Amazon.com Widgets

Is it hypocritical for pro-life people to support the death penalty.

Asked by: ydavid
  • By opposing abortion because it is murder

    Pro-lifers must logically have to not support the death penalty because it is unquestionably murder. While abortion could be said as not murder by people, there is not justification for the death penalty. So my question is why are there so many pro-lifers that support the death penalty? It continues to baffle me.

  • Pro-life is an oxymoron.

    Many pro-life people don't support welfare, safety net programs which are by definition pro-life programs. These life programs are designed to help people in times of struggle or to get back on their feet. Pro-life people care more about the pre-born than post-born. (depending on their ethnic background) As soon as the post-born becomes military age then pro-life supporters are happy to send these young people to their imminent death via military conflicts.

    Pro-life supporters don't understand what pro-life means which is to support all people not just the pre-born and soldiers.

  • As a catholic I am against abortion, the death penalty, and mercy killing

    According to catholic beliefs the length of a persons life should not be shortened. In the bible it says "thou shall not kill". I think that the death penalty is bad because it is possible that the convicts might repent for their sins if they were allowed to live longer. The same goes for mercy killing, I f you kill a person before their time they may not have made peace with god yet. Abortion is in my opinion the worst of the three since you take away a person's life before they are even born. Even if abortions technically aren't on babies they still take away a life. The embryo whether it is alive or not will someday be a living person and by killing it you are taking away that person's entire life. Also it is just silly to argue about when an embryo starts life since an embryo will eventually become a person. If your parents had an abortion would it be murder? They would have stolen your entire life . Also just because a woman has a baby inside of them doesn't mean they have the right to kill it. USE PROTECTION. ADOPTION IS AN OPTION.

  • Life is life

    If pro-lifers complain that killing a foetus is 'murder' because it's taking a life and yet argue that it's not murder to kill an adult is just sheer stupidity. It's an irrational argument.
    Killing Sam as a baby is murder.
    Killing Sam as an adult is not murder.
    ...
    Let's break this down:
    It's bad to kill a human.
    A foetus is an unborn human.
    Therefore it is bad to kill a foetus.
    Compared to:
    It is bad to kill a human.
    A murderer is a human.
    It's OK to kill a murderer.
    ...
    Logic may have gone on holiday when people argue for this.
    Unless people think that humans don't actually have rights. This would change things. If humans don't have inalienable rights then one can say that it is not hypocritical. Humans might have rights that ARE inalienable (or that humans don't have rights at all!). In this sense, a human can alienate their rights if they murder someone, so their right to life can be forfeited.
    However. At the same time, who's to say a foetus doesn't alienate their rights, thereby making it OK for us to kill it?
    Fortunately, it is commonly accepted that human rights are inalienable - so even if someone kills someone, they don't alienate their rights. A murderer is still a human, regardless who they killed.
    So - if someone things that human rights are alienable/people don't have rights, sure. It's not hypocritical.
    However. Most people think human rights are not inalienable, meaning it's murder whichever way you twist it.

  • A life, no matter how spent, is a life. Stealing that from them is just that- stealing, according to pro-life people.

    A life is a life. A murderer's life is as much a life as an innocent child's life. To say that only some lives are worth not extinguishing is extremely hypocritical. All or nothing. Murderer's deserve to be punished- but the death penalty? If people for little children's lives still want to kill, humanity is in a very poor state. When the good are still horrid...

  • Only if being pro-choice and anti-death penalty is hypocritical

    And I am pro-choice (though I've gone back and forth on this issue in the past) and anti-death penalty. My reasoning is self-defense. Going through a pregnancy even if there aren't any signs is still riskier to the woman's life and her health than having an abortion. If it was possible to remove the fetus and do so just as safely as an abortion without killing the fetus I would be in favor of that and in favor of an abortion ban. That technology may be just around the corner so I may soon be pro-life.

