I am Pro-Life and Anti Death Penalty. I won't speak for others on the death penalty. That's for their conscience.

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to the lack of responses to my question. I would think that those who proclaim that it should be illegal would jump all over this one.

 

Maybe I should ask again:

 

Actually, I was addressing your query in post #42. State law sould dictate the crime, if any, (assuming no Roe v Wade) and, if someone breaks that law, the punishment would be whatever is provided by the applicalbe state statute.

 

Once the crime and punishment are defined, I would say the offending party (doctor; woman; or doctor and woman) would be subject to the law. It should be "assumption of the risk" or "you do the crime, you serve the time". Sounds reasonable to me.

If you believe that abortion is wrong(as I do) AND believe that it should be a punishable crime (I don't) and you equate it to murder, are you then saying that a person who has an abortion should be punished like one who commits murder?

 

Actually, I was addressing your query in post #42. State law sould dictate the crime, if any, (assuming no Roe v Wade) and, if someone breaks that law, the punishment would be whatever is provided by the applicalbe state statute.

 

Once the crime and punishment are defined, I would say the offending party (doctor; woman; or doctor and woman) would be subject to the law. It should be "assumption of the risk" or "you do the crime, you serve the time". Sounds reasonable to me.

 

Lets make it simpler then so you can express your opinion. You're voting on KY state law that says "yes or no - women who have abortions should be treated exactly like those that murder."

 

Yes or no?

I find it hard to believe that there are folks who truly believe that innocent people have NEVER been executed.

 

Just for fun...

 

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." There are no innocent people.

Lets make it simpler then so you can express your opinion. You're voting on KY state law that says "yes or no - women who have abortions should be treated exactly like those that murder."

 

Yes or no?

The woman - No. The Doctor - maybe.

Lets make it simpler then so you can express your opinion. You're voting on KY state law that says "yes or no - women who have abortions should be treated exactly like those that murder."

 

Yes or no?

 

There is not a scintilla of a chance that such a law would be considered in this day and age. If abortion were made a crime in Kentucky, it would be a much lesser charge- probably a Class D Felony or a Class C Felony at the worst- and the charge would be against the doctor and not the woman.

 

Personally, though it would never happen, I would support a law charging the doctor who performed the abortion (murdered the child) with murder. Again, the doctor would have advance notice that, if he performed the abortion, he would face a murder charge. We would not be dealing with a ex post facto law. It sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

 

As for the woman, her degree of involvement in the abortion would dictate how she is handled by the legal system. However, she is certainly not an innocent party and should be charged with being an accessory to the murder or something of that sort. Again, like the doctor, she has advance notice of the consenquences of her act and has been forewarned. I would certainly vote to have her held accountable.

 

In murder cases, my allegience is always with the victim. Not with the perpetrator(s). I find no real difference here.

 

If the woman wants freedom of choice, let her then choose to conduct her affairs so as not to become pregnant. Once she chooses to allow herself to become pregnant, there is an innocent party in the picture and she should lose her freedom of choice.

 

As I have stated before, my position on abortion, as well as on capital punishment, has nothing to do with religious considerations.

Doesn't change the meaning of the words.

mur·der ~ To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy.

You tell me how you think they don't forfeit their right when they've decided to do the above.

Show me that a human cannot make a mistake, and I will be for the death penalty. Until then, I will let God decide when people exit this earth.

You made this statement, and I merely pointed out that God already had decided. He told us exactly how we should deal with murderers.

 

You cant pick and choose what Mosaic Laws to follow, if you are going to follow that one. Then you shouldnt be eating shellfish, because that is considered unclean by Mosaic Law.

Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing? Picking and choosing?

 

You know, there’s a lot of wisdom in the Mosaic Laws. There are a number of bad things we can contract by eating shellfish, even in our enlightened day and age, and with our advanced cooking methods. A particularly nasty illness is Paralytic shellfish poisoning. If you’re interested, you can read all about it at: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic528.htm

 

The point of all this is that Mosaic Law is filled with practical insights that went beyond the science of the day. It is apparent that Moses was indeed hearing from a source higher than man’s wisdom alone.

 

If shellfish is still dangerous 4,000 years after Moses told us not to eat it… maybe, just maybe God meant what he said about how we should deal with murderers.

Of course, your idyllic situation works if you go with the assumption that there is never a crooked cop, prosecutor or judge.

 

Again, the system works by allowing years for things like that to come out. If a crooked cop, judge or prosecutor get an innocent man convicted and he is sentenced to life without parole how is that any better? In both cases they will leave prison in a casket.

You're kidding, right? You don't really believe the justice system is 100 percent correct in getting the right person, do you?

 

The statement was made that there was proof that MANY people had been executed that were innocent. Surely if that proof existed it would be readilly available. I don't believe that proof exists that MANY innocent people have been executed.

Show me that a human cannot make a mistake, and I will be for the death penalty. Until then, I will let God decide when people exit this earth.

 

So you oppose abortion as well? What is your opinion on euthanasia?

The statement was made that there was proof that MANY people had been executed that were innocent. Surely if that proof existed it would be readilly available. I don't believe that proof exists that MANY innocent people have been executed.

 

Then please define the term "many," the way you see it. Given its status as a subjective term, kind of hard to put a number on it. Sort of like "a lot."

mur·der ~ To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy.

You tell me how you think they don't forfeit their right when they've decided to do the above.

 

Yet nothing in that definition of "murder" changes anything about how the definition of "death" still constitutes the cessation or absence of life, thereby making people who say they support the death penalty but also consider themselves "pro-life" completely contradictory.

 

Just call it what it is. That's all I'm asking. Words are important tools that lose their meaning and effectiveness when bandied about in a loose, sloppy and incorrect manner, the way folks in the "pro-life" movement did when selecting a convenient name that was less tedious and easier to chant than "anti-abortion."

Your source is an anti-death penalty organization.

 

And the source where "pro-lifers" get their 3,500 abortions performed every day and other eye-popping terms that seem pulled out of thin air I'm sure are from an anti-abortion organization. So where does that leave us? Are both questionable?

Yet nothing in that definition of "murder" changes anything about how the definition of "death" still constitutes the cessation or absence of life, thereby making people who say they support the death penalty but also consider themselves "pro-life" completely contradictory.

 

Just call it what it is. That's all I'm asking. Words are important tools that lose their meaning and effectiveness when bandied about in a loose, sloppy and incorrect manner, the way folks in the "pro-life" movement did when selecting a convenient name that was less tedious and easier to chant than "anti-abortion."

I would be happy to see "anti-abortion" substituted for "pro-life." Would you be happy if the media consistently referred to people who advocate abortion rights to be identified as "pro-abortion?" Why do you think that the pro-abortion crowd chose to refer to themselves as "pro-choice?" Might the reason have been to avoid conjuring up the horrific bloody mental images that accompany the word and practice of abortion?