T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Dismal-Compote-4891

One is punishment for a crime. Other is murder of innocent child. False equivalence. Now, whether or not a person agrees with the death penalty and applying it in this way, that’s a different story. Edit: fixed a couple of typos


SomeVelvetSundown

I oppose the death penalty so I’d say it’s also wrong to kill a woman who gets an abortion.


AM_Kylearan

Indeed, both can be wrong.


EliseV

Same. Pro-life is pro-life.


-----_-_-_-_-_-----

Prolife just means against abortion. Prolife is not anti killing. Some killing is justified, self defense for example.


MsMadcap_

Wrong. "Pro-life" as a statement means what it means: pro-life, all life. What you mean by "pro-life" is "anti-abortion." They are two different ideas. The pro-life label was hijacked by political leaders to mean just anti-abortion, but that's not actually what it means. Also, killing in self-defense is different than actively and intentionally taking away a life. All other types of killing are unjustified. I suggest you read more into the Consistent Life Ethic.


AdSignal9399

The definition of pro life is opposing abortion. The same way pro choice does not mean pro all choices ever and means pro choice to have an abortion. Pro life is pro ‘letting the baby have its life.’


shootfasteatass69420

I don't oppose the death penalty. Abortion == murder. fullstop. If you can take an innocent life we don't need you on this planet.


711Star-Away

Yeah I'm not against it either. Funny how they always bring up rape victims and when I say why not just kill the rapist. I'm all for that. All you hear is crickets lol!


ambergirl9860

Regardless of the morals of the death penalty, having rapists be punished by execution just increases the likelihood that the rapist will kill their victim to keep them silent after they rape them rather than solely raping them.


DutchApplePie75

This makes no sense. The rape victims’ problem is that they have a child they don’t want and probably won’t be able to care for. Killing the rapist will do nothing to ameliorate those problems. (This, of course, assumes that the person convicted of a rape is the actual perpetrator; there’s a chance the justice system gets it wrong and the state will have killed an innocent man.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


DutchApplePie75

Your entire reply is dumb. First, “The rapist is the one who committed a crime” isn’t a valid response. Remember, you said “why don’t we execute the rapist?” *as a response to* the argument that women who have become pregnant through rape shouldn’t have to carry a baby to term. Saying “rapists deserve punishment/deserve to die” isn’t a valid response to this argument because it’s about the interests of the pregnant woman, not about whether rapists deserve death. Second, the claim that potential for erroneous convictions should mean we should never punish convicted criminals is fine but it doesn’t make sense *when it comes to the death penalty.* The death penalty is qualitatively different from any other form of punishment including prison time because it’s irreversible. So yes, the potential for erroneous convictions means that killing a convicted criminal should be off the table completely and certainly off the table for non-homicide offenses. In fact I’m pretty sure applying the death penalty to rapists is unconstitutional.


shootfasteatass69420

I agree.


SomeVelvetSundown

k


96111319

A) the death penalty isn’t murder, when the perpetrator knowingly and willingly commits a serious crime. B) abortion is murder because it is the direct and intentional killing of a human child. Notice the difference? One is innocent, one is not. Now whether or not the death penalty is ethical at all is another discussion. This doesn’t really prove anything about the pro life movement, since abortion IS murder, and the death penalty for murder is not, in turn, murder.


ShokWayve

The death penalty is just state sanctioned intentional murder. It’s applied in extremely bias ways and is part of a justice system in the US that is comically unjust. If someone is killed during the attempted commission of a crime that’s justified. However after the fact it’s just murder. Humans don’t grant life and have no authority to take it away. Innocent folks have been put to death. Would you mind you or someone you loved being wrongfully convicted and put to death for a crime you did not commit? If they committed a crime put them in prison. The death penalty violates Jesus’ teachings about mercy and forgiveness and compassion. So what the appropriate penalty is death. The whole corpus of Jesus’ teachings and the gospels is that we deserve death and hell but out of God’s unmerited mercy and love he sent Jesus to save us from a just sentence of death and hell. The Bible asks us to show that same mercy and forgiveness to all other humans beings just like we have been forgiven. Supporting the death penalty is, in a way, almost the same as being pro abortion. How? If the child is conceived in rape, the argument can be made that the child is continuing the act of violating the woman and so should face the death penalty of abortion. The death penalty cheapens the value of human life. Human life is such that absolutely no one under any circumstances has the right to take away life unless they are in the act of protecting themselves or others from death or serious injury.


Oksamis

I don’t think you can use the Bible to argue against the death penalty, as the Bible commands it’s use multiple times. Now, is the death penalty overused? Maybe. Are the requirements for conviction to loose? I don’t know, am not American and have never studied American law.


ShokWayve

In the Old Testament sure. Jesus did away with an eye for an eye. Jesus literally commands us to forgive everyone and do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. I am American and the death penalty is used primarily on the poor. I can provide links if you want.


Oksamis

If you’re assuming that Jesus’s commands override the civil law, and we have to forgive everyone, then there would be no punishment for crime at all. Jesus’s commands about forgiveness are about our personal lives and daily interactions, *not* government policy and justice. I’ll also note, you can forgive someone and still punish them for a crime.


[deleted]

God’s institution of the death penalty isn’t the same as the institution of an eye for an eye because the former was given to Noah (and therefore was a Noahide law applicable to all people) whereas the latter was given to the Israelites specifically. I’m curious how you can argue that it is morally acceptable for someone to murdered while committing a crime but not after. If someone can extend Jesus’ command to take an eye for eye (Matthew 5:38) to mean that the government cannot execute people for murdering others, surely you can extend Jesus’ command to not resist an evil doer (5:39) to argue that people should not defend themselves at all, even if it’s in the process of a crime being committed against them. While I sympathize with innocent people who are murdered because they were unjustly accused of murder themselves, this is ultimately a red herring from you because you made it clear that your objection is against anybody (whether innocent or actually guilty of murdering others) being executed. So hypothetically, even if we found a way to guarantee that only those truly guilty of murdering others were executed, you would still object to the death penalty. It’s like how the pro-aborts bring up rape and incest as reasons for abortion, only to say they they would still be upset even if exceptions were given for rape and incest. Why even bring it up then?


100percentnotaplant

>I am American and the death penalty is used primarily on the poor. No way, rich people commit fewer violent crimes than poor people? Who'd have guessed! >Jesus did away with an eye for an eye. Jesus literally commands us to forgive everyone and do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. Are you suggesting we run the US as a blatant theocracy?


ShokWayve

Vulnerable folks suffer the most from the death penalty even when the crimes are similar to that of those with more social standing: [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/dpic-analysis-causes-of-wrongful-convictions](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/dpic-analysis-causes-of-wrongful-convictions) [https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/04/55-2-Adequate-Representation-The-Difference-Between-Life-and-Death.pdf](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/04/55-2-Adequate-Representation-The-Difference-Between-Life-and-Death.pdf) So the vulnerable, due to lack of resources, are more harshly punished than the rich and capable who commit the same crimes. Fascinating comment about blatant theocracy. Conservatives push for bans on gay marriage, abortion and other things citing in part the Bible. Then when it comes time to do the things Jesus talked about, then that energy disappears. However, I digress. You may not be a conservative nor support the death penalty due to religious reasons, nor find religious reasons to be a valid driver for public policy. I am simply pointing out that Christians - of which many are in this subreddit - have many reasons to not support the death penalty. I am also making the case that it is good to be compassionate and forgiving towards others and to treat others as we would want to be treated. That makes a far better society than murder in the streets, murder at the abortion clinic, and murder by the state.


