Haha dont worry about that person they have seriously went through 10 names because they are rude and cuss every other word...So I wouldnt worry about it that much..I had arguments with that person and it just gets you nowhere although sometimes its fun to argue with that person because they have such stupid post...And they quote ever other sentence...Crazyness... :wink:

Jillian I don't think you are 100% pro-life. I think you fall in the in-between range like tazzy. Nothing wrong with being in the in-between group.

i dont believe you have to be a christian to be pro life, I dont go to church but consider myself pro life, I dont think you need to be religious to have a problem with abortion it is just something pro choice choose to believe because then it is easier for them to think we are all fanatics and not quite sane, which is their reasoning why we dont agree with abortion.Pro choice and pro life are misnomers anyway, at the least it should be pro reproductive choice and pro life should be anti premature death, in this case though they should be called anti and pro abortion but pro choice seem to have a problem with that has it intimates that they are soley for abortion, I am soley anti abortion, I do not like it I do not believe it is right, I don't go around signing petitions or protesting or lobbying for it to be illegalised, mainly because I am in no position to tell anyone else how to live their lives, I won't even give advice because pro choice see even that as trying to control a womans body.It is my opinion and am entitiled to that opinion I do not judge anyone based on my opinion I might judge someone on the law but not my personal opinion.

I was christened catholic, but do not practice my faith. I am too pro life.

I also don't practice.

On this Saturday in late March, I find myself reflecting on a conversation I had years ago with a lawyer who was very well versed in Christian scripture, and a devout Christian himself. When we met in our nation's capitol, we had lunch together with a few of his other lawyer friends. I happened to live in the area, and he was at a Christian lawyer convention. Over lunch, the subject of the death penalty came up.

I asked, is it not written, "Thou shall not kill"? Quickly, they explained that it was a translation error in most Bibles, because the word used in the original Hebrew is closer to our English word: homicide. I sheepishly accepted the correction, but he elaborated.

His argument, as a Christian lawyer, was that law was a concept bestowed upon us from on high. Therefore, we had the right and the duty, to develop that system in accordance with God's will as best we could. Furthermore, if a man is convicted and found guilty of a crime such as rape or homicide, we have the right and the duty to execute the person. He went on to argue that since we must all struggle against our own sin nature, so must we struggle against the outward expressions of that evil.

I should say at this point that I too, am a Christian, and so far I was agreeing with his argument. So were his lawyer friends. But the question begs to be asked, what if the man was actually innocent? It's a big enough question that it bears repeating: what if the person is innocent? I asked this question to the three Christian lawyers.

Their response was, I must say, disappointing. Basically, they contrived a situation in which I was actually the witness of the evil act; that I had seen it with my own eyes. And therefore I should, in agreeing with his previous argument, support a system that seeks justice for the evil that was committed. That was the heart of their argument, but they went on to make other minor points about our system's failsafes: presumed innocent, the appeals process, etc.

Then I made an argument of my own. I said, "Certainly you're aware of the men who were acquitted from death row...� They nodded. "It seems to me that our law system failed these men completely, none of the failsafes you spoke of seemed to find their innocence. Our system is inescapably flawed because it will forever be run by flawed individuals. What saved them in the end was practically an act of God. It wasn't this law, grounded in God's bestowment. It was DNA testing, mostly, something inconceivable 100 years ago. So clearly, the system is flawed."

At this point my lawyer friend said something interesting. He suggested that it was the death penalty itself that motivated this non-profit project of students and scientists to discover these people's innocence. And had it not been for the death penalty, they would likely still be in jail.

[ David Protess was the professor http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?art id=677 ]

I was rather impressed with this part of his interpretation and defense of the death penalty. But in making this argument, he was forced to concede the facts. And the facts are that our system of law failed these men on death row. It took action from people completely outside the system to find their innocence.

