[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] [QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] It is ironic to see alot of these people who claim to be "pro-life" have no real problems with war or the death penalty.. sSubZerOo
Pro-life =/= pacifism. Ad hominem.
Pro-life is to suggst you are for all life.. Why is the death penalty and War not a issue that should be under that? And I am not ad hominem I am just pointing out.. Perhapes you should just turn your self to you lknow, anti abortion approach? When you use pro-life its to insinuate that you find all life sacred.. If that is so why arn't these people against the death penalty and war?
Capital punishment is a sensitive issue, and I am personally against it, but there are simply some cases where the defendent cannot possibly contribute any redeeming factors to society. Keeping him locked up inside a prison for life may be more justifiable than sending him straight to the gallows, but that's opinion-based and could differ from person to person. I'm not afraid to admit that some people simply need to be killed.
War is not simply about senseless killing as you may portray it to be, because many wars are fought with the intentions of protecting the citizens of it's land, preventing more lives from being lost than if they simply didn't go to war whatsoever. World War II was a horrific war that led to the deaths of millions of people, but there would have been millions upon millions of more casualties if the Allied Forces simply sat back and drank lemonade while Nazi Germany had their way with eastern Europe and the Jewish inhabitants of said area.
Very true I just think the whole claim of calling them selves "pro life" as both untruthful and full of propaganda like they some how have the moral high ground.. Every one is pro life, in the end every one don't want people to die, even in abortion the majority of people whoa re "pro choice" really don't support it but they feel its a persons liberty and not their business.
The point I was aiming at was that some forms of extreme justice are sometimes necessary in society, because the consequences that could result from apathy or mercy far outweigh the good that could arise from apathy or mercy as well.
Say you're a professional bodyguard overlooking a crowded area for anybody who may threaten the life of the President of the United States, who is currently giving out an important speech to the masses. Suddenly, a man rushes up to the stage with a pistol and aims right at the man of honor; in that split second of thought, you have to make a quick decision as to how to assess the situation.
"I have my own handgun here and can shoot him before he shoots the President." Whipping out your pistol in a beat second, you aim directly at the assassin. "Wait", you think, "Should I shoot him in the head and kill him immediately or should I sustain his life and shoot him in the leg?" Quickly choosing the idea of keeping the assassin alive, you shoot him in the leg and he falls down onto one knee. However, the assassin is still able to take a shot off and fatally wounds the President after the bullet lodges into his neck.
Obviously, in such a critical life-or-death situation, most people will react off of instincts rather than assessing a situation, because the situation will be long over before you even decide upon what to do. The point, however, is that the bodyguard could've saved the President's life if he took the more extreme path to take absolutely no chances and end the life of the derranged man before he could inflict death upon another innocent man.
I'm not saying that we should immediately gun down anybody who poses as a threat to us, but it needs to be made clear that choosing to spare a person rather than killing him is not always the logical answer, as such decisions could lead to (more) tragic resolutions.
Log in to comment