Can You Be Pro-Life And Pro-Death Penalty?

Not pictured: Criminal

Back in the dim, long-dead days of my youth when I was pro-choice, those dark ages of the early and mid 2000s, I fancied myself especially clever whenever I advanced the following “argument.”

“How come so many so-called ‘pro-lifers’ support the death penalty? That’s completely illogical and hypocritical.”

This is a favorite pro-choice rejoinder, so it’s a good idea as a pro-lifer to know how to make short work of it.

First of all, this tactic – to accuse pro-lifers of being hypocrites if they support the death penalty – is not an argument at all. It’s just an attempt to discredit the pro-life movement by “proving” that we are illogical woman-haters and not so much concerned with preserving life as stripping “reproductive rights” from people.

It’s important to know how to combat this tactic even if you happen to be, as I am, against the death penalty. No matter your feelings on capital punishment, it is simply ridiculous to compare it morally to abortion.

It’s instructive here to look at what the Catholic Church believes concerning abortion and capital punishment. It’s not necessary to be Catholic to understand this argument, just as it is not necessary to be Catholic or even Christian to be pro-life. Catholics are more likely to believe in what they call a “consistent life ethic,” in other words, the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Some call this the “seamless garment.”

The idea behind this is that only God has the right to take life from a person, and as long as a human being can be kept from committing further harm against society – for example, by locking them up in prison – we should keep them alive so that God may do with the person’s life whatever He intends.

Others oppose the  death penalty because they believe it’s ineffective or that it gives the government too much power over its people.

Then again, there are those, Christian and non-Christian, who are a bit more Old Testament when it comes to punishment. Eye for an eye, and all that. Many of these people happen to oppose abortion.

Whatever your position, don’t allow pro-aborts to tell you that being pro-capital punishment and pro-life is an oxymoron. It isn’t.

Executing, via legal means, a person who has been convicted in a court of law of a reprehensible crime is not even in the same ballpark as a woman paying a doctor to kill her unborn baby in the womb for any reason she chooses.

The pre-born infant has committed no crime. She has had no legal representation. She does not have the voice to plead her case. She simply, through no fault of her own, exists, an entire and complete human being from the moment of her conception. She is blameless.

By contrast, the vast majority of people who are executed by the state are guilty. And even in those rare cases where the accused was wrongly convicted, at least he had a chance: to live, to make other choices, to run, to escape, to defend himself.

The pre-born infant is trapped. She can’t beg for a commutation of sentence and hope for life without parole. She can’t appeal. She can’t ask for a new lawyer. If her mother decides she must die, she will die. It is the ultimate in “might makes right” thinking, the kind of thinking most pro-aborts condemn when it comes to issues such as war, women’s rights, humanitarian causes, institutional racism, and the criminal justice system. Why then do they overlook it by giving a woman carte blanche power of life and death over another human being, for any reason she chooses?

In order to execute a criminal offender, an astoundingly complex legal process takes place. Motions are filed, witnesses called, juries instructed, great quantities of money spent, mountains of paperwork amassed. The defendant is allowed, if he so chooses, to speak in his own defense. Appeal is automatic. Great care is taken, great time is spent, making sure his rights are protected, and in almost every case, they are, and it is an unquestionably guilty man who goes to his death.

The pre-born infant is at the mercy of one woman’s whim. That woman, her mother, whether from selfishness, guilt, coercion, fear, or even the law – as in the case of China’s one child policy – makes a decision to kill her, pays some money, and it’s done. Often the only advocates for that child are the people outside the clinic, offering information, counseling and prayer, to any who will take it. There is no requirement that she listen to them. In fact, burly men in orange vests will often escort her past them, as though she were in danger from them, when it is in fact the child inside her that is in danger.

The pre-born infant receives no escort. She is completely alone when she is dismembered, sucked from the womb, and disposed of as waste.

The executed offender, at least, may have his family present. He may be buried in the manner befitting his beliefs. He may be mourned.

The pre-born infant is mourned, if she is mourned at all, by a few pro-life strangers. Her mother’s only grief often takes the form of depression and psychological trauma she does not even connect to the death of her child, which she quite possibly thought of as a clump of cells.

The pre-born infant is remembered only as a nameless, faceless victim, one of millions, in the prayers and thoughts of people around the world who daily petition God and man for an end to the evil of abortion.

In short, it’s quite inaccurate, and even irresponsible, to compare abortion to capital punishment, even if you happen to oppose both, as I do.

This issue gets brought up a lot by pro-aborts. But the good news is, the counter-argument can be summed up pretty easily. For example, if ever I’m asked why I’m not speaking out against the death penalty instead of abortion, I tell them very simply: “Criminals have lawyers. Fetuses have me.”


Kristen Walker is Vice President of New Wave Feminists. Her personal blog can be found here.

