The hypocrisy of alleged “pro life” anti-abortionists is breathtaking. Save a fetus, but execute inmates wrongly convicted? What type of twisted mind conceives of this? And one wonders why the USA is in the mess it’s in?
The hypocrisy of alleged “pro life” anti-abortionists is breathtaking. Save a fetus, but execute inmates wrongly convicted? What type of twisted mind conceives of this? And one wonders why the USA is in the mess it’s in?
It is not hypocritical to say that people who commit heinous crimes should be put to death, while also saying that innocent babies should not be aborted. This position is consistent, not hypocritical, and certainly not the product of a "twisted mind." In contrast, the pro-abortion and anti-death penalty conjunction is a less consistent position to hold. If it is OK to kill innocent babies, why is it not OK to kill convicted murders? Now, I am not saying it is an inconsistent position because one who holds it would probably say that the murderer is a human being whereas the unborn is just a fetus and not yet a human being. I don't buy that argument, but I know people make it and, if you hold that view, the positions are not inconsistent with each other. At any rate, neither position is hypocritical or inconsistent. The real questions are what is a human being? And when, if ever, is it permissible to kill a human being? These are interesting questions and people come to different conclusions. It is important to recognize that neither side is hypocritical because they come to conclusions we don't share.
The hypocrisy of alleged “pro life” anti-abortionists is breathtaking. Save a fetus, but execute inmates wrongly convicted? What type of twisted mind conceives of this? And one wonders why the USA is in the mess it’s in?
It is not hypocritical to say that people who commit heinous crimes should be put to death, while also saying that innocent babies should not be aborted. This position is consistent, not hypocritical, and certainly not the product of a "twisted mind." In contrast, the pro-abortion and anti-death penalty conjunction is a less consistent position to hold. If it is OK to kill innocent babies, why is it not OK to kill convicted murders? Now, I am not saying it is an inconsistent position because one who holds it would probably say that the murderer is a human being whereas the unborn is just a fetus and not yet a human being. I don't buy that argument, but I know people make it and, if you hold that view, the positions are not inconsistent with each other. At any rate, neither position is hypocritical or inconsistent. The real questions are what is a human being? And when, if ever, is it permissible to kill a human being? These are interesting questions and people come to different conclusions. It is important to recognize that neither side is hypocritical because they come to conclusions we don't share.
I've never liked this argument, either way.
It begs the question as to whether someone was rightly convicted by an inherently imperfect system.
It also begs the question as to how much personhood/human rights a fetus actually has.