Inconsistencies Abound

[Della]

The danger of equating abortion with capital punishment is that of giving permission to those who believe abortion to be all right a reason to go on thinking that.

Consider, if direct abortion is intrinsically wrong but capital punishment is not, it means that innocence and guilt have meaning. Crimes can be punished as the state sees fit to bring justice to its citizens.

But, if abortion is equal to capital punishment the government could also be said to have the right to perform direct abortions when it sees fit. That’s the reasoning behind the Chinese forcing abortion on women having more than one child.

There is a HUGE difference between why direct abortion and capital punishment are not morally the same. Saying that they are morally the same is very dangerous and illogical. Such thinking leads to all sorts of abuses of the law by those who would force contraception and abortion on the unwilling, as many are doing around the world even as we speak.

 

[vz71]

No it doesn’t you ignored the statement by Geraghty.

What statement? I have searched the thread and could find no quotation to ignore.

 

[vz71]

Vz, I agree with you that in America today, I don’t see any justifiable reason to execute even the most evil perpetrators of the most heinous crimes. However, this is my prudential judgment. Unlike you, I respect that other good “pro-lifers” may reach a different prudential judgment in certain circumstances. And, furthermore, unlike you, I don’t think the anti-abortion cause is helped by an “unbroken line” (as opposed to a dotted line) linkage of abortion and the death penalty.

“Unlike you…”
Please do not attempt to speak for me.

This sounds suspiciously like architecture for a straw man argument. If you wish to prove my ideas wrong, prove my ideas wrong; not some idea that you dreamed up and attempt to graft onto my arguments.

 

[vz71]

The danger of equating abortion with capital punishment is that of giving permission to those who believe abortion to be all right a reason to go on thinking that.

Only if the two are treated equally. They are not. And in the Catechism, it shows this very clearly.

Consider, if direct abortion is intrinsically wrong but capital punishment is not, it means that innocence and guilt have meaning. Crimes can be punished as the state sees fit to bring justice to its citizens.

But crimes cannot be punished as the state sees fit.
There are extremely few instances today in which the death penalty can be considered just. Anything outside of that is just another evil perpetrated by the state.

But, if abortion is equal to capital punishment the government could also be said to have the right to perform direct abortions when it sees fit. That’s the reasoning behind the Chinese forcing abortion on women having more than one child.

There is a HUGE difference between why direct abortion and capital punishment are not morally the same. Saying that they are morally the same is very dangerous and illogical. Such thinking leads to all sorts of abuses of the law by those who would force contraception and abortion on the unwilling, as many are doing around the world even as we speak.

No one has said they are morally equivelant. They cannot be simply by the fact that there are some circumstances in which the death penalty can be just.
What has been said is that the pro life individual that supports a misapplication of the death penalty has a major inconsistancy within their logic.
One that can be exploited by the pro-death side to chip away at the argument.

 

[Melchior]

The comparison fails if you are trying to place a measure on the worth of a human life.
Human life, all human life, is precious in the eyes of God.
To believe that a conviction by a court of law makes a life worth less to God is wrong.
To believe that taking a life when there are other options available is likewise wrong.

It is not logically consistant to maintain taking a life is acceptable under the circumstances described.

Now if there is no other way to protect the life of others, that changes the equation.

And you are missing something. The OP pointed out ‘inconsistancies’
And that is a major inconsistancy.
As is IVF.

God gave governments the power of the sword precisely because life is so precious, to take one by murder is to forfeit your own. Biblical, Christian, standard. The death penalty for murder is pro-life. Requiring anything less mocks the life of the victim and demeans how much life is worth. The gravity of taking a life is only revealed in capital punishment for murderers - which is the traditional Catholic position, it is just not en vogue since JPII, but it is not against Catholic teaching. Murdering innocent babies can never be compared to the God given right of governing authorities to take the life of a murderer, which he himself has forfeited - no one else.

I am reminded last week of a life sentence given in Boston to a man who murdered a corrections officer in cold blood. After the sentencing he turned to his victims family, smirked at them and said “I am better of than him, I will still be alive in jail and he will still be dead”. He laughed. His sentence was not just. His punishment does not fit the crime he should have been taken outside and subjected to a firing squad.

 

[Orionthehunter]

“Unlike you…”
Please do not attempt to speak for me.

