Many pro-life folks also support - or at least do not oppose - capital punishment. Is this inconsistent? If you are pro-life shouldn't you seek to preserve human life in every situation - including capital cases?
No. This isn't inconsistent and here's one reason why.
Many of us get our ideas about capital punishment from Genesis 9. The context: Noah and his family have just exited the ark and are tasked with repopulating the earth. But God has some new stipulations that belong to the Noahic Covenant that were not explicitly in place before the flood. One of these is capital punishment. Observe:
"Your lifeblood" refers to the life of human beings. God says here that blood for blood will be required for whoever kills a human being - whether it be animal or man. Further stipulations follow in the Pentateuch concerning animals that slay humans - they are to be slaughtered. Why? Because man is made in God's image and, as an image bearer of God, man cannot be unjustly slain with impunity. An assault on man as God's image bearer is taken as an assault on God himself. So even if an animal kills a human that animal must be slain in the sight of all the community so that all would see, fear, and know that human life is sacred.
To provide an example of how radical this notion is to modern sensibilities consider this year's Harambe incident. The child was not harmed here, but suppose that the gorilla actually did kill the child. In the OT world the gorilla must be killed after the fact for this offense so that all would see the grave consequences of taking human life - and thus the sanctity of human life.
God here gives a law to all mankind (all mankind issued from Noah) wherein he requires that the manslayer would lose his life. So, ironically, to lose capital punishment is actually to diminish the sanctity of life. If a murderer does not have to lose his life then this shows that murder is not very serious - not really a capital offense - because human life is not really all that sacred. And capital punishment, ironically, upholds the sanctity of human life because it puts on graphic display the serious consequences of assaulting human life.
No. This isn't inconsistent and here's one reason why.
Many of us get our ideas about capital punishment from Genesis 9. The context: Noah and his family have just exited the ark and are tasked with repopulating the earth. But God has some new stipulations that belong to the Noahic Covenant that were not explicitly in place before the flood. One of these is capital punishment. Observe:
Genesis 9:5-6 said:And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
"Your lifeblood" refers to the life of human beings. God says here that blood for blood will be required for whoever kills a human being - whether it be animal or man. Further stipulations follow in the Pentateuch concerning animals that slay humans - they are to be slaughtered. Why? Because man is made in God's image and, as an image bearer of God, man cannot be unjustly slain with impunity. An assault on man as God's image bearer is taken as an assault on God himself. So even if an animal kills a human that animal must be slain in the sight of all the community so that all would see, fear, and know that human life is sacred.
To provide an example of how radical this notion is to modern sensibilities consider this year's Harambe incident. The child was not harmed here, but suppose that the gorilla actually did kill the child. In the OT world the gorilla must be killed after the fact for this offense so that all would see the grave consequences of taking human life - and thus the sanctity of human life.
God here gives a law to all mankind (all mankind issued from Noah) wherein he requires that the manslayer would lose his life. So, ironically, to lose capital punishment is actually to diminish the sanctity of life. If a murderer does not have to lose his life then this shows that murder is not very serious - not really a capital offense - because human life is not really all that sacred. And capital punishment, ironically, upholds the sanctity of human life because it puts on graphic display the serious consequences of assaulting human life.