Of course, John claims that it is okay to kill prisoners on death row since they are all "guilty" -- a fact which is demonstratably not true, but not okay to kill a fetus, because the fetus is "innocent" -- a belief which is unfounded at best while the nature vs. nuture arguement continues unabated. Was Hilter born bad or did his parents make him that way? What about the biblical Antichrist -- if he gets aborted, is Armaggedon off?

NicoleC,

No, I did not say "…it is okay to kill prisoners on death row since they are all "guilty"".

I was merely responding to the charge that pro-lifers are inconsistent because we are against killing the unborn but we are not ALL against the government killing murderers. I only addressed the difference between an innocent unborn and a guilty (by due process) killer.

I even allowed (two times) as how one might still choose to argue the finer points of capital punishment on the basis of a failing justice system. But, again, THAT does not mean that pro-lifers are inconsistent when they can make a distinction between a guilty murderer and an innocent unborn.

Are you saying that you are pro-abortion on the basis of its potential to save us from a potential mass murderer?

I have never referred to any murderer that has not been convicted by due process. I cannot imagine a due process that would convict on the possibility that an unborn. might become a murderer.

I (not the pro-life movement) do believe that capital punishment represents a pro-life position, and I would be glad to share my rationale, but it is too long to put in this already too long post – it would only confuse things more.

"John - in this entire discussion, you haven't mentioned men's responsibility until I did."

I never brought it up because I never thought it was germane to the discussion. At what point did you think it was?

But now that you asked me, rather than responding to my response, you now complain that my response is illegitimate because of its lack of timeliness.

Again, I do not get it. I thought you were against a man having any say in abortion. Now it matters to you whether or not I understand that a man is involved? (I do). So you are saying a man is involved and therefore SHOULD have a say in the commission of an abortion?

"You haven't mentioned alternatives until Ebbie mentioned adoption. I've never seen you support public healthcare issues or write impassioned arguments about pregnancy prevention and reproductive health, or a woman's right to self-determination BEFORE she gets pregnant. (Clearly, you think that she has no right afterward.) When it comes to the issue, you only have one thing to say -- you think it's morally wrong and you think you have the right to judge that morality for everyone else. That's your opinion and I respect that someone might hold it. But your outrage is merely reserved for the end product of the problem, not the cause, not the symptoms, and certainly not focused at a cure."

Again I didn't bring it up because it wasn't what we were discussing. You seem inordinately concerned about the order in which I choose to discuss this issue – as if, unless I make the points I am making, in the order in which you think I should make them, they are illegitimate.

As I said earlier. It may really grate on you. You may think a pro-lifer is a hypocrite if he doesn't choose to address the problem in a concrete manner that you find suitable. But the point I made (earlier) is that, all that unhelpfulness and hypocrisy may be true – but if abortion is an immoral act, it doesn't alter that fact just because those who believe it is immoral are jerks. Again, it's a bitch when total jerks are right – but it happens from time to time.

Yet even within this thread on capital punishment, numerous Catter's have waxed philosophical and forwarded ideas on how to prevent victims of crime and find better ways to deal with convicted criminals that don't kill the innocents convicted. Don't you think that's ironic?

No.

I have NEVER met a pro-lifer that holds the beliefs you describe.
(John Hardly)

He who sleeps with dogs rises with fleas. I've met quite a few up, and I'm not even involved with the "movement." Perhaps you should read some of the beliefs published by organizations like www.abortionismurder.com (contraception is murder, abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest), Right to Life (www.nrlc.ord) (no mention of healthcare issues or the byproducts of fertility treatments nor the death penalty or anytrhing other than they are also against euthanasia). Then there's www.operationrescue.org, who believes that God is punishing America for abortion and everyone who gets an abortion is going to Hell, but at least has the backbone to also protest capital punishment.

Even Dan Quayle publicly stated he didn't support abortion even in the case of a 12 year old raped by her father.

I did not say you couldn't find anyone who believes as you do. I said that I don't know anyone who does. I think what I am saying by that is that perhaps the mainstream of the pro-life movement isn't represented well by its fringe.

Quayle didn't get elected dogcatcher. (he made that comment during his aborted presidential bid).