This sounds suspiciously like architecture for a straw man argument. If you wish to prove my ideas wrong, prove my ideas wrong; not some idea that you dreamed up and attempt to graft onto my arguments.

I apologize for using the words. I did not mean to offend. I was only pointing out that I directly disagreed with these direct statements of yours.

From VZ: If someone is not consistantly pro-life, they will always be vulnerable to the argument posed in the article. And they may lose because of it… . .And that the inconsistancies of supporting one type of death over another when there are alternatives to each is going to place the pro-life argument at a decided disadvantage. . . .(from two subsequent posts)

As I stated, I believe that the anti-abortion cause is not enhanced by a direct link to the death penalty discussion. I second the post made by Della.

From VZ: To believe that a conviction by a court of law makes a life worth less to God is wrong. . . .The pro-life position longer can be viewed as pro-life.
Instead it becomes viewed as pro-only certain types of life.(from a subsequent post)

I think it is presumptious to state that anybody who has reached a conclusion that the death penalty is appropriate in a specific circumstance believes that person’s life is “worthless.” In fact, I know many death penalty proponents who feel quite the opposite despite their belief that this is appropriate and just punishment.

From VZ: To believe that taking a life when there are other options available is likewise wrong.

While I don’t support the death penalty in any circumstance, I don’t think it appropriate to characterize a conclusion within the prudential judgment of another to be necessarily and intrinsically wrong. Your statement appears to me that you have a different opinion. If I misinterpreted your intent, I apologize and request your clarification. And when I consider the following quote by you, it appears to support my interpretation.

From VZ: While it is true that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, it does not show that my argument is in any way wrong. . . .And those that support such a misapplication while claiming to be pro-life have a major inconsistancy to account for in their logic.

While I disagree with pro-death penalty advocates, I believe there are legitimate points they make. Charity and respect require that we at least give them credit when expressed within legitimate and appropriate constraints of prudential judgment even if their arguments are not persuasive to you or me.

 

[bones_IV]

Only if the two are treated equally. They are not. And in the Catechism, it shows this very clearly.

But crimes cannot be punished as the state sees fit.
There are extremely few instances today in which the death penalty can be considered just. Anything outside of that is just another evil perpetrated by the state.

No one has said they are morally equivelant. They cannot be simply by the fact that there are some circumstances in which the death penalty can be just.
What has been said is that the pro life individual that supports a misapplication of the death penalty has a major inconsistancy within their logic.
One that can be exploited by the pro-death side to chip away at the argument.

You are a little confused! The Church at this time DOES NOT condemn the death penalty. Not that there’s anything wrong with saying that the death penalty should be used in the most rare circumstances. Perhaps it will do you good to know that Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” The thing that makes me angry is when people use the death penalty to change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. vz71 listen very carefully, Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching. That is what the Church teaches on this matter period!

 

[vz71]

God gave governments the power of the sword precisely because life is so precious, to take one by murder is to forfeit your own. Biblical, Christian, standard.

You may hold to that if you wish, but God’s church has a dfifferent take on things.2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

The death penalty for murder is pro-life. Requiring anything less mocks the life of the victim and demeans how much life is worth. The gravity of taking a life is only revealed in capital punishment for murderers - which is the traditional Catholic position, it is just not en vogue since JPII, but it is not against Catholic teaching.

Sure it is. See the above cited quote from the Catechism.
What part of “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” do you not understand? It seems fairly plain to me.

Murdering innocent babies can never be compared to the God given right of governing authorities to take the life of a murderer, which he himself has forfeited - no one else.

The circumstance you have listed may or may not fall within the guidelines outlined for a just application of the death penalty. I would need much more information to draw the conclusion.

I am reminded last week of a life sentence given in Boston to a man who murdered a corrections officer in cold blood. After the sentencing he turned to his victims family, smirked at them and said “I am better of than him, I will still be alive in jail and he will still be dead”. He laughed. His sentence was not just. His punishment does not fit the crime he should have been taken outside and subjected to a firing squad.

It sounds more to me like the death penalty being applied here would then be an act of vengeance.
Why invoke emotion if not for that?
Sure, the criminal may laugh at us. So what. Does that mean we should murder him?
Is executing him to keep us safe (assuming no means otherwise)?
Or simply to try and make us feel like we got the last word?