60 thoughts on “Can You Be Pro-Life And Pro-Death Penalty?

  1. I was waiting for someone to say something about this! Good article, great point!


  2. I disagree with this article wholeheartedly – you can try to do philosophical gymnastics all day, but the logic doesn’t follow. Not at all. All this article does is justify your own moral dissonance. Pro-lifers insist that fetuses have a “right to life.” If such a right exists, it must be a fundamental and inalienable one. Yet, you also insist that it is conditional based on certain actions of the individual. This is wrong; if one has a “right to life” it must be innate, and cannot be taken away. 

    Who bestows this “right to life” upon us? The government? If not, how are they justified in taking it away? Do you yourself bestow the “right to life” upon your neighbors in society? If not, how are you justified in condoning or consenting to its revocation? Once again, if they are not legal rights, but natural rights, they are inherent, and cannot be taken away. 

    This article presents an appeal to pity, and nothing more.

    I also think you should call yourselves “pro fetus,” as “pro life” is a bit misleading.

    But what especially irked me is this: “And even in those rare cases where the accused was wrongly convicted, at least he had a chance: to live, to make other choices, to run, to escape, to defend himself.” So in a sense, it’s okay that innocent people get put to death, because ultimately it was *their* actions/inactions that got them sentenced. Because they could have just *not* put themselves in a position to be wrongfully accused. Or could have just fought back with the police. Or attempted an escape. Yikes. I suggest you look up some statistics from The Innocence Project.

    Just to clarify, most people don’t *try* to get themselves accused of heinous crimes. And for the record, assaulting police doesn’t turn out well, even if it’s in defense. Neither does running. Neither does trying to escape for that matter. Sometimes people get accused for crimes because of such “choices” as being black, or being poor, or being dumb. Those people make easy targets as suspects and (because many have limited resources,) are often poorly represented in court. So they make up for lazy police work and a flawed justice system. 

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are “illogical woman-haters,” I think you are just illogical… and a bit ill-informed.


    1. @dc7ccc52c0d55e039f7f98f6bf3aa3c0:disqus The major difference for those of us who are pro-life and pro-death penalty is that at the very least, a person accused of a crime has a right to fight, to defend,  to attempt to prove their innocence.  An unborn child has what??  Nothing.  If a woman chooses to abort, but the father doesn’t want her to, he can’t defend that baby.  People who are pro-choice seem to forget that it takes 2 to ange, but after a guy has no say – how the heck is THAT logical??


        1. @099f1283c7ff9044a59f12cefe9e11c2:disqus  That’s because the man does not act as host to the fetus. If the man did not want to take the chance at having an abortion, he should have practiced safe sex, or not had sex with the woman at all. Also, if a man is granted the power to veto a woman’s decision for abortion, than he may also be granted the power to veto a woman’s decision to carry the fetus to term. 

          But as for the death penalty, if you insist that a fetus has a “right to life,” then it is innate, with them since conception, and cannot be taken away. You cannot in the same breath also insist that this same right is conditional. It is not logical. It does not at all make sense


          1. Once again, you are just plain wrong. I believe a human has an innate right to freedom. However, that freedom can be revoked if the individual violates another human being’s inherent rights. That is justice. Likewise, a person has an innate right to life, from conception. That right can NOT be taken away; you are correct. But it CAN be forfeited if the person violates the inherent right to life of another individual. A baby in NO way forfeits his or her life by virtue of his or her conception, an act in which he or she played no active role. To end an unborn child’s life is an unprovoked act of violence against a blameless human being. You can NOT equate that with, for example, the execution of a serial killer.

          2. Then do not call yourselves pro-life, insteat pro-blameless-life, especially when you can do the blaming, as for death to suspected witches etc.

          3. By the way, I assume that when it comes to child support you are “pro choice” also. Because if a woman has the right to participate in conception and then cop out of parenthood, so should the father. “END THE WAR ON MEN!!”

          4. Because men are so put upon by society?

          5. Bravo! Way to show your ignorance while completely missing the point yet again! You think what, that because men as a group can stand up to pee and have historically enjoyed more upward mobility in the workforce, individual men should be penalized for their fertility while women escape the “burden” of their own? Thanks once again for making it easy to show the pro-abortion (“choice” if you prefer, makes no difference) rationale to be as one-dimensional and stupid as it is.