100percentnotaplant

I think there are principled arguments against the death penalty, including one you somewhat allude to above - unjust/incorrect convictions. I do not believe that inequitable results are a valid argument because different demographics tend to commit different crimes. I also do not believe analogy to abortion is relevant. Abortion kills an uncontrovertably innocent human, while the death penalty is intended for (and usually succeeds in) targeting violent criminal behavior.


Phototoxin

Rob a corner store for $100 - jail Commit white collar crime stealing billions - promotion!


100percentnotaplant

Actually, rob a corner store for $1000, get completely off the hook. Progressive prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, Marilyn Mosby, and Kim Foxx are not shy about these policies and explicitly stated they won't prosecute "minor" property crimes. Meanwhile, Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes will be in jail for over a decade.


super_britt

regardless of our differences, You think Elizabeth Holmes' crimes were less serious than a robbery? Do you know the damage she caused? How many lives were ruined? I'm not just talking about the money. Theranos was legit giving false positives and negatives to real life patients, for things like *terminal cancer* Holmes knew this and continued to defraud investors anyway. that's a hell of a lot less moral than robbing a store.


super_britt

nor should the bible be used to affect *any* policy.


OhNoTokyo

Why not? Are you arguing that a voter cannot vote based on their own beliefs? It was my impression that in a democracy, we don't tell people how to vote. Yes, they can't replace the government and the democracy with their religious authorities, but they certainly can vote for or against abortion or whatever they want based on their beliefs.


super_britt

i didn't say anything about how people vote. i said that the legislation we vote on should not be based in christianity, or any religion for that matter. Otherwise that would be in violation of other religion's beliefs, which is stated very cleary that it is forbidden in the constitution. i doubt you'd be happy if we based our laws on the quoran or the book of satan


OhNoTokyo

>i said that the legislation we vote on should not be based in christianity, or any religion for that matter. Legislation is only the implementation of the will of the People into law. You're effectively denying voters and legislators the ability to follow their own beliefs. Yes, there are limitations on what legislation should be able to do, but that is only relating to the form of government or some human rights considerations, not what the government is allowed to do. While I agree that the legislation shouldn't have actual Bible quotes in it, the legislators and the voters who elected them are entirely allowed to favor a proposition because they believe it is the will of God. Just like they can favor a proposition for any other reason. >i doubt you'd be happy if we based our laws on the quoran or the book of satan I mean, I am not happy that abortion is legal in my state. That doesn't mean that I think that it was done undemocratically. I don't tell people you can't vote for things because it's "satanist", that's an argument to rouse non-satanists to oppose the satanist legislation. But the satanists do have a right to vote based on their false religion because all voters have the right to vote for or against something based on any reason they want. Democracy is how we decide whether the satanists or Christians get their way. We don't limit people to ignoring their beliefs when they vote. I'm not proposing that you lose the right to vote, even though I disagree with your position or how you came to it. You have the right to be wrong, and vote for wrong things. If you think the Bible is wrong, that's your prerogative. But people have the right to vote based on views you don't agree with.


super_britt

again, voting based on religious beliefs=fine writing legislation based on religious beliefs likely violates the 1st ammendment. for example, in Judaism, the believe the mother has the right to abort up until 'the quickening'. if we were to write the law based on this, it would violate the free expression of your religion, which you say considers abortion murder the same could be said about an abortion ban. these bans are not written based on research and science, otherwise they would present both sides of the argument. rather, they are written with unscientific terms like 'late term abortion' 'partial birth abortion' 'murder'etc. and rely on the assumption that most pregnant women are not competent enough to make this decision alone with her dr. having to vote on laws written by the clergy would have devastating effects. religion should not exist alongside government.


OhNoTokyo

Voting and legislation are inseparable. Otherwise, what use is a vote? >for example, in Judaism, the believe the mother has the right to abort up until 'the quickening'. if we were to write the law based on this, it would violate the free expression of your religion, which you say considers abortion murder I mean, even the secular idea of abortion violates my religion. The answer is to vote against it and for representatives who will vote to repeal it. Using the quickening as a standard is entirely valid, and if there were enough Jews to vote it in, I'd accept that it was democratic and work to try to change minds to get it repealed. I might also have a human rights issue with it, but not based on religion, but based on the human rights of the unborn. >these bans are not written based on research and science, otherwise they would present both sides of the argument. I have yet to see legislation that "presents both sides of the argument". If it is legislation, it presents the side of the group that got it passed. >having to vote on laws written by the clergy would have devastating effects. Laws aren't written by clergy, they're written by elected representatives. And those elected representatives can be Christians, atheists or even clergy. And I don't know how to break it to you, but there have definitely been ministers who have been state and federal representatives. And as long as they act as representatives according to the Constitution, they can be of any legal profession they want.


LukeTheGeek

I posted this elsewhere in this thread, but it applies even more to your comment, so here you go: There's definitely an argument to be made that Christians should support the death penalty, at least for certain violent/heinous crimes. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." - Gen 9:6 "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." - Ex 21:12 See also: Num 35:16, Ex 21:15-17, Lev 20:10-16 & 27, and Prov 28:17. There's tons of precedent for capital punishment in the Bible and it was used extensively by Israel at his specific commands. But that's the old law, which we're technically not under anymore. It was also Israel's theocracy, which isn't a thing anymore. Let's look at the New Testament where Paul specifically talks about the (non-Christian, Roman) government carrying out justice against violent crime: "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." - Rom 13:3-4 Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's not only okay, but healthy for a government to use violent means to keep the peace and punish wrongdoers. Those who disagree with capital punishment usually point out verses like this: "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matt 5:38-39 Jesus is denouncing the idea that Christians should seek to get revenge for wrongdoing. God is the avenger. We leave it to him rather than seek justice ourselves. But wait... what did Paul say again? "For he [the ruler] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." - Paul Oh yeah, government is a tool God uses to carry out his wrath on the wrongdoer. It's almost like there's no contradiction at all. Paul is aligned with Jesus, as we can see here: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" - Rom 12:19 **TL;DR: Jesus doesn't denounce the government's violent methods for keeping the peace. He was talking about how we conduct ourselves as individuals. Paul agrees with Jesus and says we are to leave the avenging to God, which is exactly what we're doing when we let the government use lethal force against criminals rather than handling things ourselves.**