 

[vz71]

I apologize for using the words. I did not mean to offend. I was only pointing out that I directly disagreed with these direct statements of yours.

Apology accepted. Think nothing else of it.

I think it is presumptious to state that anybody who has reached a conclusion that the death penalty is appropriate in a specific circumstance believes that person’s life is “worthless.” In fact, I know many death penalty proponents who feel quite the opposite despite their belief that this is appropriate and just punishment.

That is why I am being very careful with making certain that I speak of the misapplication of the death penalty and not the death penalty in general.
In fact, I believe I can quote an earlier post of mine that highlights this…“What has been said is that the pro life individual that supports a misapplication of the death penalty has a major inconsistancy within their logic.”

 

[vz71]

vz71 listen very carefully, Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching. That is what the Church teaches on this matter period!

I will disagree here. That is not the end.
The end comes with a full recognition of the specific circumstances outlined by the teaching on the matter.
What it has adopted is very strict guidelines for when it can and cannot be used.

When an abortion is carried out, we call it murder.
When someone utilizes IVF, we call it murder.
When someone utilizes partial birth abortion, we call it murder.

In each case a life is taken.

Now we have a criminal. A Vile, unrepentant, killer. And we have the ability to lock him up and never allow him to harm another ever.
Is it right to execute him? Is it no less…murder??

Are we to hold some guilty of murder to a different standard then others (equally guilty) based on who they killed?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Apology accepted. Think nothing else of it.

That is why I am being very careful with making certain that I speak of the misapplication of the death penalty and not the death penalty in general.
In fact, I believe I can quote an earlier post of mine that highlights this…“What has been said is that the pro life individual that supports a misapplication of the death penalty has a major inconsistancy within their logic.”

First of all, logic is about using rational, non-conficting arguments to reach a conclusion about a matter. When one has to introduce facts or circumstances to determine appropriateness, we have left a philosophical debate and entered into the realm of practical application.

The determination of a misapplication is an area where one is trying to discern “appropriateness” based on what may be subjective or objective criteria. Once, one treads on this ground, it proves the point that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. This is exactly my point I’ve been trying to make all along. The cause of ending the murder of innocent unborn babies is not helped by mixing it with the cause of eliminating recourse to the death penalty out of fear of a “misapplication”.

From VZ: When an abortion is carried out, we call it murder.
When someone utilizes IVF, we call it murder.
When someone utilizes partial birth abortion, we call it murder.

In each case a life is taken.

Now we have a criminal. A Vile, unrepentant, killer. And we have the ability to lock him up and never allow him to harm another ever.
Is it right to execute him? Is it no less…murder??

I am really having angst about this entire thread. I am unequivocally opposed to having the death penalty. But again, I need to point out that the execution of a person given a fair trial and convicted of a crime for which the penalty is death is not murder. Murder is about unlawful killing. (sidebar: abortion is murder because it conflicts with Natural Law which is the supreme law).

VZ, on the matter of the death penalty, we agree completely. However, you keep mixing and bringing this issue into the debate about abortion. They are not equal. And to do so dilutes the point about the intrinsic evil of abortion.

From VZ: Are we to hold some guilty of murder to a different standard then others (equally guilty) based on who they killed?

I hate doing this as I abhor the death penalty but Yes. Just as there are sins that “cry to heaven” and are worse than other mortal sins because of the object of the sin (one against whom the sin was committed), it is possible to have crimes that have the same effect (death of an innocent) that get more severe punishment. Again, when we introduce poor arguments, we hurt our cause. I don’t want to hijack this thread and make it a debate about why the death penalty should be abolished.

VZ, this thread is about it being inconsistent. In both cases, while there are similar sub-arguments, the essence of these two issues are separate. One is intrinsically evil. One is not intrinsically evil.

Let me touch on a single sub-argument. The sacredness of life. In both cases, one can use these arguments to reach the prudential judgment that both are wrong. No problem. But when one mixes the two together, glaring holes develop.

One’s right to life is not absolute in relation to other’s lives or society in general. (I don’t want to hijack the thread to give all the examples where the right to life is not absolute but hope that one acknowledges that this is a true statement). Just as there are legitimate medical procedures that result in the death of an unborn baby (ectopic pregnancy), there are legitimate situations where society or even individuals can take action that results in the death of a born person.