And this is the foundation of my argument. Law is the embodiment of our ideals as a nation. It says who we are as Americans, (or at least who we want to be). Since the beginning of history, man has shown us what is important to him by writing things down. Before there were advertisements everywhere, man only bothered to write down the important things: crop yields, grain surpluses, trade accounts, and law. Law was the first field of ideas written down that reflected the state of man, rather than reflecting his biological need to eat, or the benefit of trade that is used to those same ends. (I count the 10 commandments as a form of law).

So, I think law should reflect only our most noble intentions, while at the same time guard against our selfish and irrational impulses. So what if 200 people slip through the cracks of justice, and meet their death at the hands of our lawyers, our judges, our politicians, our policemen, our juries, our state, our people, our America? What if it's just 1 person? One innocent life? One for the safety of the rest? Do we get to make that sacrifice? How many lives might have been touched by that innocent if he were not executed? This is the heart of the matter.

So has DNA fixed this moral dilemma? No. Technology like this is simply a tool to uncover truth, and a tool is only as good as the person who wields it. Before DNA testing, these men were shown guilty, and I quote: "Beyond a reasonable doubt." Technology continues to serve the truth in criminal cases. Video tape and DNA testing, and future technology will render judgments closer and closer to the truth. Take the halving paradox: two people halve the distance between them. They are twice as close to each other as before. They halve the distance again and again and again, but no matter how many times they halve the distance, they never actually touch. Or examine the object in front of you. The table, the keyboard; it doesn't matter. It looks like a solid object, yes? But upon further examination, a microscope will reveal micro fractures in everything. Your body it self: a solid object? Within every molecule in your body, there are spaces between the atoms, between the protons, within the cells. Such is the nature of truth. It is illusive. Tomorrow perhaps all these �facts� will be proven false by science, and then I can simply change my views. But bringing an innocent man back from the grave is not so simple.

The only time we will ever experience real truth is at The Last Judgment; in the life after this one. Then, the spaces are closed and we become one with God, in his omnipresence, and we finally know truth. The only true judge of a man's life should be God. With each new technological revelation we may come closer to perfect judgment, but with something so precious and sacred as life, we should not be the ultimate arbiters. For revelation of video technology has shown our previous judgments to be lacking. DNA technology has shown our previous judgments to be lacking. My lawyer friend says that law was given from on high to ensure God's will is done and known, but I think science was given from on high too. God gave us nature to study, and from this developed science and various technologies. But I do not believe God gave us these technologies for us to understand the things around us, but to understand how little we previously knew. For the boundaries of knowledge will never be found, and neither will we make good judgments regarding the entirety of capital punishment cases 100% of the time. And as surely as time marches on, so surely will we look back at many things and know finally how wrong we previously were. It would be hubris to think otherwise, for this is not heaven on earth, it is earth. And we are not God, but human; humans with flaws, men who make mistakes. And everyone knows that once a mistake has been made, the best course of action is to rectify it. 130 people have been released from death row since 1973 using DNA evidence. I guarantee you that innocent people were executed before DNA evidence, and innocent people will continue to die at the hands of the state (albeit less people perhaps) regardless of the new advances in science.

I said this to my friend, but not in so many words.

He then warned me not to forget determent: "It's been shown that people have been afraid to commit homicide in places like Texas because they're afraid of execution."

I had serious doubts about his statement, but I ask this question instead: "So you think public policy has a psychological effect on potential criminals?"
"Yes," he says.
Let us suppose this is true. What are the psychological effects of a nation that says killing is O.K. 'sometimes'�just as long as the victim is guilty? What is the psychological effect of having already executed innocent people? What is the psychological effect of continuing to support these policies, and the politicians that support them? Is it possible that the same culture that says it's O.K. to kill in certain circumstances, actually leaves the public more inclined to do killing of their own? What should our response be to the accidental killing of innocents? My mother suggested this response: "Oops." And to the families of these innocents, do we simply say �oops�, and wash our hands of it as Pontius Pilot did?

(Admittedly Pilot�s actions were not accidental, but I'm sure that distinction won't be appreciated by the families of the executed innocents).