          6. Lesgf8 said “If the man did not want to take the chance at having an abortion, he should have practiced safe sex, or not had sex with the woman at all.”
            Are you willing to hold the woman equally accountable for not practicing “safe sex”? “Also, if a man is granted the power to veto a woman’s decision for abortion, than he may also be granted the power to veto a woman’s decision to carry the fetus to term.”However, you are willing to veto a man’s decision on his bodily autonomy in regards to sex and any child he conceives, whereas you place no limits on the woman’s decision whatsoever. That is hypocrisy, especially if you believe that all men should be forced to pay for child support but women should not be forced to support a child if she doesn’t want to.The point is, this is not about man vs woman, although abortion does pit women against men and vice versa thanks to it’s broad acceptance as a “solution” in our culture. Any arguments saying this is about a gender war are distracting from the real issue: abortion kills innocent human beings. Any distraction from this injustice makes the abortion lobby smile.

    2. It appears to me you pick and choose what the writer has said about themself, for the writer stated they where personally opposed to the death penalty. It is a logical conclusion  to say you support of the right of the strongest to destroy the weak, like a good Eugenics Psychopath would.  For more on the Churches teaching on life go to…


    3. This seems like a peculiar pro-choice argument, to say you cannot support a right to life and support the death penalty.  It’s like saying ‘if you believe people have the right to freedom then you can’t support the concept of jail because being in jail takes away freedom.’

      People have rights but when you commit crimes you have to give up those rights as a punishment because when you commit crimes in someway you violate someone else’s rights and this needs to be accounted for to ensure the rigths of everyone else. 

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I support the death penalty, I think there are plenty of valid reasons not to support it. i’m just saying its not a contradiction in the right to life, rights have to be regulated for a society to prosper.  I have a right to freedom but I don’t have a right to commit a crimeand remain unpunished.  If one brakes the law then they would go to jail and their freedom would be compromised, conversely they have a right to life and as long as they are innocent I should keep that right because I have done nothing to deserve losing it.


    4. Lets give abortion the same legal standing as the death penalty, if they are so morally equivalent in your view.

      If we could get to a point where 12 “randomly” selected people had to come to a unanimous decision that the death of the child is morally justified and in the interest of society, and then give several years for that decision to be challenged, I would be ok with keeping abortion legal!


      1. There is no child here, this a medical procedure to remove a fetus, not a child.


          1.  Nonsense.  There is almost no biological difference between the zygote of a human, a chimp, or a dog for that matter. You believe that one is “sacred” not because of what it is, but what it could become.  In the cases of women who want to terminate the pregnancy of an embryo, what the being is not becoming is an unwanted child.  The kind that fills our prisons and death rows where most pro-lifers lustily cheer their just biblical punishment.
            You cannot say “all life is sacred” if you then say “some life is no longer sacred” — i.e. convicted murderers (many innocent, by the way, as DNA exoneration has shown over and over). If you do, you are saying “some life should not be.” A woman pregnant via rape, for example, is saying “this life should not be.”   If you don’t want her to have to make that decision, that be adamantly pro-contraception. Pro-lifers –like Rick Santorum–are the opposite.  Ironically, pro-lifers, in their oppposition to contraception, increase abortion.

          2. Capital Punishment – Estimated 4.1% innocent lives taken (about 57 people out of 1389 total executions since 1976, according to PNAS study)

            Abortion – 100% innocent lives taken (about 53,984,769 people since 1976, according to Guttmacher Institute)

            ^^^^^^^^^^NO COMPARISON sorry!!

          3. You cannot say “all life is sacred” if you then say “some life is no longer sacred” Actually, we can. All life starts out sacred, but a person can commit crimes so horrendous (rape, murder, etc,) that they forfeit the sacredness of their own lives. The unborn baby, however, has committed no such crimes.

    5. @dc7ccc52c0d55e039f7f98f6bf3aa3c0:disqus
       Excellent, and very well worded.  I say that as a Catholic, and director of Religious Education…because the real issue is Government control, this is not a Government issue.  Let me pose this thought, since this always seems to break down into someone’s religious view. 

      On the idea of Capital Punishment…  The teaching is this, because we are all God’s children, and he loves “everyone” of us, not just the so-called “good”, that even the most heinous of society can ask forgiveness, and if this comes from their heart, God will embrace them because that so-called horrible person is God’s child….HE WILL NOT TURN AWAY FROM THEM.  Yet, we as a society will turn against them regardless, we play God and decided they are not worthy to live.  And as some of you have said below…”at least they were given a chance to live, or the ability to prove innocence”.  Well I hope they all had a great lawyer and were smart enough to understand all that was happening to them.  How do you think God will judge those that decided a life was not “worthy”??  Do you really think Rick Perry will be rewarded for his good deeds of killing criminals…in a sense his own brother?  

      I agree they should be Pro-Fetus, no Pro-Life….!!!!

      You cannot pass judgement on a life, even if a court has determined them to be guilty.  It is not our right…unless you are living according to the Old Testament your idea does not hold water…ask a Buddhist!  