VZ, again, I oppose the death penalty unconditionally. I also oppose the distribution of condoms in schools, legalization of drugs, etc. But in no cases do I ever equate them with the gravity of abortion. Furthermore, the issue of this thread is about IVF and abortion where the linkage is significantly closer than that of killing an unborn baby vs. a duly convicted criminal.

 

[vz71]

The cause of ending the murder of innocent unborn babies is not helped by mixing it with the cause of eliminating recourse to the death penalty out of fear of a “misapplication”.

Who said that??
Not I I can assure you.
My posts in this thread can attest to that.

So I am left wondering. Since you address me throughout your post, whom do you believe has introduced abolishment of the death penalty to the thread? Me??

My friend, until you brought this particular topic up, no one had even appraoched abolishing the death penalty.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Read it, and am not surprised.

It is an unfortunate thing that many do not have a true grasp of ‘pro life’

I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.

If someone is not consistantly pro-life, they will always be vulnerable to the argument posed in the article. And they may lose because of it.

Who said that??
Not I I can assure you.
My posts in this thread can attest to that.

So I am left wondering. Since you address me throughout your post, whom do you believe has introduced abolishment of the death penalty to the thread? Me??

My friend, until you brought this particular topic up, no one had even appraoched abolishing the death penalty.

The first quote is from Post #2.

 

[vz71]

The first quote is from Post #2.

My friend,
Again I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having words put into my mouth. In this instance, it is an idea removed from its proper context.

I have throughout this thread been very consistant with my ideas. Although if one wishes they may take words out of context to change their meaning.

So…
I have consistantly condemned the misaplication of the death penalty. NOT the death penalty. There is a big difference. In fact, it is the difference between justice and murder.

The quote you listed states: “I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.”
This as well shows my consistant point of condemnation towards the misuse of the death penalty.
This does not show a condemnation of the death penalty itself.

I have read my own posts as well as the rest in this thread, and cannot fathom how someone can look at what I have written and determine that I am for an abolishment of the death penalty.

 

[bones_IV]

My friend,
Again I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having words put into my mouth. In this instance, it is an idea removed from its proper context.

I have throughout this thread been very consistant with my ideas. Although if one wishes they may take words out of context to change their meaning.

So…
I have consistantly condemned the misaplication of the death penalty. NOT the death penalty. There is a big difference. In fact, it is the difference between justice and murder.

The quote you listed states: “I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.”
This as well shows my consistant point of condemnation towards the misuse of the death penalty.
This does not show a condemnation of the death penalty itself.

I have read my own posts as well as the rest in this thread, and cannot fathom how someone can look at what I have written and determine that I am for an abolishment of the death penalty.

But the way you wrote it is misleading. It’s how you worded it and that’s what gave people the impression that you were for abolition of the death penalty. Abortion, homosexuality, embyronic stem cell research, cloning and euthanasia are the five nonnegotiable issues period. Just read the CA voters guide. The death penalty is negotiable and therefore one can be for the death penalty and be against abortion. Being against abortion while advocating the death penalty doesn’t make one pro-abortion. That’s my main point.

 

[Orionthehunter]

But the way you wrote it is misleading. It’s how you worded it and that’s what gave people the impression that you were for abolition of the death penalty. Abortion, homosexuality, embyronic stem cell research, cloning and euthanasia are the five nonnegotiable issues period. Just read the CA voters guide. The death penalty is negotiable and therefore one can be for the death penalty and be against abortion. Being against abortion while advocating the death penalty doesn’t make one pro-abortion. That’s my main point.

Ditto. And, if the only problem was with regard to a “misapplication” (a misapplication for which there was not even given an example), this is an egregious mixing of the non-negotiable items that are always intrinsically evil with what may only be an error in implementation for which knowledge and intent (mitigating the sinfulness) come into play. Add on to it the fact that only juries and legislators and judges are the only people authorized to “apply” the death penalty, it is laughable that it was referenced as an inconsistency related to the non-negotiable matters that each and every one of us in Amerca currently have available to us.

 

[vz71]

But the way you wrote it is misleading. It’s how you worded it and that’s what gave people the impression that you were for abolition of the death penalty.

Ditto…

I am finding it hard to believe that my wording was unclear.
I am finding it equally so that my meaning was obscure.

