The majority of right wing christain evangalists are pro life (anti abortion) and pro apital punishment (for the death penalty). Isnt it hipocritical for them to say that under no circumstances is it okay to 'kill' an unborn 'lifeform' but it is okay to kill people if they doa really bad action? i mean how can they say in one breath that killing is not okay under any circumsnaces then say it is okay to punish people by killing them?

The death penalty is not exactly punishment anyway - how does it re-habilitate the subject?
oh yeh, this thread is not about primarily about if the death penalty is okay but if policy of pro-life and pro-death can be taken by the same organisation.

In answer to your first question, I really don't think that it is necessarily hypocritical. If you are of the opinion that death is only appropriate if there is some degree of "wrong doing", then the two things can be viewed as totally seperate instances since the fetus is by nature incapable of this. It's really comparing apples to oranges. I really don't see the similarities at all, other than a resulting death in either case.

Now if you had asked about the morality of either, I think you would have a much more debate worthy topic. Is it right to kill under any under any circumstances? When does life begin? Is death in any form just as wrong?

In answer to your second, punishment doesn't equate to rehabilitation. These are two entirely different matters. Punishment is the application of a negative effect in response to an unwanted action. I think death would be a punishment.

I think it is more of a case of innocent, the unborn, vs. a criminal scumbag killer that made a conscience decision. Now I personally don't agree with abortion or the death penalty. But sometimes both are warranted depending on the circumstances.

I heard this and did look it up - in the bible it states the blood is the life yet the heart which pumps blood for a fetus doesn't exist/works until about the 16th to 20th day.

so if a woman has an abortion before that time it wouldn't be ending a life - going by the bible.

Leviticus 17:11 Parallel Translations

NASB: 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' (NASB ©1995)
GWT: because blood contains life. I have given this blood to you to make peace with me on the altar. Blood is needed to make peace with me.(GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
ASV: For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.
BBE: For the life of the flesh is in its blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to take away your sin: for it is the blood which makes free from sin because of the life in it.
DBY: for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.



When does the heart begin to beat?

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

When is the brain functioning?

Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564


http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/...hem_both_12.asp

but blood isnt life and the functionality of organs isnt life - thinking is life, the old "I think therefore i am" argument. If you agree with this argument, fetus are not life so it is not killing.


alsomy question still stands: How is it never okay for an abortion (as they see it as murder, which is never okay) but okay under some circumstances to kill criminals - some bible quotations have been used (im not religious) but the bible says that murder is a sin - so the death penalty is also a sin.

it wasn't if I believe in it , it was showing there is definition via the bible as to when life begins. hence any action to abort before that would be fine.


as for the argument of the potential of life that Christians bring up well the potential of life even exists in the egg without insemination since the amount of chromosomes that sperm gives is also the number the egg sheds. It's a science with a future. it happens in nature everyday.

but the bible doesn't mention potential.


'Virgin birth' method promises ethical stem cells
09:30 28 April 2003



The phenomenon that leads to "virgin births" in some species looks like a promising source of embryonic stem cells. Researchers are on the brink of obtaining human stem cells this way for the first time, and animal experiments suggest such cells are indistinguishable from normal stem cells.

In parthenogenesis, an unfertilised egg keeps two sets of chromosomes and begins developing as if it had been fertilised. Some insects and reptiles can reproduce this way but even though an electric or chemical stimulus can induce parthenogenesis in mammals, the resulting embryos die after a few days.

And that, according to its proponents, is the beauty of the technique as far as stem cells are concerned: it produces embryos that could never become human beings. So destroying these embryos to obtain stem cells would avoid the ethical concerns that have led to restrictions or bans on embryonic stem cell research in many countries.

However, while the technique works in mice and monkeys (New Scientist print edition, 26 October 2001), attempts with human eggs have not got far. Until now, that is. A team led by fertility specialist David Wininger at biotech firm Stemron of Maryland has grown parthenogenetic human embryos to the blastocyst stage, at which stem cells can be obtained. Cells taken from one of the embryos survived for a few days (Stem Cells, vol 21, p 152).

"It's the first time I know of parthenogenetic cells in humans," says Kent Vrana of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, whose team pioneered the work in monkeys.

Indefinite growth
The next step is to get the cells to grow in culture indefinitely: that is, to obtain a stem cell line. In monkeys, such a cell line has been growing for over two years, and it makes the human experiments all the more relevant.

According to Vrana, extensive analysis of the monkey cells suggests that they are indistinguishable from normal embryonic stem cells. "They are identical to ESCs by every known criterion we have tested," he says, adding that details will soon be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

A lot of work still has to be done to ensure any tissues made from parthenogenetic stem cells are absolutely normal, says Jerry Hall of the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics in Los Angeles. But he is optimistic. "Patients are so interested in this procedure, and we are confident enough in its feasibility, that we have been willing to store eggs for use as soon as safety and effectiveness is shown," he says.

Since eggs are needed to make parthenogenetic stem cells, one potential problem is that the technique could not be used to make matching stem cells for men or for women after menopause. Therapeutic cloning, by contrast, could provide matching stem cells for any individual.

However, because cells made by parthenogenesis have two identical sets of chromosomes, rather than one set each from the father and the mother, they have less variation in the surface proteins on cells that can trigger immune reactions. Wininger thinks it will possible to establish a bank of parthenogenetic stem cells that could provide cells to suit most individuals. And such banks would be much cheaper than creating stem cells from scratch for each individual.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3654

Both issues actually have to do with the value of life.

The only reason I, as a "right-wing Christian evangelist" am pro-life and pro-capital punishment is because they are both positive statements about the value of a human life.

One may argue that a fetus is not really alive until it's out of the mother's womb, but unless there's a significant chance that a puppy or a dolphin will be born instead of a human, then we're just fooling ourselves, it's a human life.

Additionally, at least in the U.S. criminals sentenced to death are all found guilty of having killed a fellow human, and the value of that human life (often several human lives) cannot be valued at less than another human life. The criminal is paying for the life he took with his life.

I agree Rikatee. Quite a few also enjoy going to war.
The god of the bible has not been exactly pro-life himself has HE ? He is quite violent !

rastlain wrote:


In answer to your first question, I really don't think that it is necessarily hypocritical. If you are of the opinion that death is only appropriate if there is some degree of "wrong doing", then the two things can be viewed as totally seperate instances since the fetus is by nature incapable of this. It's really comparing apples to oranges. I really don't see the similarities at all, other than a resulting death in either case.

Now if you had asked about the morality of either, I think you would have a much more debate worthy topic. Is it right to kill under any under any circumstances? When does life begin? Is death in any form just as wrong?

In answer to your second, punishment doesn't equate to rehabilitation. These are two entirely different matters. Punishment is the application of a negative effect in response to an unwanted action. I think death would be a punishment.

My thoughts:
In case you are a christian what part of "thou shalt not kill" do you understand ?
I am an agnostic so I just have my personal views. Sometimes I feel capital punishment is acceptable but I can't be sure if it is truly the right thing to do. it depends what kind of monster we are talking about & I am not too happy about spending my tax dollars on serial killers. Plus I like the fact of them never being able to harm anyone again.
Well I feel killing someone that already exists wholly & is loved,known & missed is much worse a loss. Like a soldier dying to benefit "a few" people who will profit financially from this. Think about it.
That is a big difference.
A fetus at the very beginning is like a blueprint of cells. 50 % of all fetuses self-abort.
I believe in contraception foremost. Abortion is not pleasant and it's a shame that it's used as birth-control in some cases.