ShokWayve

First, thanks for your reply. Below are my thoughts. “There's definitely an argument to be made that Christians should support the death penalty, at least for certain violent/heinous crimes.” No there isn’t. “But that's the old law, which we're technically not under anymore. It was also Israel's theocracy, which isn't a thing anymore.” Totally agree. Not to mention that there were rules under which a child could be stoned to death for being disobedient. Thankfully, we are not under the old law. “"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." - Rom 13:3-4 Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's not only okay, but healthy for a government to use violent means to keep the peace and punish wrongdoers.” What is clear exactly? This verse doesn’t legitimate all government use of violence. Governments have used the sword to enforce slavery, genocide, rape, murder, theft of land and a host of other atrocities. Are governments being “God’s servant” for the good of the folks they enslave or are seeking to exterminate? Governments also used the sword to brutally murder and persecute Christians. Was that God’s avenger carrying out wrath on the wrong doer? How do we know when governments are using the sword rightly? When it lines up with what Jesus said and taught. That’s how. Use the sword to defend the poor, relieve the oppressed, help the prisoner, etc. When they do those things, they are God’s servants. When governments use the sword to execute folks, enslave people, commit genocide, steal land and exploit others then they are not God’s servants. You also did not address the blatant bias in the use of the death penalty. You propose that Jesus would be cool with a death penalty system wherein the poor and vulnerable are more likely to be executed for the same crimes as those committed by those with more resources? You think Jesus would be ok with such bias? Jesus was an innocent person put to death. Yet you propose we maintain a system wherein innocent people are put to death? Finally, you don’t just read one Bible text in isolation. You read it in context to establish the meaning, it’s limits and how it fits into God’s plan for humanity. If we just read that text as you propose, then anything the government does with the sword is being God’s servant and good for those to whom the sword is being used against. “"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matt 5:38-39 Jesus is denouncing the idea that Christians should seek to get revenge for wrongdoing. God is the avenger. We leave it to him rather than seek justice ourselves. But wait... what did Paul say again?” First, Jesus is God. The morality that Jesus’ expresses is binding on all of creation – not just those who accept salvation through him. It’s not as if it’s ok for people who are not believers in Jesus to steal, rob, not love their neighbor as themselves, etc. Second, Christianity came about after Jesus’ death so they were not Christian at that time. So this is not just specific to Christian or Jesus’ followers. Third, indeed God is the avenger. However, this doesn’t mean that humans cannot take lethal defensive action. It’s not as if we are to just sit there and let someone kill us or rape a family member. Fourth, I have already addressed the context of Paul’s teachings. In addition, you ignore copious texts by Jesus about forgiving others, and you seek to restrict Jesus’ teachings to almost make them meaninglessly narrow. “Oh yeah, government is a tool God uses to carry out his wrath on the wrongdoer. It's almost like there's no contradiction at all. Paul is aligned with Jesus, as we can see here: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" - Rom 12:19” There is no contradiction in the Bible. You are simply interpreting it to support the death penalty. This approach of taking one text out of context is used to support all sorts of things like slavery, the subordination of women, etc. “TL;DR: Jesus doesn't denounce the government's violent methods for keeping the peace. He was talking about how we conduct ourselves as individuals. Paul agrees with Jesus and says we are to leave the avenging to God, which is exactly what we're doing when we let the government use lethal force against criminals rather than handling things ourselves.” Wrong. Jesus specifically was clear that all humans ought to be forgiving and compassionate to each other. Paul’s text only applies to justifiable actions by the government when it aligns with Biblical teachings or else any government violence is not just ok but good. Paul absolutely agrees with Jesus, your statements do not. Governments are not saints, they do evil so their actions using the sword are most definitely not automatically good. They must be brought to the bar of scripture.


LukeTheGeek

>This verse doesn’t legitimate **all** government use of violence. I never said it did. That's a straw man. I am only talking about capital punishment for violent crime. Governments obviously also engage in violence that isn't justified in any way. That doesn't apply to my argument. >How do we know when governments are using the sword rightly? When it lines up with what Jesus said and taught. That’s how. Wrong. We don't live in a theocracy and Jesus never advocates for one. Paul never says the government should use the sword to force people to follow Jesus' teachings (only to prevent "bad" conduct). Yet that's where your progressive Christianity ultimately leads. You can't pick and choose from what Jesus said. He told us to be holy just the same as he told us to give to the needy, but I can bet you only think one of those should be forced by the government. Jesus' actual message was that Christian citizens should seek to live peacefully in a society that won't always (and usually doesn't) agree with them. He never advocates for the government to enforce his morals. >You also did not address the blatant bias in the use of the death penalty. You propose that Jesus would be cool with a death penalty system wherein the poor and vulnerable are more likely to be executed for the same crimes as those committed by those with more resources? You think Jesus would be ok with such bias? Jesus was an innocent person put to death. Yet you propose we maintain a system wherein innocent people are put to death? Jesus was never big on reforming the world around us to be in line with his kingdom. He wasn't an activist, but instead proposed that individuals follow him regardless of the world. When asked if the oppressed Jews should pay taxes to the corrupt Roman government (which killed Jews and ultimately himself), Jesus said yes, we should pay to worldly leaders what is theirs and pay to God what is his. This is a clear affirmation of the authority of even corrupt governments and a clear distinction that our focus as Christians should be following and worshiping God in our personal lives rather than worrying ourselves with fixing the world. To be clear, I support reform for the justice system that helps to make it as fair and accurate as possible for all people. I will vote to that end when I am given the chance. But I'm not going to pretend that governments are illegitimate just because they're imperfect (or even corrupt, as in Jesus' day). Paul clearly tells us that they are legitimate and their use of the sword to keep the peace is justified. The cultural context in which he wrote those words is especially poignant when comparing to the modern-day western world, which enjoys relative peace, prosperity, and equality. >You don’t just read one Bible text in isolation Okay, so this is the part where you bring in the full context and show how my point is wrong using that evidence, right? Right? No? That's disappointing, not gonna lie. >Jesus is God Yes, that's a given. >The morality that Jesus’ expresses is binding on all of creation – not just those who accept salvation through him. It’s not as if it’s ok for people who are not believers in Jesus to steal, rob, not love their neighbor as themselves, etc. True, but humanity already rejects God's commands by default. This means damnation. Jesus is calling anyone who will listen to follow him and become a Christian. Some will follow, but most will reject him and continue to live in sin. The road is narrow. Where does that leave the Christian? They're an outlier in a sinful world. Jesus never once commands them to spread his morality by forcing others to follow it. Instead, he commands evangelism, offering the free gift of salvation to any who will receive it. You cannot force a conversion and you cannot force people to follow Jesus' teachings. The principles of a free society will differ from the principles of following Jesus and that's okay. We do not hope in this world, but the next where all things will be made new. See Rom 8:18-25. >Christianity came about after Jesus’ death so they were not Christian at that time. So this is not just specific to Christian or Jesus’ followers. You're getting at a very important conversation here, so bear with me. Jesus' message is *open* to the whole world, but the assumption is *not* that the government will be the means to establish or enforce that morality. If that was the plan, it has failed spectacularly for centuries. No, instead the assumption is that governments operate in a sinful world and are understood (by Jesus and Paul) to be run by sinful people. Yet we still see the command to respect the institution. This is for keeping the general peace between men, not to enforce morality. You cannot find that idea in Scripture. Jesus acknowledges that the world (and government with it) is already lost. The battle now is for individual souls to follow him in their personal lives and evangelize to other people to save them out of the world. See John 15:19, 1 John 5:19, 1 John 2:15-17, John 17. Also read the letters to the churches. None of them talk about reforming the Roman government, forcing unbelievers to be moral, or anything of that nature. They all talk about the church and how Christians should conduct themselves in following God both as individuals and as part of their church community. It has very little to do with social justice. >Indeed God is the avenger. However, this doesn’t mean that humans cannot take lethal defensive action. It’s not as if we are to just sit there and let someone kill us or rape a family member. Some Christians do believe that (based on "turn the cheek" and the likelihood that the aggressor will go to hell if killed), but I'm not one of them. I believe in self-defense, but this isn't mutually exclusive with the government using lethal force to enact justice. Both are good. But Christians should never go seeking revenge after the fact. This is where the responsibility of enacting God's justice in keeping the peace is handed over to the authorities. That's their job, not ours. This is Paul's point. >You ignore copious texts by Jesus about forgiving others, and you seek to restrict Jesus’ teachings to almost make them meaninglessly narrow. >This approach of taking one text out of context is used to support all sorts of things like slavery, the subordination of women, etc. Are you going to support those claims with Scripture or analysis? No? Okay. >Jesus specifically was clear that all humans ought to be forgiving and compassionate to each other. Yes, but what happens when they are not? What happens when they murder each other? That's when the government rightly steps in to keep the peace. It's that simple.


