I have never been more ashamed of my state or county than I am tonight.Brian Kurcaba (R) Monongalia said:
Pro-life: "I not ok with killing someone who has unquestionably done nothing to deserve it"
So then we as humans are the arbiters of who should live or die? The ones who decide - sometimes capriciously - who "deserves it"? The people who use religion that has a hard and fast rule that says "Thou shalt not kill" to further their own ends politically and socially? Dude, there is NO consistency at all. I'm not even getting into the fact that a large number of death row inmates are more than likely innocent. Do I have a number to justify "large"? Nope. But since 1973 150 people have been exonerated and freed from death row. And that's just the innocent ones we know about. I was under the impression we cared more to have a hundred guilty go free than to sacrifice one innocent life.
There are concerns about the legal system that I agree cause problems with the use of the death penalty. Still, that's a separate issue, having more faith in the system than it deserves isn't contradictory to thinking killing the unborn is wrong.
Because a pregnant person's bodily autonomy has little to do with the prison-industiral complex, and so the stance seems like it's based on a false equivalency? *shrug*
The way I look at it, I accept that a fetus can be considered a person - however I also assert that a fetus is no more a child than a child is an adult. I also acknowledge that we, as a society, make the call that people can and are put to death for reasons of our deciding - one might get the death penalty for murder, but cannot for extremely sadistic rape and torture, no matter how depraved or numerous the infractions, nor the likelihood of recidivism... but espionage or treason against the federal government, even if it does not result in a death, is eligible for the death penalty. There's no equivalency to draw upon anywhere, really - our standards for the acceptability of ending life are already rather arbitrary. I don't go as far as most abortion advocates and try to dehumanize the unborn, likening the process to the same as scraping a mole or excising a tumor, but I do recognize that that to emphasize "it stops a beating heart!" is intellectually disingenuous because we collectively decide to do that every day in other situations which are also much less nebulous on questions of sentience and suffering.
I think I get where you're going. Because I live in a country that doesn't have the death penalty, it (and any reasoning behind it) isn't part of my consciousness, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances of where your coming from and what you're getting at, but I think I get it.
Eh, close enough. As you say, sort of oversimplified, but essentially in line with my meaning.
Fair enough point.
What you are talking about however are two separate concepts - protection from harm vs support. Rhetorically, it's not at all contradictory to assert that it should not be legal to kill (subject) while at the same time denying that there is a legal requirement to provide monetary support and services for (subject).
It's part of the reason why I don't side with republicans on the issue. "We're going to force you to carry this to term, even if you can't afford a child, and we're not going to help you monetarily." Adoption alone doesn't cut the mustard (especially with how herculean the requirements are to adopt these days).
It's not just direct assistance they've cut. Protections that should be in place for everyone, like that storage tank legislation, are being gutted.
I don't really follow how storage tank legislation is related to abortion. Moreover, the bill you are mad about has 11 sponsors, 4 of whom are democrats, including the house minority leader - so it seems to me that it's not just republicans who "hate born children" and want them to choke on tainted water.
You mean "democrat," this is WV after all.
I think you got off on a bit of a tangent there, then. Because all of a sudden the thread lurched into storage tanks.
I see lots of people that oppose the death penalty try to use this argument, and I understand why. But the basis they are using is fundamentally flawed. The most accurate translation of that Commandment is "Thou shall not murder." Much more refined scope of meaning than "Thou shall not kill." The KJV of The Bible is an interesting read, but they did choose to go with the broader interpretation of some phrases than what is generally seen in the Hebrew texts that have been found since the KJV was translated.
Christian politicans don't tend to be concerned with accuracy to Hebrew texts much of the time. The KJV interpretation is widely known, accepted, and ignored, much like the stuff about helping the poor and forgiveness and a bunch of other shit conservative politicians pay lip service to, but never act upon. Christianity is a talking point to score votes for them. It has nothing to do with the religion.
Just as much as Islamic terrorism has to do with the actual Islam or what's written in the Qoran, yet people are still plenty happy to equate those two too.
