Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- From: "Blinky the Wonder Wombat" <wkharrisjr_info@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:44:21 -0400
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntEGM111@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1mm953p0qp3e27f2qblabadn9595t4rp5o@xxxxxxxxxx
On 23 May 2007 12:56:01 -0700, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
<wkharrisjr_info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 23, 3:30 pm, ronniecat <ronnie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Recklessly refusing to invoke the Fifth Amendment, on 23 May 2007
09:12:27 -0700, Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
But remember the original premise of this thread-let: the hypocricy of
being pro-death penalty and anti-abortion (or conversely, being anti-
death penalty and pro-abortion). The premise of many anti-captial
punishemnt or anti-abortion stances is rooted in the belief that state-
sanctioned taking of another's life is wrong.
Of course, if one does not believe that a fetus is "alive" in any real
sense of the word until point X in its development, or until birth,
then believing in abortion up until point X, or until birth, while
simultaneously opposing the death penalty is not hypocritical at all.
Since the above seems to express the beliefs of the overwhelming
majority of pro-choice people I know or whose opinions I have read,
there isn't a lot of hypocrisy going on in the real world.
Instead, you seem to be describing a most odd creature indeed -
someone who believes that a fetus is a full person from conception yet
supports abortion anyway, while simultaneously condemning capital
punishment. I can't say I've ever met such a person. I would consider
him or her a very odd duck.
ronnie
Guess I'm not too clear today. My intent was to point out the
hypocricy (particularly from the anti-abortion side) of protesting
abortion while supporting capital punishment. I just personally find
it ironic that many capital punishment opponents are supporters of
abortion rights. The question of personhood was brought up and I was
just trying to illustrate the (probably unbridgeable) gap between the
two schools of thought on the subject.
Until I hear of back alley executions, there's no comparison . . .
BTW, I *do* know women who've had abortions (one rather personally),
so I have a bettrer understanding of where "the decision" comes from .
There is a difference between legally permitted abortions and back alley
abortions just as there is a difference between legally permitted killings
of adults (captial punishment) and illegal murder. Making one legal does not
make the other go away nor does it solve the root causes for the illegal
acts. Some of us are just uncomfortable with the government being involved
with legalizing killing.
And yes, for the upteenth time, if you do not believe life begins at
conception and the fetus does not have the same right to life as someone who
passed through the birth canal, this arguement does not hold water. I'm not
even going to try to convince someone otherwise; I'm just pointing out what
I percieve, as I stated several times in this thread, an inconsistancy in
some pro-life stances.
.
- References:
- Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- From: ronniecat
- Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- From: Blinky the Wonder Wombat
- Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- From: Antonio E . Gonzalez
- Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- Prev by Date: Re: FBOFW - 5/22 - Who's responsible?
- Next by Date: Re: FBOFW - 5/22 - Who's responsible?
- Previous by thread: Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- Next by thread: Re: I wonder if Chris Muir, and Cox & Forkum will even acknowledge this . . .
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|