Why are pro lifers for the death penalty and

...why are pro choicers against it?

Need some good arguments here.

Think deeper on this one. Not just the typical argument from each side: "criminals are bad, babies aren't" or "a fetus isn't a human".

The two issues are very distantly relating, I don't think they should be compared at all. The death penalty is essentially about what you think the role of the prison system should be. Generally speaking, if you support the death penalty then you probably think prison exists to punish people, death being the ultimate punishment. If you're against it, you probably think that the goal of the prison system is to reform people and executing someone because they cannot function in society without killing someone is a stark failure of the system akin to sweeping trash under the rug.

Er, because criminals on Death Row have committed the ultimate crime, and only by their deaths can the scales of justice be balanced.

Whereas an unborn baby is an innocent whose sole crime is to be an inconvenience to its whorish mother.

Now that we've explained that, do you have any other retarded questions?

>>3
It's called creating a debate, dipshit - I'm not looking for guidance or even stating my position, I'm provoking thought.

And apparently you were unable to even read the entire question I asked, because the only answer you could give was the one I said not to bother giving.
Even though you are clearly the product of a botched abortion, I'll still play devils advocate and TRY to provoke some thought from you.

Consider the following.
Pro lifers typically claim that 'human life is prescious'. So if you believe that and also believe strongly in the death penalty, than the obvious assumption must be that life loses it's value when Sin/Crime is committed?

If you come to that conclusion from a religious standpoint than shouldn't someone who repents for their crimes be forgiven?
And..
If you come to that conclusion from a political standpoint than you are saying that a criminal does not deserve the same rights as everybody else.

Try deep thought.

Thought.  Answered.  Really.  You're saying "but why is the sky blue? and don't give me that boring old shit about photons of different wavelengths scattering in the upper atmosphere."

I am not superstitious; I neither know nor care what the faggoty, self-deluding followers of various cults believe or how they reason.  I do know, however, that the only one who can forgive an offense is the victim.  A murder victim is dead and can't forgive anyone, so to the gallows we must go--blood for blood, pain for pain, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.  No, seriously.  I certainly can't forgive someone for an injury done to you, nor can you forgive someone for an injury done to me, nor can "society," which is an abstraction that doesn't actually exist outside of our heads, forgive anyone for anything.  Godbotherers may want to question that by invoking their invisible Santa Claus in the sky, but they're delusional and neither they nor their delusions merit being taken seriously.

So if you're got nothing else, perhaps you should gb2/b/

With a name like "pro-lifers", you'd expect them to be in favour of long prison sentences...

>>5
>>3
If that's how things always worked I'd be behind you. Having a death penalty, however, means that some innocent people will be executed too. So what would be an acceptable ratio of innocent to guilty people killed by the state? What do you think that ratio is right now?

And not every abortion is about convenience. Incest and rape victims shouldn't be forced to carry their children. And there's not a reliable way for the law to distinguish between that and a convenience abortion.

left wing versus right wing bullshit

>>7

That's exactly what I'm looking for. Great comment.

The obvious follow-up to the second part of your comment would be:
If those did become the ONLY ways to legally abort a child, wouldn't false accusations of rape become more prevelant in our society, potentially due to some kind of "shame factor"?

Good discussion.

>>5
I'm not asking "why is the sky blue?"
It's not a scientific question I'm asking, It's a question of peoples morals, and how they apply differently based on someone elses character.

>>7 ratio
Unknown, unknowable, and imponderable.  Complete information is rarely available and when asked, the accused invariably claim to be innocent, misunderstood, insane, incapable of knowing right from wrong, to have found Jeebus, etc.  Appealing to science hardly helps; how many are in prison right now, convicted based on "scientifically proven DNA evidence" botched in the lab by some podunk PD's drunken "evidence technician" who only got the job because he was the Sheriff's little brother?  It all comes down to whom a jury made up of twelve people not bright enough to get out of jury duty chooses to believe, and no, I don't know of a better way.

The question, though, seems to me to be predicated on the idea that there's something unique about the death penalty and it shares no traits with other punishments.  Yet if an innocent person is falsely convicted of a crime, and serves twenty years in prison instead, only to be exonerated and released, can the state give him back his health and his youth, the twenty years of his life that have been stolen from him?  No.

>rape
Incest and rape victims are, what, one ten thousandth of one percent of patients at abortion clinics?  Leaving their numbers aside, a more relevant question is, do we hate rapists so much that we desire to put their unborn children to death?  I'd settle for executing the rapist instead, and the child can go to an orphanage or foster home when he or she is born.

Godbotherers

my new favorite word

Unknown, unknowable,
Agreed.

and imponderable.
Then you lack imagination. Just because a question is unanswerable doesn't mean that it's not worth asking.

The question, though, seems to me to be predicated on the idea that there's something unique about the death penalty and it shares no traits with other punishments.
Excellent point. I should also clarify that I'm not completely against having a death penalty. I think that extra care should be taken by any legal system that uses it though and that places like Texas very often seem to miss this.

one ten thousandth of one percent
Source please.

we desire to put their unborn children to death
That's just it though. We aren't the ones putting children to death by making abortion legal. We're simply allowing it to happen. And, in my opinion, there is a big difference between doing something and allowing it to happen.

...do we hate rapists so much that we desire to put their unborn children to death?
Sympathy for a victim is not the same as hate for a criminal.

I'd settle for executing the rapist instead...
Sure because rapists always get caught and convicted.

...child can go to an orphanage or foster home when he or she is born.
Also easier said than done. Foster homes and orphanages are shitty places to grow up. Abortion is a more humane solution in many cases.

Fuck pro choice. Go pro abortion. Make abortions mandatory, lower the global population.

on topic though, because people are idiots.

>>11
>do we hate rapists so much that we desire to put their unborn children to death?
How do you kill something that isn't alive?

>>15
That was a stupid response no matter how you look at it or which side you are on. That is the response that pro-lifers want you to declare openly.

It makes it too easy.

>>16
>That is the response that pro-lifers want you to declare openly.
Okay, good. I'm eager to here the response. I mean, how do you kill something that has as much self-awareness and conciousness as coral?

>>17

Life starts at conception. Didn't you know that?  Living cells aren't a human life but the moment those cells interact they're alive.

>>17
>as coral
hahaha

>>18
I'm pretty sure he meant "why is it wrong to kill something that..." not "how is it wrong"?

>>18
>Living cells aren't a human life but the moment those cells interact they're alive.
Interact? That's incredibly vague criteria.

Consciousness starts somewhere between 20-24 weeks after conception when the fetus has a nervous system and an active neo-cortex.

Before 20 weeks abortion under any circumstances is fine with the consent of the mother, after 24 weeks the fetus can survive outside the womb in an incubator so obviously killing it is little different from killing a newborn baby. Caesarian section or induced birth should be allowed in some circumstances but it shouldn't be optional as this may cause grievous bodily damage to the child. A situation where mothers regularly induce birth solely because they can't be bothered to go through the whole pregnancy would be unethical.

20-24 weeks is the "grey area", 9 year old rape victims, cancer patients and so forth should be able to abort, otherwise no.

>>22
This makes a lot of sense. The majority of abortions are already done this early anyway though.