The group of people that I simply cant understand

There is a group of people in this country, admittedly large, that think killing an unborn baby in an abortion is ok, yet want to preserve that life of an animal that has raped and killed a 9 year old girl. Who knows what the aborted baby might have become? And what is the redeeming social value of the killer? Try to explain why you think this way.

 

Apparently in black and white it is hard to explain.

How about a compromise-----------no death penalty, no abortion.

 

I don't get it either.

Its one of the most horrific actions we can commit as a species.

It puts us on the level of animals that kill their own young.

I wish I had 8 billion trillion dollars and I would offer those women as much money as they wanted and raise the children myself.

And yes, I would go for that deal as much as I support the death penalty.

 

Well I'll not argue the point, but I know women who almost certainly would have been murdered by abusive men if not for abortions, that prevented these monsters from having a legal hold on them. And please don't give me the spiel about there being " other avenues" to go for help, thats by and large BS. I hope we never ever lose the right to choose to have an abortion. Judge not...

 

I am not pro abortion, but I am also pro choice.
We don't know all circumstances on why an abortion would be wanted. No one should tell another how they have to live their life.

 

I think you're conflating two sets with a common principle of valuing human life. This is a mistake because the left does not think like that. Every sperm is certainly not sacred to them. That monster who got on death row is more than likely a member of a set of people who tend to vote for them.

hint: they won't complain when dylann roof is executed. When Stanley Williams was executed, thousands of bleeding heart protesters were outside of san quentin

It takes 18 years and 9 months for a baby to become eligible to vote, and they don't have 18 years. That's why they're demanding that the borders be opened up, and swearing up and down that requiring voter IDs is racist.

When trying to understand the left, you need to understand that they are very machiavellian. There are no universal principles, but there is power to be gained, and they want to be the ones to wield it.

 

If this thread wants to focus on abortion, it should be move to the appropriate abortion thread.

 

It's not about abortion, but rather a seeming contradiction in values. To be fair, conservatives are also guilty of this because if unborn babies should not be killed, then convicted murderers should not be killed. We distinguish between the two due to the belief in free will. Children are innocent, and are only later able to become depraved through bad choices. The distinction is moral agency.

I'm not really sure of this distinction because it can also be argued that unborn children are amoral, and virtue or sin are only attained when we are capable of discriminating between good and evil.

Anyway, it's not about abortion, but rather the value of human life and why some can be killed while others should not be killed.

 

There are other avenues though, you dismissing that doesn't make it not true.

There first avenue is not to have sex without protection but because they do then the children must suffer?

Whatever.

 

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

 

So how do you discriminate between these two groups? On the face of it, you might as well say that you're pro-life and pro-death.

 

OK.
An unborn only has the legal status the mother gives it. And IMO, that is how it should be. Something not yet born, or at least at some level of development, can't have a legal status.
And that is what this is about, legal status, for religious views are not part of legal status.
One person's sin, is another person's freedom.
Comparing one on death row, for taking others life(s) is a bad comparison to some thing that has not yet left the womb.

 

More like pro choice and pro death.
7B people in the world. We can't know every single reason a mother might not want to carry a fetus for 9 months.

 

Criminals who commit death penalty worthy offenses don't belong here and women deserve control over their own bodies.

 

This is the appeal to the law fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/73/Appeal-to-the-Law

 

We can know when a reason is wrong and another reason is right. Maybe the father doesn't want to be obligated to pay child support. Is that wrong?

 

As opposed to your appeal to religious fallacy?
You mention free will and sin in the same post. So I assume you have a religious tone to your reasons.

And the law is how our society functions.
Abortions took place even when illegal. Far far more dangerous.

 

Wrong and right are purely subjective. Not being able to afford a child is a valid reason to not want to carry a pregnancy to full term. And then 18 yrs of support.

 

Replace religious with morality and I'd certainly agree.

 

And that, my friend, is where we go our separate paths.

 

Morals are as subjective as religions.
So we need laws. And in a free environment, laws get set by elections of the representatives.
And if your morals don't affect me, and mine don't affect you. Why should either of us care?

I won't tell you how to live your life, and you don't tell me how to live mine. Unless one of us wants to infringe on something of ours.

 

Because you have some religious morals? Even those are purely subjective.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

So “killing people bad.” Is purely a religious thing?

 

You making stuff up again. Is that all you do? yes.