Christian conservative leaders unify behind McCain, adopt statement with common goals - Page 3

independent_thinker2002 · 07-06-08, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

For the record:

Being pro-death penalty and being pro-life is a consistent non-contradictory
position.

When a society extends the death penalty for murder, the the price of a life is given the highest possible value. If you take a life, you pay the highest price, by cashing in your own.

When a society gives 15-years to life for murder. The value that that society has put on one life is 15-to-life in jail. So a non-death penalty scenario, a human life could be worth as little as 15 years in jail.

Life is precious, whether it's the unborn, or somebody who was murdered; both need and should be defended IMO. Murderers have no regard for the value of their own life or the lives of others, yet they have a possession (their life) that should be treated as capital when they make the choice to "purchase" someone else's.

People who are pro-life and pro-death penalty are those who place the highest possible value on human life.

The death penalty doesn't save lives.

the makeout hobo · 07-06-08, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

Christian Conservatives coming around.........I don't think they care much for butchery in the womb and gay marriage............

Veterans’ Group Hopes to Counter MoveOn With Ad Campaign - America’s Election HQ

DENVER (BP)--Giving a significant boost to Republican John McCain's goal of attracting the votes of social conservatives, nearly 100 pro-family leaders gathering in Denver July 1 agreed to unify behind the Arizona senator for president.

The leaders also approved a "Declaration of American Values" with 10 common goals, such as protecting the sanctity of life and affirming natural, traditional marriage. (A copy of the document is at the end of this story.)

Sure, they might begrudingly vote for McCain, but he's still majorly losing out here. Do you really think the religious right is going to go out and volunteer for McCain in any large numbers? Do you really see an army of evangelicals knocking on doors like they did for Bush? The enthusiasm gap is really going to hurt McCain.

Singularity · 07-06-08, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

The death penalty doesn't save lives.

I don't think that was his implication with his post; rather, that supporting the death penalty and being pro-life isn't necessarily a contradictory position.

Although I am against the death penalty, I think he brought up a good point. I've read many arguments that are along the lines of "if you are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, you are being contradictory". I think his post was a pretty good illustration on how such a position is, in fact, not contradictory at all.

That's what I got out of it, at least.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-06-08, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

I don't think that was his implication with his post; rather, that supporting the death penalty and being pro-life isn't necessarily a contradictory position.

Although I am against the death penalty, I think he brought up a good point. I've read many arguments that are along the lines of "if you are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, you are being contradictory". I think his post was a pretty good illustration on how such a position is, in fact, not contradictory at all.

That's what I got out of it, at least.

I understand your view. I still think it's contradictory. The only way killing another human is justifiable is in self-defense. The death penalty is about revenge, not self defense. They could be locked up safely for the rest of their life. It's a choice, not a necessity. How killing someone unnecessarily is consistent with "pro-life" is beyond me.

obvious Child · 07-06-08, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

People who are pro-life and pro-death penalty are those who place the highest possible value on human life.

Questionable given that you're making a blanket statement. What kind of death penalty? Navy has the position you've stated yet he has no problems with the ever increasing amount of wrongful convictions in the current model of the death penalty that lead to innocent people being effectively murdered by the state. That is HARDLY the highest possible value on human life. When you are against more funding or better procedures to eliminate accidents and ensure guilt, one isn't putting value on human life.

Furthermore, many pro-life don't seem to give a **** about children after they are born. How is that putting the "highest possible value on human life?"

Singularity · 07-06-08, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I understand your view. I still think it's contradictory. The only way killing another human is justifiable is in self-defense. The death penalty is about revenge, not self defense. They could be locked up safely for the rest of their life. It's a choice, not a necessity. How killing someone unnecessarily is consistent with "pro-life" is beyond me.

I don't know. While I am against the death penalty, i'm only human, and I really think there are instances where it is justified beyond self-defense. For instance, if Osama Bin Laden were caught tomorrow, alive and well, i'd probably be screaming for the death penalty at his trial. I suppose i'd have felt the same about Hitler had he been caught alive if I lived in that particular time period.

In any case, I think Silenced Majority has a pretty good argument here for rationalizing why the two aren't incompatible; it isn't a "preservation of all life" issue, only innocent lives qualify. Those in the "pro-life" movement are seeking to protect what they view as an innocent life, don't you agree? In contrast, someone who has committed murder is far from innocent. Barring insanity, they have committed a henious act while in full control of their faculties. What Silenced's argument is saying is that, since human life holds the highest possible value, those that commit the heinous crime of murder can only pay that price with their own lives, because there is nothing else that is equivalent.

If you do NOT think human life holds the highest possible value, then you equivalate something as equal to human life--which, in your argument, seems to be life in prison.

I don't know. Seems like a pretty good argument to me. If you are against the death penalty, it forces you into taking the uncomfortable position that human life may not be of the highest possible value.

In any case, I am against the death penalty, but again i'm only human. His argument seemed pretty logical to me, and I certainly am not above thinking some people may deserve it.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-06-08, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

I don't know. While I am against the death penalty, i'm only human, and I really think there are instances where it is justified beyond self-defense. For instance, if Osama Bin Laden were caught tomorrow, alive and well, i'd probably be screaming for the death penalty at his trial. I suppose i'd have felt the same about Hitler had he been caught alive if I lived in that particular time period.

In any case, I think Silenced Majority has a pretty good argument here for rationalizing why the two aren't incompatible; it isn't a "preservation of all life" issue, only innocent lives qualify. Those in the "pro-life" movement are seeking to protect what they view as an innocent life, don't you agree? In contrast, someone who has committed murder is far from innocent. Barring insanity, they have committed a henious act while in full control of their faculties. What Silenced's argument is saying is that, since human life holds the highest possible value, those that commit the heinous crime of murder can only pay that price with their own lives, because there is nothing else that is equivalent.

If you do NOT think human life holds the highest possible value, then you equivalate something as equal to human life--which, in your argument, seems to be life in prison.

I don't know. Seems like a pretty good argument to me. If you are against the death penalty, it forces you into taking the uncomfortable position that human life may not be of the highest possible value.

In any case, I am against the death penalty, but again i'm only human. His argument seemed pretty logical to me, and I certainly am not above thinking some people may deserve it.

Yes, I do believe that human life is the highest possible value. I would say that life in prison makes one's life worthless though. It's not like the murderers life has a transferable value. It's only valuable to them. No one else can benefit from the murderer's life. Who are they paying this price to?