I am 100% pro-life, unless we're talking about capital punishment, in which case I am 100% pro-death.
116 comments
In the immortal words of Mudhoney(Fearless Doctor Killers):
"I'm all for life, until the bastard's born, after that he's out on his own, and if he does crime, tryin' to survive, I'll make damn sure he gets electrified!"
Then you are for abortion, but only late term. Very late term:D.
"America - the nation that defends all life, as long as it's embryonic" :P .
I must disagree with everyone here. I find nothing contradictory in his statement (though his use of "pro-life" and "pro-death" is actually causing me physical pain to read). My reasoning is as follows:
Abortion is banned, as per this individual's wishes. Many women will still have abortions illegally, as was the case before it was legalized. "Back-alley abortions" are of notoriously poor quality, and many women will suffer complications/die. This last bit is hard to get around for those who oppose both abortion and the death penalty, but for anyone who supports only the latter, there is no such conflict.
Is my reasoning sound?
This last bit is hard to get around for those who oppose both abortion and the death penalty, but for anyone who supports only the latter, there is no such conflict.
You appear to be making the unstated assumption that death from illegal abortions is justified on the same basis as criminal execution. I don't see the equivalence. A woman who dies from a botched abortion hasn't been tried before a jury and convicted and sentenced under the law. Her death (or survival) is the random result of an inept medical procedure.
OK, I can understand how people think that unborn children should be saved and grown adult criminals should be dead, because it's all got to do with who's innocent.
Of the two, most would say that the baby would be more innocent, so it should therefore live. Even so, I'm not in favor of making a woman go through a pregnancy if she doesn't want to, or kill criminals. Maybe in absolute extreme cases where they're proved to be so dangerous, that no one would benefit from them being around.
I still Nth the Non-Contradiction award.
What about cases where innocent people are condemned to death? What about the glaring inconsistency in the number of white prisoners on death row versus black prisoners? Capital punishment has not been shown to prevent violent crime, it correlates with an increase in violent crime. And it's fucking expensive to boot.
I see an uncomfortable parallel with punishing convicted murderers and punishing pregnant women for having sex. Brent said it himself in that thread: "Live by the Sword, die by the Sword. Or, they reap what they sow."
I think that then, you´re only selectively pro-life, like pro-choice people, for that matter. Only that they at least admit it.
@flipper
So 100%pro-life + 100%pro-death = 0! Yep that's about right!
Um... how does 100%pro-life + 100%pro-death = 1
I'm an atheist who actually agrees with the comment. I lean towards pro-life, but I am also for the death penalty.
There is no contradiction there. An unborn child is innocent, and has done nothing deserving of being killed for. A convict on death-row is guilty, and has done something deserving of being killed for. (I realize our justice system is not perfect. The possibility of innocent people being found guilty in our system of justice is a different conversation. Many oppose the death penalty for reasons other than just the possibility of innocent people being executed.)
Also, the main reason the Death Penalty sucks is becuase it's simply more expensive than keeping a prisoner locked up for life. At least a living convict has a chance to rehabilitate, even if it's a small chance. Dead people can't change. But I state the obvious here.
andd 100% pro-stupidity
w00t comment #69
yh baby ^_^
*puts hand to head in shame and embarrassment* I might be pro-choice and pro-capital punishment, but these are the worst kind of fundies, the contradicting kind. Oh wait, they're all like this... *walks to corner and cries*
(Get) Bent aka OP: I suggest you re-read the wonderful sentence you wrote. And with it, play an age old game: What's wrong with that sentence?
this is too good.
too good to be true.
Well, given that the two is the difference between killing an unborn child and someone who's had a chance at life...
I can see where they got that idea. It's not that sharp a contradiction.
a grouping of cells diserves more rights than someone with a possible family and actual experiences and everything else that is considered "life".
What if the baby becomes a murderer?
Note- I do support capital punishment but I can't tollerate the stupidity of "pro-life"
America is the ONLY "developed", industrialised western country that pracitses tthe death penalty.
If an American commits multiple murders in another country, he/she can walk freely in the USA with little fear of prosecution. Wonder why we are regarded with low esteem by the other 95.4% of the human race, who live on the other 97.8% of this planets landmass?
I can't fathom the idiocy in this forum. Does anyone here comprehend that pro-life means you're anti-abortion? It doesn't mean you're for living in general, it means you're against abortion. So to say it's a contradiction, is simply ignorant.
The thing that seperates capital punishment and abortion, is innocence. You would rather see an innocent child (getting no chance at life) die over a guilty man (who raped and murdered a woman, for the sake of the argument) die? That's just fucking disgusting.
Re: Last post
1) No, anti-abortionists have hijacked & have effctively "twisted" this term in order to justify their beliefs.
Us more tolerant posters on this forum, are merely using the original, pre-hijack definition of "pro-life"...
2) Technically, there's no such thing as a "innocent child" as according to Xtian doctrine, they're considered
"tainted" by the concept of Original Sin at the moment of their Conception..
Incedentally, according to organisations such as Amnesty International, the U.S has executed children under the age of 18, & is currently the only country to do so, thus contrubuting to the U.S'es dire "Human Rights" record... (The only other major country to do so, the People's Republic of China, has now stopped doing so...).
1) G.Fieendish, so what you're telling me, is that every "tolerant" person on this forum is manipulating what he's trying to say in order to ridicule him? You understand what he is saying, but change it to what you want to hear? And the fact that you use "tolerant" disgusts me. Do you even know what this website is about?
2) Wait...are you seriously arguing with Biblical doctrine? LAWL, irony.
Re: FF's Reply to my last post
1) Hmmm, a clear case of "Pot calling the Kettle Black"..
2) I'm quoting/paraphrasing St.Augustine's rebuttal of the Pelegan or Morganic Heresy, which was proposed by the Welsh Heretic, Morgan in 660AD..
As such, I am not arguing with Biblical Doctrine, you are, & as such, are endangering your very soul...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.