Capital Punishment - Atheists versus Christians

[selfinflikted]

Where's the irony?

Funny, yet not surprising that you don't see it. Besides, I could tell you, but spoon-feeding usually stops around age 3.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but if being pro-life and supporting the death penalty is hypocritical, then is being pro-choice and against the death penalty also hypocritical?

 

[razeontherock]

Funny, yet not surprising that you don't see it.

From my response, clearly I "see it." You still have to deal with the reality presented by notedstrangeperson's last post, even though you choose to hide your eyes from it in mine.

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but if being pro-life and supporting the death penalty is hypocritical, then is being pro-choice and against the death penalty also hypocritical?

I would say no because the basis of every pro-choice person's argument that I've ever heard is that the fetus isn't a person, at least not yet, and as such has no rights. Therefore, you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

 

[selfinflikted]

From my response, clearly I "see it." You still have to deal with the reality presented by notedstrangeperson's last post, even though you choose to hide your eyes from it in mine.

lol. Your post and hers aren't even comparable.

 

[razeontherock]

lol. Your post and hers aren't even comparable.

That only suggests you conclude both issues are amoral. One would think you might re-consider ...

 

[quatona]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but if being pro-life and supporting the death penalty is hypocritical, then is being pro-choice and against the death penalty also hypocritical?

Not if you allow the perpetrator to choose to be executed.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Those who are pro-life and support capital punishment argue that an embryo is innocent, while a criminal is guilty. Their argument is based on morality.
Those who are pro-choice and are against capital punishment argue that an embryo isn't a person while a criminal is. Their argument is based on personhood.

Both of seem against the idea that human life has some kind of intrinsic value.

Not if you allow the perpetrator to choose to be executed.

Even death row has a suicide watch.

 

[selfinflikted]

Both of seem against the idea that human life has some kind of intrinsic value.

Does it?

 

[selfinflikted]

That only suggests you conclude both issues are amoral. One would think you might re-consider ...

Um, no. Your post basically said, "I don't like criminals, they should be killed. But we all know killing babies is bad."

NSP's post actually had substance, and brought up an interesting question.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

When we think about it, the morality vs. personhood argument aren't so different.

Many who support capital punishment argue that a man who commits a terrible crime forfeits his humanity (or "personhood") - they deserve to die. And many who are pro-choice argue that if something is not a "person", regardless of whether or not is is human, then it has no right to life.

In a strange way the two, seemingly opposing arguments suit each other.

 

[razeontherock]

Not if you allow the perpetrator to choose to be executed.

Touche

 

[quatona]

Those who are pro-life and support capital punishment argue that an embryo is innocent, while a criminal is guilty. Their argument is based on morality.
Those who are pro-choice and are against capital punishment argue that an embryo isn't a person while a criminal is. Their argument is based on personhood.

Seeing that I feel that it is immoral to kill a person I can´t seem to see this point.

Both of seem against the idea that human life has some kind of intrinsic value.

"Intrinsic value" is an oxymoron.

 

[Jase]

I would say no because the basis of every pro-choice person's argument that I've ever heard is that the fetus isn't a person, at least not yet, and as such has no rights. Therefore, you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, but pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. It means, pro-let women make the decision themselves, even if I disagree with it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not only that, but pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. It means, pro-let women make the decision themselves, even if I disagree with it.

Nah. According to mdancinforthelord (or whatever her handle is), we simply love to kill babies.

 

[razeontherock]

Now that we've got that settled - why? What'd they ever do to you? (While I'm joking, I think this is the line of reasoning that should be pursued to resolve the conflict.)

 

[selfinflikted]

Now that we've got that settled - why? What'd they ever do to you? (While I'm joking, I think this is the line of reasoning that should be pursued to resolve the conflict.)

Personally, nothing. And no one ever really asks me my personal views on it. I simply say I'm 'pro-choice' and all the usual assumptions follow from that. It's tiresome to even begin to try and correct them.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Thank you for adding that Kalevalatar

Your turn to name the countries on the map lest the audience here can't tell China, Iran, France, Canada, Mexico and the United States of America apart...

Perhaps you meant capital punishment in lieu of the bolded phrase?

I assure you that the word choices and framing here is entirely intentional. Some call it capital punishment: others call it state-sanctioned murder; some call it collateral damage: others call it mass murder; some call it abortion: others call it murder. Language is never accidental, and political language even less so.

Anyway, do you have any idea of the population in the US penal system? It's a good sized Country! Care to turn that into a %, re: capital punishment?

Tehran and Pyongyang embrace the excuse you offer here, no doubt.

States that still murder their own citizens, the worst in numbers (2010):

1. The People's Republic of China, pop.: 1,330 million, # of citizen executed (electrocuted, beheaded, hanged, poisoned, gassed, shot, stoned, beat to death, whathaveyou) last year: 2000+

2. Iran, pop.: 75 million, # of citizen executed last year: 252+

3. North Korea, pop.: 24 million, # of citizen executed last year: 60+

4. Yemen, pop.: 24 million, # of citizen executed last year: 53+

5. United States of America, pop.: 312 million, # of citizen executed last year: 46

6. Saudi Arabia, pop.: 27 million, # of citizen executed last year: 27+

7. Libya, pop.: 6 million, # of citizen executed last year: 18+

8. Syria, pop.: 22 million, # of citizen executed last year: 17+

9. Bangladesh, pop.: 142 million, # of citizen executed last year: 9
​

It's not a numbers or percentage game. Either you are with China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and their ilk, or you are with Europe, Latin America, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Many who support capital punishment argue that a man who commits a terrible crime forfeits his humanity (or "personhood") - they deserve to die.

I take issue with this. Life is God-given; only God can give and take it. It's not up to my sinful nature and limited POV to decide who of my fellow sinners "deserves" their God-given lives. By taking a person's life, we deny this person's chance for redemption and to know Christ. Yet our Lord Jesus Christ never gave us the permission to decide whom we deem undeserving of forgiveness and unredeemamble; Our Lord is greater than that and certainly greater than any of us is.

Capital punishment has been and is being abused. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself was a victim of such abuse, executed for crimes and sins He did not commit, because the state (of sinners) simply wanted to get rid of Him and did so by giving in to their own sinful wicked nature. And not just get rid of Him; they wanted to see Him suffer terribly first.

Capital punishment does not work as a deterrent and therefore is mere revenge, again, nothing more than a manifestation of our own sinful nature. Avenge not yourselves. For it is written: vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.

My bottom line.

 

[quatona]

Many who support capital punishment argue that a man who commits a terrible crime forfeits his humanity (or "personhood") - they deserve to die. And many who are pro-choice argue that if something is not a "person", regardless of whether or not is is human, then it has no right to life.

With the difference that in the first line of reasoning "human/person" are being used in their moral meaning right from the start.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

With the difference that in the first line of reasoning "human/person" are being used in their moral meaning right from the start.

What's wrong with that?