Lethal injections:Legal to use on innocence, but not on the guilty.

[El_Machinae]

Wasn't Jesus the guy who said "turn the other cheek" and never physically hurt anyone? Or is he this guy?

Jesus beat people with a whip. He blessed a soldier. He told his disciples to buy swords.

 

[timtofly]

Being anti-abortion but still pro-death penalty can actually be completely logical - the main idea being that the "baby" is innocent, and as such should not be killed, while the criminal is guilty, and as such has "earned" his death.

Claiming to be "pro-life" but being pro-gun and gung-ho, on the other hand, is pretty idiotic.
Though the main point is that claiming that a lump of cells with less abilities to feel than an amoeba is a person is the really ******** notion.

Anyway, this garbage thread is just a big stale troll, so why is it still open ?

Perhaps one day the unborn will have gun rights also?

 

[warpus]

Lethal injections:Legal to use on innocence, but not on the guilty.

Fetuses are not innocent, they carry with them the original sin. They must be exterminated for their crimes.

 

[_random_]

So there's that.

Not saying they're perfect, just pointing out that pro-life people have created organizations designed explicitly to deal with some of the things Valka claims they absolutely never deal with. Not to mention the involvement of pro-life people in all sorts of other charities that aren't explicitly related to abortion but may provide help to those who would otherwise seek them. Are the majority a lot more apathetic than their actual stance on the matter would suggest is appropriate? Probably, but Valka's generalization was remarkably asinine.

 

[El_Machinae]

You know, in aggregate, I'd say that pro-life people tend to be more 'pro-life' than 'anti-choice'. The average person with pro-life views will have made many small token charity efforts in their lives intended to ease the suffering of those less well off. And, I'd warrant, they've made drastically more token efforts towards ending abortion.