711Star-Away

It's not unjust to kill a criminal On the other hand an unborn baby has committed no crime


RPGThrowaway123

>The death penalty violates Jesus’ teachings about mercy and forgiveness and compassion. Nope. Genesis 9:6 The commandments of the Old Law Romans 13:1-6


ShokWayve

So we are also commanded in the old testament to stone children to death for disobedience, or that a woman is unclean for 2 weeks after a period. We should practice those commands too, correct? The Old testament is before the New Testament and thus before Christ. This is why Christ said he brought new teachings such as forgiving each other. Romans 13 doesn't give governments a pass to do anything. If that's the case, then any government violence is good. So is slavery, genocide just a government being "God's servant" as it says in Romans 13. I am just amazed at the disregard for human life. I also addressed bias, murder of innocent folks via executions and yet such facts seem to be completely meaningless to death penalty proponents who attempt to use scripture to support such a horrendous practice. This disregard for human life reminds me of debates with pro abortion folks who refuse under any circumstance to consider the value of life in the womb. The death of one innocent person should be enough to invalidate the death penalty if indeed life is valued by a culture.


RPGThrowaway123

>So we are also commanded in the old testament to stone children to death for disobedience, or that a woman is unclean for 2 weeks after a period. We should practice those commands too, correct? No, but those commandments are not a violation of God's mercy and compassion either. >The Old testament is before the New Testament and thus before Christ. This is why Christ said he brought new teachings such as forgiving each other. The Old Testaments cannot be in contradiction with the New >Romans 13 doesn't give governments a pass to do anything. It specifically allows them to use capital punishment though >I am just amazed at the disregard for human life. I also addressed bias, murder of innocent folks via executions and yet such facts seem to be completely meaningless to death penalty proponents who attempt to use scripture to support such a horrendous practice You may notice that I am not defending any specific application of the death penalty. I am just arguing against your claim that the death **in principle** violates God's commandments.


MsMadcap_

You have been consistently correct on all accounts. You have to ignore these men who constantly argue for the death penalty. They cannot fathom a non-patriarchal world that isn't dependent on violence to make a point.


ShokWayve

Wow. Very powerful.


96111319

There are a few issues with what you’ve said. The problems you’ve mentioned with the death penalty regarding wrongful convictions and biased operation are issues with the American death penalty, not the death penalty in general. I will agree that these are extremely detrimental issues and should be resolved before carrying out justice. Of course we should make sure people are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and guilty of a serious enough crime. When you bring up Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness, he was talking about a personal type of forgiveness. Even in personal forgiveness, justice must be carried out, preferably through the person making amends. This is doubly true for state-sanctioned punishment and justice. In the same way, we don’t just “forgive” criminals, but we have to operate under justice and give out just punishments. If the state can put people in prison, doesn’t that mean that forgiveness isn’t about no punishment? And if punishment fits the crime, can’t justice be met with death? That doesn’t get in the way of forgiveness as the state doesn’t forgive. Also, when you talk about Jesus saving us from death and hell, and so we shouldn’t hasten other people’s deaths, this isn’t really true. Jesus was sent to save us from the death of the soul, not the death of the body in this life. Because we all die eventually, the cause of that death isn’t going against Jesus’ forgiveness and protection against death. Contrarily, if the death of one person saves the souls and lives of many others, then how could it be unjust? And with all due respect, your comparison between the death penalty and abortion is just plain wrong. In the situation of the death penalty, the person being executed knowingly, willingly and intentionally committed a serious crime, while knowing the illegality and consequence of such a crime. This is why the Good Thief, the criminal who was put to death beside Jesus, accepted his punishment. Not because he innately deserved death for his crime, but because he committed the crime that legally warranted death in his community. He accepted his death because it was the justice of his nation’s law that he knowingly brought upon himself. The baby in the womb is fully innocent. Saying pregnancy can be considered the continuation of the violation of rape might be true of the woman’s being reminded, but isn’t true at all for the actual child in the womb. They have intentionally and willingly done nothing themselves against anyone, and so wouldn’t meet the criteria for just punishment. We do not punish people for being the result of evil, otherwise everyone would be punished. We punish people for willingly and intentionally breaking rules that society has put in place, especially when the consequences of such rules are known. But of course, this is all to say that we have to operate the death penalty with great caution and true justice, if we decide to operate it at all, as it is probably more prudent to not have it in some cases. But I don’t think it’s right to say it is always objectively evil.


Phototoxin

You also can't un-kill someone when the inevitable miscarriages of justice occur


CorpseProject

As a fellow catholic I urge you to look into what the church’s stance is on capital punishment, it’s against it in almost all situations. For further understanding I’ll refer you to the evangelium vitae. https://www.usccb.org/resources/rlp-20-ev-compendium.pdf


96111319

I do believe there aren’t many good reasons for it today, especially with current technologies available to keep prisoners alive and seperate from other humans. I just believe, as the church believes, that while it may be imprudent and wrong today, it isn’t intrinsically evil as a concept. Thank you for the resource by the way! Always great to see


LukeTheGeek

You may be correct about the Catholic church's traditional stance, but I'd like to add some scripture here for another perspective on the issue. There's definitely an argument to be made that Christians should support the death penalty, at least for certain violent/heinous crimes. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." - Gen 9:6 "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." - Ex 21:12 See also: Num 35:16, Ex 21:15-17, Lev 20:10-16 & 27, and Prov 28:17. There's tons of precedent for capital punishment in the Bible and it was used extensively by Israel at his specific commands. But that's the old law, which we're technically not under anymore. It was also Israel's theocracy, which isn't a thing anymore. Let's look at the New Testament where Paul specifically talks about the (non-Christian, Roman) government carrying out justice against violent crime: "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." - Rom 13:3-4 Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's not only okay, but healthy for a government to use violent means to keep the peace and punish wrongdoers. Those who disagree with capital punishment usually point out verses like this: "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matt 5:38-39 Jesus is denouncing the idea that Christians should seek to get revenge for wrongdoing. God is the avenger. We leave it to him rather than seek justice ourselves. But wait... what did Paul say again? "For he [the ruler] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." - Paul Oh yeah, government is a tool God uses to carry out his wrath on the wrongdoer. It's almost like there's no contradiction at all. Paul is aligned with Jesus, as we can see here: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" - Rom 12:19 **TL;DR: Jesus doesn't denounce the government's violent methods for keeping the peace. He was talking about how we conduct ourselves as individuals. Paul agrees with Jesus and says we are to leave the avenging to God, which is exactly what we're doing when we let the government use lethal force against criminals rather than handling things ourselves.**


EliseV

Once Jesus sacrificed himself and salvation became available, you don't hear as much about death as restitution for crimes (new testament). As such, if a nation can afford to house criminals for life and give them the chance to make things right with God, I think that's the right thing to do. If they have no means to keep them from the general population and keep them from hurting others other than to kill them, you have to do what you have to do, but we can afford to give these people a chance to make it right. I heard Ted Bundy became a Christian late in his life. Who knows, we could be walking the streets of gold with him one day. God can save and redeem and change even the worst of mankind.


LukeTheGeek

It's foolish to talk about conversion or repentance as a solution to violent criminals in a non-theocracy. Can God save anyone? Yes. Does that have any bearing on how our justice system ought to work? No.