Here are statements from virtually every one of my posts to this particular thread…I have made bold the portions that perhaps was overlooked (repeatedly).

I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.---------------------It is not logically consistant to maintain taking a life is acceptable under the circumstances described.Now if there is no other way to protect the life of others, that changes the equation.---------------------

My argument is the destruction of a human life, when there are alternatives, is evil. And that the inconsistancies of supporting one type of death over another when there are alternatives to each is going to place the pro-life argument at a decided disadvantage.----------------------Is it simply not possible to insure the protection of society in any other way? If we have the ability to put someone in prison and insure that they harm no one ever again, then what is the motivation in the execution?-----------------------I would argue that it can be.There are many examples of someone going to prison for the rest of their life, and never being capable of harming another.The technology is not difficult.The problem would be in attempting to give these prisoners rights that they no longer deserve.In any case,** my real point is the inconsistancy demonstrated by those that lay claim to a pro-life position, but also cling to a misapplication of the death penalty.**----------------------I believe my interpretation here is correct.Your own quotation from the Catechism proves this.***If it is possible to prevent someone from harming another for the rest of their life (lock them away forever) then the application of the death penalty is a misapplication.***And those that support such a misapplication while claiming to be pro-life have a major inconsistancy to account for in their logic.----------------------But crimes cannot be punished as the state sees fit.***There are extremely few instances today in which the death penalty can be considered just. Anything outside of that is just another evil perpetrated by the state.***No one has said they are morally equivelant. They cannot be simply by the fact that **there are *some circumstances in which the death penalty can be just.***What has been said is that the pro life individual that supports a misapplication of the death penalty has a major inconsistancy within their logic.

----------------------Sure it is. See the above cited quote from the Catechism.What part of “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” do you not understand? It seems fairly plain to me.------------------------That is why I am being very careful with making certain that I speak of the misapplication of the death penalty and not the death penalty in general.

------------------------***The end comes with a full recognition of the specific circumstances outlined by the teaching on the matter.******What it has adopted is very strict guidelines for when it can and cannot be used.******Now we have a criminal. A Vile, unrepentant, killer. And we have the ability to lock him up and never allow him to harm another ever.***Is it right to execute him? Is it no less…murder??-------------------------I’m told that I was not clear.
That my wording led you to believe I was for an abolition of the death penalty in general.
Guys…someone did not read my posts.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I am finding it hard to believe that my wording was unclear.
I am finding it equally so that my meaning was obscure.

Here are statements from virtually every one of my posts to this particular thread…I have made bold the portions that perhaps was overlooked (repeatedly).

I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.---------------------It is not logically consistant to maintain taking a life is acceptable under the circumstances described.Now if there is no other way to protect the life of others, that changes the equation.---------------------

My argument is the destruction of a human life, when there are alternatives, is evil. And that the inconsistancies of supporting one type of death over another when there are alternatives to each is going to place the pro-life argument at a decided disadvantage.----------------------Is it simply not possible to insure the protection of society in any other way? If we have the ability to put someone in prison and insure that they harm no one ever again, then what is the motivation in the execution?-----------------------I would argue that it can be.There are many examples of someone going to prison for the rest of their life, and never being capable of harming another.The technology is not difficult.The problem would be in attempting to give these prisoners rights that they no longer deserve.In any case,** my real point is the inconsistancy demonstrated by those that lay claim to a pro-life position, but also cling to a misapplication of the death penalty.**----------------------I believe my interpretation here is correct.Your own quotation from the Catechism proves this.***If it is possible to prevent someone from harming another for the rest of their life (lock them away forever) then the application of the death penalty is a misapplication.***And those that support such a misapplication while claiming to be pro-life have a major inconsistancy to account for in their logic.----------------------But crimes cannot be punished as the state sees fit.***There are extremely few instances today in which the death penalty can be considered just. Anything outside of that is just another evil perpetrated by the state.***No one has said they are morally equivelant. They cannot be simply by the fact that **there are *some circumstances in which the death penalty can be just.***What has been said is that the pro life individual that supports a misapplication of the death penalty has a major inconsistancy within their logic.

