excuse me if religious lines of thought run through this post. just how it is.

regarding the death penalty, first: it's argued we should allow the state to kill people because those people have broken the law, breaking the law forfeits your rights, and the state must do as it sees fit.

however, isn't human life sacred, and vengeance bad? should we not forgive these people for their shortcomings because they may find god in repentance?

regarding abortion: i'd argue we should allow a woman to abort a pregnancy if she was raped because someone else has broken the law to force this situation on her.

however, it's argued that human life is sacred (this is aside from the fact that up to 50 percent of all conceptions spontaneously abort). but, if human life is sacred, we have no right as humans to intrude on others and force enormous changes in their lives without their permission. if we have the means to change this situation without further suffering outside of what the woman accepts to not have a rapist's baby, why should we not?

This subject has been Newsed and Debated to death. I suggest aborting it.

Do you enjoy causing strife, ceeb?

That's a pretty poor argument, c_b. I'm not sure how you can call having a different level of respect for an innocent baby's life than a proven serial killer's "hypocrisy." Actually, I'd call anything else absurd and maybe even a little demented.

Also, I think your "rape" argument is a bit of a straw man. Most religious people would argue that abortion is acceptable in circumstances such as rape. I'm sure there are some extremists who would disagree, but that's why they're extremists.

by the way, i didn't mean to imply this is hypocritical. i just happened to have a talk with someone who thought raped woman shouldn't be allowed to abort sparking thought on this issue. i'm not sure there's a connection in logic here. we'll see. continue.

the bible says a lot of things

I don't think there is a connection, as much as I disagree with this individual you talked to.

The second largest problem with the death penalty is that it doesn't protect the sanctity of life. I have never really had a strong opinion on this matter. I generally tend to believe that states should do what they want. But I kind of agree with the hypocricy of this notion. And generall I would say it holds true. People who believe in no abortion under any circumstances in the guise that all life is precious, are all about the death penalty.

What does any of this have to do with religion? Any laws you refer to are civil laws.

I may think the death penalty is wrong and may not approve of abortion. However, my feelings on these matters have next to nothing to do with the laws. If I wanted I could use my democratic rights to try and change the laws but choose not to.

Anyone that holds that notion is crazy. I really don't understand how one could be personally against abortion and for the death penalty.

you don't think any of our laws are religiously grounded?

i think many of these people exist. they even sit on the supreme court, for instance.

you've already made assumptions here.

one, that we're dealing with an innocent baby. while an embryo, for instance, could possibly become a human being, it is not yet a sentient being.

two, that we're dealing with serial killers. most people on murder row probably are murderous, terrible people. but our society and criminal justice system is not perfect, and people who are not deserving of the death penalty do get it. completely innocent people, even.

doesn't this really come down to the sacredness of human life? on one hand, we have a possible human life. on the other, we have a human life which most likely grievous, unacceptable act.

like you said, perhaps this doesn't connect.

just to throw this out there, perhaps one could even make a case that the death penalty is more wrong than abortion. in the case of an embryo, consider again that an embryo only might become a human being. in the case of the death penalty, people are, well ... fully sentient beings.



i'd like to see a poll or study on this.

Once adopted into law they become part of our secular grounding.

What laws do you think have religious grounding?

legislatively speaking, i see no hypocricy. our government is equally complicit in the legality of abortion as well as the death penalty.

my word choice of complicit should be no surprise, given my roman catholic background.

in any case, i see partisan politics as being hypocritical in their endorsements of each policy. i have spent years scratching my head in wonderment as to how a republican candidate can support pro-life legislation while endorsing the death penalty.

from a democratic standpoint, i can understand where there would be an issue with where life begins that i cannot reconcile with my own beliefs, so it gets pretty tricky. if it were simpler, i would have an equally puzzled view of why a democrat could support pro-choice legislation while condemning the death penalty.

How can you say the government is complicit in this case, but won't say that the catholic church is directly complicit in the spread of AIDS to millions of people in africa by brainwashing people into thinking condoms are bad?

well, hopefully you are familair with the Church's stance on contraception? since the Church views sex as a sacred means to procreation, and a gift to a husband and wife, it shouldn't be a surprise that condoms are incompatible with this. abstinence is preached.

now, i am not so naive as to think that each of the millions of people with aids in africa have a deep, theological understanding or faith in God to accept this, so naturally i can see where you would view the church's stance as equally complicit. it's not. there needs to be a dialogue of faith between the african community and the Vatican, and there needs to be research devoted to the curing of aids.

better yet, it is the individuals ultimate responsibility to, upon hearing this hard truth, accept it or not.

and with all due respect, does this really fit into the thread? or are you just trying to pick a fight?

do you mean to make them 'see the light' so they stop fucking outside of marriage, thereby theoretically eliminating the need for condoms?

essentially, yes. statitstics have shown that the Church in Africa is fastly growing, which is encouraging. the next step would be for the bishops to, in your words, ask the parishioners to "stop fucking outside of marriage".