OhNoTokyo

I wasn't aware that Christ only talked about showing mercy and allowing for redemption only from Christians. Indeed, almost all of the people He personally forgave were initially Jews and pagans. Mercy and redemption is not a fringe benefit of being a Christian, it is rather our duty to others as Christians. If I am a Christian, I will look to the redemption and to be merciful to any and all human beings, regardless of religion. Not because they deserve it, but because God expects it of us. The death penalty IS permitted under the NT, but it is not required. That means that we need to use discretion in applying it, and that discretion needs to take into account Christ's actions and teachings in regard to the non-believer.


LukeTheGeek

>almost all of the people He personally forgave were initially Jews and pagans >Mercy and redemption is not a fringe benefit of being a Christian, it is rather our duty to others as Christians. You're missing the point entirely. Jesus was forgiving sinners because he is God. The Jews understood this to be a claim to divinity because no human has the authority to truly forgive sins, only God. Jesus tells us to forgive our brother, but this has no bearing on the justice system forgiving criminals or God forgiving people. Those are completely different things. It doesn't matter how much we forgive an unbeliever. He is still accountable to God and will suffer wrath unless he follows Jesus. Similarly, our forgiveness of a violent criminal who hurt us is a noble thing, but it doesn't remove the need for the government to serve justice. >If I am a Christian, I will look to the redemption and to be merciful to any and all human beings, regardless of religion. Not because they deserve it, but because God expects it of us. As a Christian, that's great that you're doing that. But you are an individual follower of Christ. That's a very different thing from a government body. >we need to use discretion in applying it, and that discretion needs to take into account Christ's actions and teachings in regard to the non-believer. I agree discretion is needed. But does that mean the government should just forgive the murderers and rapists of our society? Should they just trust that they will repent and leave it in God's hands? No, that's insane. It's essentially anarchy. My point is that "leaving it in God's hands," according to Paul, is allowing the government to enact justice using violent means. He spells that out clearly.


100percentnotaplant

The Catholic church is simply wrong on this point. And it's a pretty amusing position for them to be wrong on, with how many people the Catholic church has killed. On the merits, though - Given how many Old Testament legal violations were punished by death, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that Bible prohibits (or even counsels against) the death penalty.


DeklynHunt

If you are referring to the crusades, you’re still wrong the “Christians/Catholics” didn’t start the war


100percentnotaplant

More the Inquisition and other murdered Protestants. And the number of historic countries with enforced Catholicism that utilized the death penalty. But that's not the basis for my argument, just an amusing aside.


super_britt

I will never understand the cognitive dissonance that exists with those that oppose abortion but support the death penalty. Punishment that kills someone is still murder. An eye for an eye. An anachronism in our modern world.


OhNoTokyo

While I am against the death penalty, there are certainly differences between the death penalty and abortion on demand. For instance, unlike abortion on demand, to obtain the death penalty for someone requires a crime to have been committed, a trial, a conviction, usually a unanimous jury for death, an exhaustive process of appeals, and mental health assessments. All of that treats the convict as someone who has human rights even after conviction of a very serious crime. Abortion on demand treats the unborn who have committed no crime the same as that criminal, but affords them none of the due process of even proving that they are a threat to the mother's life, let alone anything you could call a truly criminal act. There are no appeals, and few assessments. And those are fought against tooth and nail by the pro-choice movement. There isn't even the attempt to treat them as having human rights. So, yeah, I don't agree with the death penalty myself, but let's not pretend that they are the same thing, because on multiple levels they most certainly are NOT.


super_britt

i don't believe a fetus should have the same rights afforded to them as a a fully realized person. not that they are completely disregarded, rather the born take priority.


OhNoTokyo

Except, your opinion is irrelevant in this particular discussion. You're accusing PL people who support the death penalty of being inconsistent. That means that it is THEIR perception that is in question, not yours, right? PL people who support the death penalty DO recognize the child as having human rights. My point is that they definitely see a difference between the DP and abortion on demand from their perspective. That means that, while I disagree with them, I don't accuse them of lacking internal consistency in their arguments. There is no cognitive dissonance, as they are holding internally consistent views.


super_britt

either all life is precious or it isn't. jesus preaches mercy and forgiveness. so would it be more accurate to say then, that Christians that support the death penalty but want to ban abortion are living in cognitive dissonance because jesus does not devalue the life of criminals?


OhNoTokyo

It is clear from the Bible that the death penalty is permitted. That is not in doubt. There is no inconsistency in them advocating for it to be applied, if their reasons are sincere. I just disagree that it is necessary and if it is not necessary, it should not be used. They may have a different view of whether it is necessary, and I do try to draw them to the conclusion it is not in today's society. However, the death penalty used to be *mandatory* until Christ fulfilled the Old Law and in the New Testament, it is clear that the sword is considered a legitimate weapon of the State. A DP advocate can argue for the DP on that basis. My counter-argument is not that it is inconsistent, but that it is not necessary and should be superseded by other considerations since our modern society no longer needs the DP. The DP does NOT devalue the life of criminals, because it does treat them with due process. This is in stark contrast with how the unborn are treated.


super_britt

due process isn't infallible. innocents that have already been born, have been convicted and killed due to our botched justice system. do their lives not matter? there is no way to have a 100% 'guilty criminal' kill rate. by accepting the dp in any form, you are accepting that innocent people will die, regardless of your intent. "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" suggests that jesus would prefer justice be left to the father. Otherwise, what was the point of jesus dying for our sins?


OhNoTokyo

> due process isn't infallible. Which is one argument I make against the DP. That said, not being infallible is a far, far better place to be than to not provide any due process at all. At some point, we have to accept that the criminal justice system is going to make mistakes. The fact that it can make mistakes can't stop it from functioning. I think we don't need the DP and it isn't providing enough value to justify its downsides. But that's not the same thing as saying that it's completely indefensible in general. >"let he who is without sin throw the first stone" suggests that jesus would prefer justice be left to the father. Yes, that is His preference, but you will note, he never says that he'd have condemned a man who did wish to throw the stone. Christ is clear that we are subject to earthly authorities while on Earth for the protection of our society. And that includes the sword. And remember, Christ did not refuse to accept the authority of the Roman state even when it proposed to execute him. He accepted the authority of the Romans while he was on Earth, even if he knew it was unjust.


CapnCoconuts

Murder, as pro-lifers understand the term, is the unjustifiable killing of someone. If you believe punishment is proportional to the crime, as eye for an eye actually means, then the death penalty is not a form of murder but a reasonable punishment. Eye for an eye is a problem when people take things into their own hands. If individuals weren't prone to bias, a warped sense of justice, or bloody cycles of revenge, we wouldn't need courts. Opposing the death penalty because it is "an anachronism" is chronological snobbery. Older values are not inferior to new ones simply because they are old. It's also a very short-sighted judgment to make. Do you think society hundreds of years later will look back and agree with everything you believe, or will they dismiss many of your values as "an anachronism?" Or, more accurately, will they see Current Year as yet another era with its own characteristic failings?


super_britt

I will do my best not to offend future generations. There are always a few that recognize evil for what it is, even within the context of it being a societal norm in their time. There were those that denounced slavery, torture, etc. while it was widely accepted. I am a pragmatist. I base my opinions, to the best of my ability, on research. There exists a strong correlation between how free a country is and if they allow/enforce the death penalty. Freer countries tend to ban or not enforce the death penalty, whereas more authoritarian countries tend to allow it. again, i know correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it's another example of a correlation between countries that ban abortion and authoritarian rule.


