Would you consider it a hardship if in a case like in the Sudan where a woman has 4 or 5 children, all of them starving and some dying a slow death, or a woman who has (say 2 )children one with physical deformities that need a great deal of medication and attention, and another child would mean the other 2 would suffer because of the expense and time needed to care for the mother and fetus she was carrying a hardship? Would you be willing to help her with the care, and expenses even if it meant denying your child some of the pleasures it would want you to supply? (Or even your own pleasures?
There is distruction of" life" in a man’s sperm (even when a conception occurs). It is human life that is lost. Not a person yet;or just as an apple blossom is not an apple because the bee has pollenized it, Or an egg that is fertilized is not yet a chicken.
Ah, I missed your original post. In each case, what you propose is not justice, but a juvenile fantasy of justice (with the possible exception of the first, which is a farily accurate description of prison, after all). Justice is a different thing than symmetry, Old Testament notwithstanding and all.
That’s true, but in my opinon, it’s somewhat short-sighted. To me, the fundamental question isn’t so much “Does anyone deserve the death penalty?” as “Should the government have the right to kill its citizens?” To me, that answer should be, emphatically, no.
I should point out that in my opinon, people who are “pro-life” *and * pro-death penalty do have a consistent worldview, but it’s not about the sanctity of life. It’s about giving the government domain over its citizens bodies. I do find it ironic that most of the people willing to place their lives in the hands of the government would loudly claim to be conservative.
FTR, that number is zero. Doctors have testified before Congress that, given modern medical technology, it’s basically impossible for a woman’s life to be endangered by pregnancy. Just the development of C-section births has largely eliminated that possibility. This might not be the case in Third World countries where medical care isn’t available, but we’ve been talking about America, where that most certainly is true.
As for the death penalty, I take a different view from most people. There’s a long-held belief in Christianity that if you pay for your sins on Earth, you won’t have to pay for them in the afterlife. If you have committed a particularly serious sin (like murder) then what greater price can you pay than your own life? That said, I am currently against the death penalty because it has become abundantly clear that our legal system is flawed and unreliable, and we shouldn’t allow it to hand out any sentence that can’t be overturned later.
As for war, it is just if you believe that the war can prevent greater suffering later. I do not support the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan was just, because they were allowing terrorists to live in their country and plot attacks against innocent people there.
You can deride it as a juvenile fantasy of justice if you like, but consider me to be merely describing rather than prescribing; why single out “the possible exception of the first”? Don’t we actually fine armed robbers?
Let’s pretend for a moment that I’m not recommending our system as the embodiment of justice; I’m simply asking whether you don’t object when armed robbers get fined, and keep on nodding when kidnappers get jailed – and suddenly, when a murderer gets executed, you start raising questions about whether symmetry makes sense.
I’m not trying to claim that symmetry is justice; I’m only asking whether you object to symmetry in one case but not in the other two.
There are a couple of rationales and they’re both pretty simple:
Killing people is wrong in any case, but abortion isn’t really killing.
Killing people is wrong except when God says it’s allowable. The bible says life begins at conception, therefore abortion is killing. The bible says “an eye for an eye”, therefore it’s OK to execute killers. The bible says… err… something about blowing up commies and terrorists, so it’s OK to blow up commies and terrorists. I forget the exact chapter and verse right this minute but my pastor knows.
Obviously I have portrayed the second one with satire, so you can see where my sympathies sit. I believe the second is clearly fallacy in the case of execution and war, because the given biblical justifications are Old Testament works, and supposedly with the arrival of Jesus in the New Testament, revenge and execution and war and killing are no longer valid. So one would think a true Christian, as in a follower of Christ and a believer in the New Testament, would oppose abortion, execution, and war. However, a number of Christians clearly don’t hold this position; therefore I have to say that they find the bible a convenient way to morally justify certain forms of social control, revenge, and empire-building while simultaneously nullifying any guilt associated with these practices.
Not that I’m aware of. Armed robbery is a violent crime which calls for prison time.
I objected to symmetry in *two * of the three cases, and in the case I didn’t object to, what you described was prison, which is where we already and justifiably send our criminals.