    As to the death penalty the person may turn out to be innocent, and while the person takes resources from tax payers he doesn't take them directly from anyone's body, and the death penalty actually costs more money and the only way to make it cost less would be to create an even greater risk of executing innocent people than the one we have now (and any risk of executing innocent people is unacceptable).

    A person could argue that burdening women against their consent is worth it to protect the right of the fetus and if they believe the risk of executing innocents is low enough or nonexistent then they could argue that the death penalty is just desserts for murderers whereas the fetus is innocent. Even if I don't agree it's not a hypocritical position.

    What is hypocritical is either side claiming that being pro-choice and anti-death penalty or being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocritical while holding the other set of positions themselves.

  • No, not a good comparison.

    The pro-life stance refers to the belief in the right of life toward unborn, innocent children. Of course, we know a fetus is defenseless and cannot do anything to protect itself from abortion, but did a person in position to be executed by the legal system do something that merited the execution, most often yes. Since the death penalty isn't the usual or likely sentence for most violent offenders, it is clear that anyone given it deserves that punishment. So basically, fetus=defenseless, and person given death penalty=criminal and offender who committed a serious crime.

  • Difference Between Murder and the Life of a Newborn Baby

    When we take up the scenario between a mass murderer and an, assumed, irresponsible carrier of a baby; who is really at fault. Now both decisions are a choice, but each one has a difference of self responsibility.

    For the mass murderer, it was he or she who decided to the commitment of killing innocent individuals. No one else's decision, but his or hers. And when he or she takes away their lives, they must be responsible for their actions; even if it is the Death Penalty.

    An, assumed, irresponsible mother made the decision to have sexual intercourse with the male participant; so she must take responsibility for the baby she has made. It is admitted that sometimes a baby just happens, but that is a really low percentage of that happening. However, she made the decision and so she should "Take her medicine".

    The difference though is that a Death Penalty is more like an "avenging" of those who has died; like stated on taking responsibility for your own action. While killing an unborn child because it was the carriers "mistake", shows that she is just another murderer. A murderer for a possible benefit towards society.

  • Is it hypocritical for pro-life people to support the death penalty if you are using a child's logic.

    No because being pro-life and be against death sentence for a mass murderer is the same of having a child's logic:
    if I'm against murder, than I must save all mass murderers to avoid murdering...
    Adults logic:
    if I'm against murder, than murdering a mass murderer will avoid death for all future victims of this murderer, so it is good in the "long run"

    we cannot stop all murderers in the world, but stopping forever the ones we catch from murdering is a clear way (an logic) to avoid more deaths in the future!

  • There's a difference between pro-life and the death penalty.

    The death penalty, although I find capital punishment to be wrong, and very culpable, is very different from the ideals of abortion. Abortion is the thought of giving a child the chance to live, the chance to see what life is like, the chance to do something good, to make themselves worthy of the life they're given. The death penalty is a reprisal for deeds having been committed after a person has already been given the opportunity to experience life. Abortion is denying someone the right to live, while the death penalty is telling someone that given the opportunity to live, they have used it to do wrong.

  • Dont think so

    Pro-lifers are for the fetus right?
    And executions are, in a perfect world, for criminals.
    One has a choice, to live or die, via their actions, daily work, vitrues, and vices.
    The other never had a choice to be born, and is taken away the chance to try it out. Its not by their conviction they live or die.

    So they dont really overlap in my view

  • They are not the same thing.

    The death penalty is punishment for committing a heinous crime such as murder. Almost every person who has been killed from capital punishment are being punished for killing other people. Abortion is killing someone who hasn't committed a crime. All an aborted baby has done was be unlucky enough to be conceived by someone who doesn't want them. Pro lifers believe in protecting innocent lives. Whether that means protecting innocent babies from being murdered or killing convicted murders so they do not kill any more innocent people. Both of these are ideologically consistent with each other. It is the people who are pro-abortion, but against the death penalty that are hypocritical. They kill the innocent life, while protecting the guilty one.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.