Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

axeville t1_j91c79v wrote

Awkward position for the pro life crowd to have to explain

6

Waterwebgrasshopper OP t1_j91hmrp wrote

The people you're thinking about are not actually pro-life, just pro-birth. They don't care what happens after birth.

9

Adorable-Spirit-1505 t1_j91jq86 wrote

Not quite. I understand Reddit is primarily a left-wing platform, so I will tread lightly and try to be as clear and concise as possible to explain.

You can be both pro-life and pro death penalty in a legal sense. Pro-life in common vernacular today means you are opposed to abortion because it is murder. This means a pro-life person equates abortion with murder, so we have to define murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice and/or aforethought. A person who commits mass murder or s*xual assault and is convicted of it in a court of his/her peers and is sentenced to death would by definition not be an “unlawful killing”. Conversely, the killing of a child in the womb would fit the bill of not only premeditated, but unlawful since the child did not have its day in court and thus would be considered innocent since it was not proven guilty.

Personally, I believe in protecting life from the beginning until the natural death, but that is due to faith reasons. You can support the death penalty and be against the murder of children all while being logically and legally consistent.

If you want me to be honest, I always found this to awkward for the pro-choice side. They seem pretty gung-ho about saving the lives of people convicted of the most heinous crimes possible instead of children who have not only no ability to commit the crimes mentioned, but also no ability to speak in their own defense. I respect the desire for forgiveness, but I do not think the fair route is redirecting the violence towards those with nothing yet to forgive.

I am happy to hear your thoughts.

−8

tLoKMJ t1_j925bzv wrote

> I am happy to hear your thoughts.

Your reasoning seems to contradict itself since you hinge your definition on the idea of lawful/unlawful. So on one end you're saying that executions are fine because it's legal to carry them out, but abortion is not because it's "unlawful" in your opinion... despite the actual laws at this time.

6

axeville t1_j91n1q1 wrote

I'll just let your lengthy complicated faith based response rest as is.

5

Adorable-Spirit-1505 t1_j91okcf wrote

Okay, thanks! Have a good day.

−3

axeville t1_j91sca5 wrote

I respect your beliefs.

I don't believe a fetus is human w rights before they exit the womb. I believe medical professionals are best qualified to make decisions involving health and human life. Moral and ethical considerations they make daily.

You can respect mine by not passing legislation that restricts my beliefs. There is a huge right wing industry built upon grass roots efforts to take my rights away and restrict my beliefs.

4

axeville t1_j92g0ps wrote

See how easy it is to respect someone else's beliefs.

Please advise the GOP there is no assault on christianity. It's folks pressing their right to choose not to be Christian, or religious at all, that are the troublemakers and their rights are as expressly protected as any in the "original" constitution the Supreme Court claims to interpret strictly.

1

insofarincogneato t1_j92d9l4 wrote

Your only written argument is legality as if that gives weight to morality and your faith based belief is irrelevant because it doesn't give you the right to infringe on others beliefs.

Also, fetuses aren't "children". They do not have personhood.

Your religious beliefs are political propaganda and there are no holy texts that says anything about the personhood of fetuses. Not that you've actually read it.

Fucking. Next.

3

AbsentEmpire t1_j92ek2h wrote

>Personally, I believe in protecting life from the beginning until the natural death, but that is due to faith reasons.

OK cool, so you're in favor of providing cradle to grave health care, food, and shelter on the tax payers dime then?

2