Well, (a) consult 18 USC 2113, if you’re so inclined – where bank robbery is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 and imprisonment for not more than 25 years, or both, when the robbery is committed “by the use of a dangerous weapon or device”. But table that for a moment, if you like; I take it you agree that (b) we fine for shoplifting, right? And for petit larceny? And for grand theft?
ululate, I’m trying really hard to understand your point here, but you seem to be clinging to the idea that symmetrical punishment is an idea that I endorse up to the point of the DP, and it’s simply not. Equity yes, symmetry no. Petty larceny may be punished by a fine, or by a short imprisonment, and I find either equitable. Violent crimes should, IMO, be punishable by prison time, because I believe that fines are inadequate (and are there any instances of a bank robber who was sentenced to only a fine?).
I find life imprisonment to be an equitable penalty for murder.
Divorce it entirely from symmetry for a moment, if that’ll help you understand my point. What I’m saying is that you are against kidnapping, but don’t mind us jailing – criminals other than kidnappers. That you’re against theft, but don’t mind us fining – criminals other than thieves. That you’re against armed robbery, and think we should not only fine them but also jail them.
That’s all.
I’m not trying to make you out to be a champion of symmetry up to the point of the DP; I’m trying to make the point that you don’t mind punishments up to the point of the DP – even when those punishments are the same sort of action that you’d deem reprehensibly criminal otherwise.
The fact that some happen to involve symmetry makes the comparison even more obvious – but maybe puts too much emphasis on the symmetry itself, so feel free to disregard it.
But again, that’s simply not true. I don’t favor starving, or sleep deprivation, or breaking kneecaps, or imprisonment in an unreasonably small space, or chinese water torture.
Please point out where I said that anything you can think of to do to a criminal is okay, except the death penalty.
See, now we’re getting somewhere: you’re okay with fines and with jail time, but not with various forms of torture. Why do you put execution in the second category rather than the first?
You wrote that “Anyone who maintains that life is sacred in some situations but not others is essentially saying that they are qualified to judge who is and isn’t fit to live”. You apparently don’t feel the same way about imprisonment, though you do about torture, and you don’t about depriving folks of their property. Am I reading you right? You think the authorities in general, and also you in particular, are qualified to make the second and fourth calls, but not the first and third? That we can rightly judge who is fit to be fined or jailed, but not who is fit to be tortured or killed?
I’m asking you. I apologize for putting any words in your mouth; I’m trying to understand your position, here.
Hm. I believe abortion to be a sin, and the religious equivalent of murder (obviously not the legal equivalent.) I believe the death penalty is murder committed by the state, and I believe it is a moral wrong. Furthermore, I believe it is sinful to participate in an execution.
You shouldn’t kill another human being who is not doing anything to harm you, and is in fact incapable of harming you. Someone on death row is more or less harmless, as long as the prison keeps them properly locked up.
“Pro-War” is a different matter. I’m not pro-war, I think only a misanthrope could be pro-war, war is a terrible thing, and to be in favor of it as a concept is madness. But nor am I a pacifist. I think all wars are abominations. Even less “controversial” wars like WWII. However I’m also a realist, I believe wars are an unfortunate necessity in the world we live. Sometimes I think states have good reasons to go to war, and I also believe that individuals have certain responsibilities to their state. So in general I don’t believe normal combat killing in a war to be a sin, nothing in my understanding of religious texts shows that God considers it a sin, either.
That doesn’t mean that being in a war is a license to kill without the possibility of sinning. One could easily commit a sinful killing in a war, by shooting a POW, or by intentionally killing a non-combatant.
Wars do sort of confuse the whole “do not kill anyone who is not attempting to harm you.” Because it calls into question things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fire bombing of German cities, virtually all explosive weaponry. I’m not really sure how those fit in, to be perfectl honest.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Matthew 5:38-40
I guess I don’t understand the OP. Being
Pro-life = anti-abortion
Not pro-war = anti-war
Not pro-death penalty = anti-death penalty
seems perfectly consistent to me, in that all three preserve human life. I think I am missing something.
Well it is somewhat questionable that anti-abortion is equivalent to being for preservation of life. In the extreme levels of anti-abortion views abortion wouldn’t be allowed in cases where it would save the life of the mother. In other forms of anti-abortion thinking it is still a case of measuring the harm (physical and mental) that a woman would go through coming to full term, with the harm undergone by a fetus that is killed, and always finding in favour of the fetus. To some this would be the case even if the fetus is only a few million cells incapable of sensing its enviroment let alone posessing a mind.