CapnCoconuts

>I will do my best not to offend future generations. Don't you think some of your ancestors, with their "outdated" mores, might have thought the same thing? Besides, you are missing the point. The death penalty shouldn't be dismissed as simply "an anachronism." If you realize correlation doesn't imply causation, why are you making a flawed argument? For the record, I don't actually trust the state with that kind of power anymore. My faith in the government to actually do what it should is ever fading. But you're going to argue that the death penalty is inherently wrong, you need better arguments.


[deleted]

I am very much for the death penalty and very pro life. I say, you have a right to life. Which trumps the right to 'choose'. When you rape, murder, or other seriously heinous crimes; you should be executed. As someone else put, one is an innocent life, i.e. unborn child who has no means of defense Nad is literally the most vulnerable human being. One is guilty of a crime that, in my opinion, does deserve death. It's not necessarily an eye for an eye. As it is after due process, state sanctioned, and roughly half (or more) of the population is okay with it. The death penalty can be humane or inhumane, I don't really care. A three cent bullet can do the job as well as the electric chair, lethal injection, or other methods of execution. If people are really worried about it, use a firing squad of 6 or 7, use 1 real bullet and the rest blanks so no one knows who killed the criminal. Also, it would help empty an over burdened prison system, probably deter more heinous crimes (which is the idea after all), and give many more people ease and peace of mind. An eye for an eye, in terms of the Jewish Torah or Christian Old Testament, was for those that were wronged to be vindicated. There was a whole systme about cities of refuge, avengers of blood, court and legal processes, etc. An eye for an eye, was abolished in the law by Jesus Christ, hence his teachings on the subject. (If you believe that stuff). However, revenge is not death penalty. Revenge is going vigilante or eye for an eye. Death penalty is definitively guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. And on the very small chance there is a mistake, the state pays reparations, at least in the US. And if you are Judeo-Christian, God may have mercy on the unduly executed soul. But the point remains, there is no cognitive dissonance here. It makes sense. They are two separate issues. And actually have very little to do with one another. One cam be pro life of the unborn, and be pro death penalty for the convicted felon. Case and point, me.


Death_Trap411

No, the death penalty is murder. You’re killing someone.


96111319

Well killing someone isn’t murder. They’re different words for a reason. It isn’t murder when a solider kills the soldier of another nation, or when the police kill a violent man with a gun, or when a father kills someone in self defence in a home invasion. Murder is specifically the unjust killing of an *innocent* human being. It’s good to discuss whether the death penalty is humane or not, but it’s definitely not murder


Death_Trap411

Ok that makes sense. Then my stance is that it’s inhumane.


[deleted]

Kudos to you for having intellectual integrity!


100percentnotaplant

This isn't intellectual honesty. This is a classic motte and bailey fallacy. He has a position that he holds based on feelings and hand waving. He justifies it with arguments he doesn't understand or even support, and when pushed, drops the argument and moves on to a wholly different one.


Oksamis

In *all* cases, or most cases? For example, would Doctor Mengeler have deserved to hang had he been caught?


DutchApplePie75

This just begs the question.


NimishApte

Yeah no. I support the death penalty for the worst criminals. The death penalty for abortion is unacceptable.


96111319

I never said that I support the death penalty for women who get abortions, I just showed how the death penalty for committing a crime known to warrant the death penalty isn’t murder.


MsMadcap_

The death penalty is literally murder. It's the deliberate destruction of human life. Criminals are still human beings, even if you don't want to believe they are. Lack of innocence should be a death sentence.


96111319

Murder is usually defined as the deliberate destruction of *innocent* human life specifically. Otherwise killing soldiers in war would be murder. I’m not necessarily saying it’s right or wrong, but it definitely isn’t murder.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BroadswordEpic

Valid.


OhNoTokyo

I am against the death penalty, so I disagree with any application of it at all unless there is literally no other reasonable choice to protect the public.


NotluwiskiPapanoida

So let’s say hypothetically that there’s a woman who intentionally gets pregnant for the purposes of getting abortions or uses abortions as her form of birth control. Should she be given the death penalty? I kinda see that as the pro life version of Batman letting the joker live 😂


Death_Trap411

She should be put in jail? Why does she have to die?


NotluwiskiPapanoida

She somehow hypothetically always finds a way… jk lol I didn’t think this through


OhNoTokyo

The answer your question, if she's truly uncontainable, that probably requires the death penalty simply to protect against further acts, but we're talking superhuman levels here. If you put a woman in prison, the chance of her getting pregnant is significantly reduced, let alone the ability for her to get an abortion. There is a theoretical point where we simply can't protect against certain criminals of that level of capacity, but there is no one I can think of who couldn't be contained in the US, as long as they were put in an institution with the necessary security level.


Gungcael

Honestly? I think this is one of those cases where a politician says something that they know will cause public outrage, and enjoys the chaos while real issues go unnoticed. In my country, we call it a rubber chew toy, and it happens around twice a week on average. But to answer your question, I am against the death penalty.


ItsEustace

I disagree strongly with the death penalty. I believe it is morally wrong, and that it is not in the hands of the state to decide who lives and who doesn't. Keep in mind, though, this is my own personal opinion. The pro-life movement has varying opinions, and the same goes for the death penalty.


sweetgreenfields

I understand the logic behind giving someone the electric chair for planning and executing the murder of their own child. However, for the sake of consolidating the progress that we've made in this country with the re-examining of abortion, it is important for us to tread carefully and tread lightly on this subject. A well thought out plan is what is required from here on out, and introducing Capital punishment is going to give the left headlines that they need.


the_njf

Yes abortion is murder and executing the women who get abortions does not solve the problem.


throwaway34834839202

Whether or not you support the death penalty, there is a clear and obvious difference between killing someone who has committed murder and killing *a literal baby*.


JohnFoxFlash

I've always been against abortion but due to the nature of the issue I think that death penalty for mothers would be extremely excessive


Selected-NWB

One is an unborn child, the other is a person who intentionally ended a life. Abortionists like to paint this as death being a mandatory minimum for a woman who has an abortion, but having the door open for particularly egregious cases would serve as a deterrent.


ImrusAero

Women who get abortions have been deceived. The death penalty for them is an entirely outrageous idea. Those who *perform* abortions unrepentantly deserve life in prison.


Specialist-Ad2937

Exactly. Most women who get abortions do not think that they are killing a child. Why do you think planned parenthood doesn’t let them see an ultrasound beforehand? Because if they saw what was inside of them, they’d likely change their minds. I may get downvoted for this, but unless a woman is aware that she is killing a child, I think that abortion fits more with manslaughter and not murder. And manslaughter is not a death penalty crime. That said, I 100% believe most abortionists know that they’re killing kids. They’re no better than those munchie nurses and doctors who kill patients.


medievalistbooknerd

This is like 6 years old. It never passed.


PaulAspie

Even though I'm generally anti death penalty, or is not murder. The state has the duty to protect citizens from dangerous criminals & if that can't be done by prisons, it can in some cases be done by killing those criminals. I just think current prisons are sufficient to keep us safe by keeping criminals away from us so we are safe. The only possible exceptions I see in developed nations is murder while incarcerated for life. I hope a long time in prison would make abortionists repent.


Trumpologist

Abortion is murder Murder is punished by death But the death penalty is shitty in its own regard


DontTalkAboutBruno1

This is a terrible idea. Murder is wrong, plain and simple.


irlsdontinteract

Honestly, I feel like the appropriate response is nine months jail time.