(had to delete a part of the prior post because of space restrictions. Please refer to the entire post below)

------------------------***The end comes with a full recognition of the specific circumstances outlined by the teaching on the matter.******What it has adopted is very strict guidelines for when it can and cannot be used.******Now we have a criminal. A Vile, unrepentant, killer. And we have the ability to lock him up and never allow him to harm another ever.***Is it right to execute him? Is it no less…murder??-------------------------I’m told that I was not clear.
That my wording led you to believe I was for an abolition of the death penalty in general.
Guys…someone did not read my posts.

Don’t forget this one

From VZ: So…
I have consistantly condemned the misaplication of the death penalty. NOT the death penalty. There is a big difference. In fact, it is the difference between justice and murder.

Now we are back to what I originally said: After reading your summary, you are effectively advocating that the death penalty in America is a “misapplication.”

While I too oppose it, I do not believe that the death penalty is comparable in any way to the non-negotiable items (abortion, etc.). And, your protest not withstanding, your new clarification makes every post on this thread that pertinent. It is interesting to note that upon review, not a single post agreed with you even an ardent anti-death penalty person such as myself.

 

[manualman]

vz,

If it helps, I get the same impression from your posts that Orion seems to.

You SEEM to be saying that ‘the death penalty is not appropriate for America’ in a whole lot of words. I would agree with you there. But then you seem to be angry when anyone attempts to summarize you. I’m puzzled.

Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was famous for attempting to meld the anti-abortion, anti-IVF, anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty sentiments into a ‘seamless garment of life.’ Lots of folks remember that and consider it to have been a major mistake in pastoral approach since it seems to liken both abortion and the death penalty to murder, which actually may have LOST the church credibility on the abortion matter in the minds of many. Much of what you are saying seems remeniscent of Cardinal Bernadin’s thoughts, so that may be why folks are hearing certain implications in your statements.

I had the unique experience of working for an achitectural firm that designed one of Illinois’ fairly recent prisons. From that and from what I learned of how they are operated, I assure you that the technology is NOT simple, cheap or easy to assure public safety from violent criminals. Other inmates and the prison employees are at great risk from these men. It is not an open and shut case, but I reluctantly agree that America has no legitimate need to execute prisoners. But I’m not so convinced as to denounce those who support it.

 

[vz71]

vz,

If it helps, I get the same impression from your posts that Orion seems to.

You SEEM to be saying that ‘the death penalty is not appropriate for America’ in a whole lot of words. I would agree with you there. But then you seem to be angry when anyone attempts to summarize you. I’m puzzled.

Anger. perhaps. But only after the last couple of posts.
I found it somewhat disingenuous to have others attempt to pigeonhole me into an anti-death penalty crowd when I keep stating the misapplication of the death penalty is what I am against.
In fact, very early on one of my posts stated it plainly.

If the summary of what I was saying matched what I was saying…well, perhaps things could have been different.

As it sits, I am still being told that I am lumping abortion in with the death penalty.
When all along I am speaking of the misapplication of the death penalty.

Perhaps the line I see so clearly is much too fine for others to see. I certainly did not expect the reactions I got. Particularly from a predominantly Catholic forum. I expected a Catholic to know the church laws and see what I am saying.
When an abortion takes place, we call it murder.
After all, there is malice, there is intent, and there is destruction of a human life.
When the death penalty is wrongfully used…
There is malice. There is intent…and yes, there is the destruction of human life.
I see the two the same.

Now what of the death penalty used in a country in social and economic upheaval, where putting a prisoner away forever is not an option.
I see justice.

Now of course, there are many that say that I cannot look at it thus. I have even been told the comparison is laughable.
Fine. I am comparing a wanton destruction of human life with another wanton destruction of human life.

Anyway…
We are straying from the OP.
Inconsistancies Abound.
I did have the misfortune of watching a debate in which the pro life proponent was taken apart by a skilled debater that was able to take advantage of the iconsistancy in this particular view.
After all, a good part of the argument was spent with the pro abortion side goading on the pro life. Life is life. At conception, at 7 days, 7 week, 7 years.
And then was destroyed with the simple point, what about the last prisoner executed?
The pro-life proponent spent nearly 20 minutes building up a case for all human life being so precious. But failed to notice that with that argument ALL human life, even the vile criminal, must be treated as precious.
Now I am sure there are other skilled debaters that may be able to put together a decent comeback, but wouldn’t it be best to simply not be susceptible to this?