Justice. We justify capital punishment by noting the prisoner has been found guilty, but we have already seen it�s not always that simple. You know who else justified killing? Supposedly, all the folks on death row. Many many many people agree that most humans are generally self-interested in nature. Dispute that point if you wish, but somehow, these people on death row felt it was in their interest to homicide or rape. They were guilty of leaning on their own understanding, and not the Lord's. They justified their actions the same way.

Just for kicks, let's ask the question: what is the difference between a homicide and an execution? I'm sure someone will correct me on this point, but as I see it, one is done by a group, and the other by an individual. (Also, one of them is well documented). Both make judgments and take action, and both actions are subject to the same human flaws that result in an innocent's life being taken, however subdued or exaggerated those flaws may be.

In a capital punishment case, there can be no moving beyond reasonable doubt. For when a man's life is in the balance, reason reveals doubt behind every door, behind every curtain, and under every rug. I also think it's un-Christian for our legal system to incriminate bystanders while pursuing its understanding of justice. What happens to the man who pulls the lever on an innocent man? What happens to the jury that incorrectly votes guilty? What happens to the man who slams the gavel? What of their souls? What of the souls of every voter who elects a pro-death penalty politician? Are we innocent if an innocent man is put to death, or tacitly guilty?

I've tried to convey the argument my lawyer friend made as persuasively as he did, because there's nothing worse than a straw man argument. Make up your own mind. As for me, it's my opinion that you definitely need a biblical scholar to argue the Christian justification for government endorsed execution, but it doesn't take a genius to see it's unholy.

I�m not arguing against lethal force in self-defense, or war, or anything like that. But in the realm of law, where we enshrine our noblest intentions, and our judgment is inescapably flawed, we should not be so overconfident as to think we have a right to decide whether a man lives or dies. Who knows? Maybe I�m dead wrong. Or maybe the jury was.

I've known many people who are "pro-life" but who also support the death penalty. In the end, I find the two ideas to be irreconcilable. A house divided cannot stand.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence- and-death-penalty

Thank you for sharing this. I agree. Right now the pro-life house is not standing so well. It is deeply divided. I am very sad about this. People rather hold on to their politics than strive to save the babies. Its their way or the highway.

I've known many people who are "pro-life" but who also support the death penalty. In the end, I find the two ideas to be irreconcilable. A house divided cannot stand.

A house divided cannot stand-true..But, a house torn apart within by homicide, rape will not stand and will be torn down..

An unborn child does not deserve death because it is not wanted..

Someone who without a shadow of doubt commits homicide,rape etc deserves the maximum the law will allow..Then the house is stronger for taking care of the house..We are given a court system, lawyers and judges-we fight for the injustice of the criminals-what about those who these people destroyed..You say what about those where no shadow of doubt exists-then that person is either innocent or clever..Either way you have to try to help or find the truth..

The cookie jar is full..Ten people go into the room and are told do not eat the cookies..Ten people come out..Only two ate the cookies..One of the two is a habitual lier and can look you in the eyes and tell you no..The other says I ate two cookies..The other says no he ate them all..DO you let both off? They each ate the cookies only one did more than the other..

What about those raped torn apart and left for dead? The home destroyed due to ignorane of those who broke in? The unborn who was cut from her moms belly so she could have a child, those who steal our children and put into prostitution..

What about the jail systems where-they live better than most..some have spa like treamtent..They go to the gym, I can't afford, they have 3 square meals a day, they are cared for..True they may have to fight daily for what they have but how many of us do that out here in the world..

I pity those who caused or put themsleves in the place that caused harm to another.. They will not know or understnad true love, families and friends..

I pity more those that were caused injury..God himself..Will I argue with lawyer or scholar-no..They are cagey and can turn my words around..

I beleive in God, I believe there is a system in place for us..It has flaws no doubt..I see the flaws more towards those who cause and inflict injury upon the innocent than those behind bars..