more loss of life, rather than less.

So although I am "pro life", I have to recognize that practicality dictates that we will sometimes have to destroy life to preserve it. And this is why I say that one can be in favor of the killing of other human beings, under extreme circumstances, and still rightfully call themselves "pro-life".

I do not believe, however, that people who want to kill other human beings for the sake of moral or social vengeance can honestly claim they are "pro-life". For the reasons I posted above.

Perhaps "selfishness" is not the crux of the issue here.

A person can be unconcerned with all life in general. A person can be concerned with only their life and not the life of others. A person can be concerned with all life equally. A person can be concerned with the life of others, but not their own life. Only Jesus could manage the last option. But for the rest of us which of these are workable in human society?

 

[Lighthouse]

toldailytopic: Is support of the Pro Life position AND the death penalty contradictory?

Of course not.

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”
-Ezekiel 13:19

You assume that the unborn are innocent and the convicted murderers are guilty.

Since there are plenty of instances of innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit, assuming the death penalty only targets the guilty.

There's also this:

Psalm 50:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

When we're talking about guilt regarding the death penalty we're talking about crimes, not sin. Not everyone who is guilty of sin is guilty of a crime, let alone guilty of a crime deserving of execution as a punishment.

 

[WizardofOz]

Well maybe not the whole world, but it has been almost 17 hours and Nick is still not back.

I hope the chicken wasn't bad

 

[PureX]

Perhaps "selfishness" is not the crux of the issue here.

A person can be unconcerned with all life in general. A person can be concerned with only their life and not the life of others. A person can be concerned with all life equally. A person can be concerned with the life of others, but not their own life. Only Jesus could manage the last option. But for the rest of us which of these are workable in human society?

To be "pro-life", I would say we should be concerned about respecting, maintaining, and nurturing all life. But I also realize this is not possible, or even sensible as an absolute proposition. Choices have to be made. Some life forms have to be eliminated so that others may survive and thrive. Some human lives may have to be destroyed for the safety of the rest.

The problem with ideals is that they're like lighthouses: they are great as navigational tools for us to steer our lives by, but they are disastrous if we mistaken them for our actual destination.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Alan's theology is orthodox, yours isn't.

Alan's is within the mainstream of evangelical thought over the last 400 years, you aren't.

I would not go along with the line of accusing him of making his theology up.

I'm with Alan by the way. - edit not in that way.

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.

 

[Stripe]

Alan's theology is orthodox, yours isn't.

Who is Alan? :idunno:

Alan's is within the mainstream of evangelical thought over the last 400 years, you aren't.

So? :idunno:

I would not go along with the line of accusing him of making his theology up.

You mean Alate? Her theology is directly contradicted by the bible. She says nobody is innocent. The bible says some people are innocent.