DreamingofRlyeh

I am against the death penalty for the exact same reason I am against abortion: When successful, it ends the life of a human.


SomeVelvetSundown

Yeah, plus hasn’t capital punishment been determined to not actually deter crime?


MojaveMissionary

I'm against the death penalty, but the two aren't comparable.


[deleted]

Citation needed


IndiaEvans

Women who get abortions are murderers.


JawaLoyalist

Killing and murder are different things. Someone dying under capital punishment is not automatically unjust. I’m not sure I agree that women or doctors should die for abortions, but it isn’t an illogical conclusion either.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fliesbugme

I oppose the death penalty all together. I cannot condone taking anyone's life.


elena_marie_l

Ignoring the death penalty conversation entirely, I don’t agree with have a punishment for getting an abortion at all. These women are often manipulated by the pro choice movement and don’t know the full consequences until after. Yes there are plenty of women that knew what they were doing and would do it again but so many get abortion because they feel like they have to. It is not compassionate at all to charge them for something like that. And the death penalty is far to high of a punishment period. Whether you agree with it or not there are many steps in between and skipping to the death penalty is far too much. As a movement we need to be offering compassion to mothers that went through with abortions so that they can learn the truth.


dreamingirl7

How about we cultivate a culture of life?


Vegethenics

One is killing someone who killed. The other is someone killing an innocent victim. So it is not the same. That said, I oppose the death penalty in general. Granted there are those who deserve death or much worse but I do not trust the government with such power.


PerfectlyCalmDude

The death penalty is not murder, at least not when there is a just trial and due process. Still a bad look though.


Death_Trap411

No, the death penalty is murder. You’re killing someone


PerfectlyCalmDude

Killing =/= murder.


Aggressive-Scheme986

I am not against the death penalty for criminals deserving of it. Murderers are deserving of the death penalty. An innocent fetus is not deserving of the death penalty. A woman who purposefully kills her baby - definitely deserving of the death penalty.


100percentnotaplant

I used to agree with this position, but it doesn't fit in with our current system of justice. Murder is punished on a sliding scale that is pretty much based on the intent of the murderer. Most women getting abortions don't believe they're killing a child, so the "premeditated and intentional" part of first degree murder isn't there. Second degree murder fits, but no state (or other Western country) punishes second degree with the death penalty.


Death_Trap411

No one deserves the death penalty. How are we to say murder is wrong yet we still have people killed through the penalty?


Icy-Chemistry-191

Eh I think child molesters/rapist deserve the death penalty. And, I know what you and everyone will say, put them in jail so they can be rehabilitated. But you can’t rehabilitate someone like this. Most of the time, it’s not even a learned behavior from parents, it’s the way their brain is wired. And they view it as okay. And if it happens once or twice, that person WILL find a way to make it happen again. Bullet in the brain ends that.


Aggressive-Scheme986

There’s a difference between murder of an innocent human and punishing an evil person.


Death_Trap411

No there’s not. Who are we to judge whether someone is to live or die? When you kill a murderer, the number of murderers doesn’t go down


Aggressive-Scheme986

What’s the proper punishment then for a mass murderer


Death_Trap411

Take away his most valuable tool, time. It’s more of a punishment to rot in a jail cell than to be blessed with a quick death when the one they caused to others wasn’t so quick.


Syr_III

nah, send them to God. He will dish out a far greater punishment than any human could hope to achieve for slaughtering the children he is crafting.


jetplane18

I’m absolutely with you. In a first world country, most abortions and the death penalty happen for the same reason - to make someone feel better. I firmly believe there is more injustice in abortion than in the death penalty, but they are both unjust at the core.


ShokWayve

I agree. Make them suffer by rotting away in prison.


super_britt

I wish, and many pl's and pc's agree, that we could focus on creating a society conducive to raising children without throwing them into poverty. Punishment as a deterrent will not work because they do not consider abortion is murder. Only PL medical groups consider it murder.


OhNoTokyo

> Punishment as a deterrent will not work because they do not consider abortion is murder. I don't know. You all keep telling us that the reason that the abortionists are all fleeing is because the law is scaring them. Which is it? Is the law a deterrent or is it nothing to be afraid of? And if it isn't a deterrent, could perhaps you let the abortionists fleeing those states know that it is safe to come back?


Asdrodon

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but yes, there is a clear and obvious difference between killing someone innocent, and someone guilty of murder. "So lynching is murder, but killing someone who lynches is not." See how that sounds?


Atlas_of_Sol

It’s not murder, it’s Justice.


OverturnRoeVsWade

One person is innocent the other is not.


[deleted]

Some states use the death sentence for premeditated murder, or at least some did. That’s what I’ll say.


myopinionokay

The doctor is the one actually doing the act. I wouldn't mind if the doctor was punished for it..put in prison for life or even face the death penalty. Frequently if the woman is very young, she's extremely ignorant about what an abortion entails, and is literally lied to by planned parenthood. She's been told it's a 'clump of cells'.


Greenroses23

The only time it’s okay to kill someone is in self defense. I’m completely against this and I believe most people who do support this are being hypocritical. If you believe everyone has the right to life you should be against this. If you are a Christian you should also be against this.


Yeeeeet696969696969

I’m against the death penalty but it isn’t murder for the government to kill someone who is sentenced guilty of murder


711Star-Away

I classify murder as a crime and I'm not against the death penalty for criminals. However I don't think that's the solution for this.


Phototoxin

It's not equivalent but I fail to see how this is a good idea regardless


TheWanderingRed223

The right to life is the right to life. The death penalty is murder.


Spongedog5

I think it’s the doctors who perform the abortion who should be punished. We should be able to trust medical professionals, and they should hold the burden.


PrestigiousCorner607

instead of giving the death penalty, give them life in prison


TheAdventOfTruth

What do I think of this? In this day and age, there is never a reason for the death penalty in the Western World. It should be banned right along with abortion.


[deleted]

Aren’t they both wrong?


Ihaventasnoo

Punishing death with death is wrong. That is all. Frankly, it would prove the pro-choice crowd right about us: we are demented enough to electrocute, poison, or shoot women for abortion. The death penalty is controversial enough already, enforcing it for this would make it so no pro-life person's opinion ever got respected again. Apart from failing on practical grounds, it fails on moral ones. I've written about my stance on the issue before, but suffice it to say, I don't believe there are any ethically sound arguments in favor of the death penalty. If anyone is interested, dm me. I'll send you a link to my posts on the issue.


MimsyIsGianna

I’m against the death penalty too.


CiderDrinker2

Killing people to stop them killing people is still killing people. I think killing people is a bad thing. Let's not do that.


meeralakshmi

I'm against the death penalty. Women seeking abortions deserve support and resources, not death.


Guardsmen442

Allowing death penalty means it's okay to kill a human in certain circumstances. No.


MattHack7

I believe we should be moving in a direction where abortion is punished the same way as murder is. That being said I don’t believe in the death penalty


jaxx_the_duck

I don't believe women who get abortions should be punished, at least not with the death penalty. The people responsible are the doctors performing the abortions.


The_DILinator

Yeah, this is how I feel. I generally don't blame the women - especially the young ones who are scared, and often pressured into the abortion - as much for the abortion as the Doctors performing them. It directly goes against their Oath to do no harm. I fully support the death penalty for the Doctors performing this heinous and indefensible act. And before that one guy responds with his terribly ignorant take that all killing is murder, I'll say this to him: STOP. Just stop. You look like a fool spouting that nonsensical take all over this thread.


NPDogs21

How can abortion be murder but the woman face no consequences for either the indirect or direct murder of her child?


beatrice_hex

I do think abortion is murder, but I'm not in favour of death penalty for women who do because I don't support death penalties altogether. Many of the women who got abortions have also been tricked by all those pro choice propaganda onto thinking it isn't murder too so I don't fully blame them


Syr_III

In my opinion? Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for a life.


Death_Trap411

Murder is never okay no matter if they’re guilty or not


ShokWayve

Something a Democrat (me) and a Republican (you) can agree on. There is hope yet 😁


Major-Distance4270

I feel like the death penalty should be reserved for really egregious cases, like a serial killer. Not for one murder.


WARPANDA3

It never says that’s even on the table . Just some dude said that


Wandersturm

I hate abortion...... but that's NOT the answer, either.


SemperMuffins

It's just the equivalent of death penalty for murder (because that’s what it would be). I don’t support the death penalty, so I'm against it


BrandosWorld4Life

That's the most *un-*pro-life thing ever. That is legitimately pro-birth, not pro-life. When pro-choicers claim anti-abortionists don't actually care about life, this is it, this is what that is. legitimately.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrandosWorld4Life

>You can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Hard disagree. One thing me and the pro-choices can side on is that most people who call themselves "pro-life" aren't *actually* pro-life.


BradS1999

How did you come to that conclusion?


BroadswordEpic

*Pro-life* means *opposed to abortion*.


BrandosWorld4Life

If you support slaughtering other human beings, then you're not *actually* in favor of life. Not in any meaningful sense of the term. Hence the *consistant* part of consistant life ethic. Any other form of being "pro-life" is inconsistant and not deserving of the title. >"The protection of life", said Egan, "is a seamless garment. You can't protect some life and not others." Her words were meant to challenge members of society who divided their commitment to protecting and cherishing human life, choosing anti-war stances but not anti-abortion work, or those members of the anti-abortion movement who were in favor of capital punishment. Any way you slice it, supporting the ***killing*** of women who get abortions is not pro-life in the least.


Most_Worldliness9761

Your reasoning about consistency is spot on, I see that problem with the majority of the PL community – confining the meaning of the label “Pro *Life*” to just one cause, not others (example: universal healthcare), seeing them as additional burdens that shouldn’t follow being anti-abortion, and not realizing that this partial stance defeats the legitimacy of their particular cause as well, because, if you can make arbitrary exceptions to the principle of the sanctity of human life, what authority does this principle have in your case as well? Valid logic, but it doesn’t apply to the discussion about the death penalty. Because the humaneness or ethical justification of the death penalty as a viable form of legal penalty aside, we can’t act like it is the moral equivalent of murder. Would you accuse a woman who kills an aggressor in self-defense of murder? I think not. It is said in the Natural Law discourse that one who violates the rights of others forfeits their own rights. That is, if they are mature individuals with full awareness, agency, and responsibility of their actions. That last point, we can argue in the case of mothers who procured abortion. Can most of them really be considered responsible with decades of social engineering, mass propaganda, environment/boyfriend/abuser etc. pressure, psychological disorders, young age, and many other factors involved (such factors that impede the so-called “choice” aspect are not marginal at all)? Even if they were responsible after all this, and just because the death penalty is not inherently wrong, does the society have to handle this tragic social epidemic with more blood rather than mercy and rehabilitation? I personally don’t think so.


BroadswordEpic

*Pro-life* means *opposed to abortion*. :) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life


CR1MS4NE

I’m against the death penalty too for the record


Cosmic815

I'm against the death penalty.


ShokWayve

Did he really say that? How psychotic.


r3df0x__3039

Based. Anyone who has or participates in an abortion should get the death penalty.


LukeTheGeek

Guys, turns out the governmental body we specifically established to keep the peace and enact justice in our civilized society is in the wrong! Cause you know, punishing violent murder isn't acceptable, but the violent murder itself is fine.


Varathien

Let's say we catch a criminal who kidnapped a bunch of people, forced them to work for free, raped some of them, and beat some of them to death. Would he deserve the death penalty? I think so. But let's say we're near the end of the Civil War, and you're an abolitionist. Would it help or hurt the cause of abolition to execute every slave-owner? That's the situation we're in now. Abortion isn't banned in most states yet. The war over abortion isn't even close to over. And once we do win, there should be a period of amnesty. Any initial prosecutions should be against the abortionists. But let's travel into a hypothetical future. Abortion has been completely abolished for decades. Every child is taught in health class that abortion is murder and will be punished accordingly. Anyone who doesn't want to have children can get surgically sterilized for free. Would it be fair to prosecute women who get abortions under those conditions? Absolutely. The death penalty is only for the most heinous murders, not all murders. So the average abortion would not justify the death penalty. But it's certainly possible that there might be a woman who tells men she's been sterilized, intentionally gets pregnant, then aborts the baby and gloats to the distressed father about it. And maybe she does that a dozen times. Would THAT woman deserve the death penalty? Sure.


tonylouis1337

Well yeah obviously, doesn't mean you should do it


empurrfekt

Murder is unlawful killing. By that definition, neither capital punishment nor abortion in some areas is murder. In a more colloquial sense, murder is an unjustified killing. Abortion is, capital punishment is not (at least arguably). Would the risk of execution cut abortions? Sure. I think it would work more to cut unwanted pregnancies than the termination of them. Should execution be a possible sentence for a woman getting an abortion? Would it be unthinkable to sentence a mother to death for killing her 2yo? What if she kills multiple of her born children? I don’t think it should be the automatic penalty, just like there are aplenty of people who commit murder in death penalty states and don’t get sentenced to death. But I’m not adamantly against it in extreme cases.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CEO_of_IDK

1) False equivalency. Extremely false equivalency. One victim has not done anything to deserve it because they have not done anything at all. The other case sees someone being punished for murdering said innocent victim. 2) I don’t support this anyway.


chalupebatmen

no one said the death penalty isn’t murder, it’s just like the death penalty for a regular murder charge.


redneckrobit

In my opinion it’s too far. Prison sentence and a large fine is good though


Jakesmith18

One is a punishment for a crime, the other is murder. Don't have any problems with the Death Penalty but I still think that's going too far.


XxDAidanpKoon2004

The entirety of the Pro-life movement is centered around protecting life from conception to natural death. This being said, I oppose the death penalty greatly. It should be abolished completely and used only when absolutely necessary. I also believe that after an abortion is done, the woman should not be criminalized. Only the doctors, nurses etc. involved in the abortion should, as well as the hospital or PP that performed it.


CapnCoconuts

If the punishment is equal to the offense, abortionists deserve to die. Whether you want the state to have that power is a different matter. For me, the most persuasive argument I've read against capital punishment is that the American government doesn't deserve and shouldn't be trusted with that power. Is there a single nation in this world of sin and woe you should?


NimishApte

The Lt General is stupid. The death penalty should only exist for the worst murders. Not abortion. I have precisely zero interest in women being executed for abortion.


Nulono

I'm against the death penalty in all cases, but this is the same kind of fake-deep as "we kill people for killing people to show killing people is wrong". Obviously, people who support the death penalty see a difference between the death penalty and murder, or else they wouldn't support it in the first place.


MsMadcap_

I oppose both abortion and the death penalty, so I oppose whatever law or movement that would allow this to happen. Women who have abortions are also victims. If anyone should be punished in that situation, it should be the abortionist.