      The other part of this is that fact that we have to provide the necessary services too, if women are required by law to have a child..birth control must be provided, girls must be taught about birth control, single mothers must have financial help .  If we advocated that a fetus must be born, then we must also advocate that the child it becomes must also have food, clothing, an education through college, and a committed community to make sure this child is raised in the best way possible!  You are either in this all they way for a child or you are merely a mouth piece…  A life is a life is a life in God’s eyes…or at least that’s what I was taught, no one is a throw away no matter what they’ve done. 


    6. I am personally pro-life and pro-death-penalty, and it seems to me the logic is simple enough. I believe that certain crimes (most prominently rape and murder) are so heinous that only an equally heinous punishment can properly express the severity of the crime. However, the unborn child has not committed any crime whatsoever. To kill a murderer is at least an approximation of justice, a horrid punishment for a horrid crime. To kill a “fetus” is utterly unjust, for the fetus has done *nothing* to warrant such a punishment.


  3. To me, my opinion is that if someone does something so terrible and so disgusting the only choice would be to kill them they don’t deserve to live. It was their choice to commit that horrible crime. It was their choice to kill another innocent human life or any other crime that is punishable by death. Unless they are legally pronounced as legally insane or incompetent I suppose that a different story. But if a person is competent and they know what their doing what makes their life anymore precious or amazing then the life they took?
    Personally also I don’t want to pay the jail system to keep a life alive that took a innocent one for the rest of their life. I don’t feel like giving them a comfy cell to just spend the rest of their life in.
    The life of these pre-born children have no choice in the matter. They couldn’t like the article mentioned talk to their mother and beg them to give them a chance. When a person is on trial for a crime theres a chance for them to get off even if they’re guilty. But the child has no chance if the women is 1000% on what she is going to do.
    Basically my point is that if your a human life that takes away another life your no longer a innocent life. You’ve taken a life you never were suppose too. So what makes you so amazing to keep living yourself? But if you a child growing in your mothers womb your a innocent life that is being put to death for no reason.    


      1. Does “an eye for an eye” apply in the case of abortion?  I mean, what has an unborn child done? 


        1. @099f1283c7ff9044a59f12cefe9e11c2:disqus 
          She said that if you take away the life of another, you don’t deserve your own. That is what I was responding to.A life is a life is a life. If you imbue a fetus with a guarantee of a right to life, it extends to all life, even those already born, and even those who commit crimes.I was not making any argument for or against abortion, I was pointing out the flaws in your own.


          1.  Well, then you clearly didn’t read what i wrote. Because i stated that once you kill someone once you take a life once you knowingly torture or rape someone your not worthy the same rights as all humans. Cause your not anymore. Those are monstrous things that a person with a real soul wouldn’t do.
            And another thing is that baby not a “fetus” as you’ve mentioned is innocent they did nothing to die. A person who’s lived and killed has made that choice unless like i stated mentally disabled or retarded to kill and hurt someone. The child has done nothing to die. They didn’t have the choice to choose to make a choice and live and then do something worthy of being killed for.
            It has nothing to do with the statement of “An eye for an eye” at all. It has to do with innocence. A person who has committed a crime so heinous that the only right punishment is to take their life means their not innocent anymore. They made a choice. The children being killed aren’t being given that choice to live.

          2. Well, actually, you essentially did say “an eye for an eye.” You said, “if someone does something so terrible and so disgusting the only choice would be to kill them they don’t deserve to live.” Yes, killing someone who has killed is in fact a real world example of “an eye for an eye.” You people don’t seem comfortable with it being labeled as such, probably because it seems barbaric, and probably because it is.

            You are free to have these views, but in reality, it isn’t about what’s “fair,” when you are making an argument. It is about what is logically succinct. And if you claim that a fetus (yes, it is called a fetus,) has a “right” to life, then that right is innate, and cannot be taken away. Not even if they commit a heinous crime. The “right to life,” since it is not bestowed upon us by any outside source, must be inherent, and therefore cannot be taken by any outside source.. it must not be conditional. That is called “logic.”

          3. You are free to your views also. But they’re wrong. Most things in life are conditional. You forfeit innate rights by the commission of a crime. You’re defending the right to life for criminals. Do you also defend their right to liberty? Privacy? Because these are inherent human rights that a person forfeits via the act of committing a crime. Period. The same with life in the circumstances of legal capital punishment. You can agree or disagree with capital punishment, but you cannot state that inherent rights are irrevokeable, even for criminals. They simply aren’t. YOUR argument defies logic. Based on your logic criminals should be running around doing whatever they choose, because they have an inherent right to liberty. You simply cannot defend your position, no matter how many times you repeat it.

          4. Neither can you, since you’ve replied to my comments ad nauseam. 

          5. You’re right. Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I keep thinking that you’re capable of rational thought if only it were presented correctly. You’re not. Thanks for helping me see the pointlessness of engaging with you.

          6. Just because we say that something has a “right”  and that the right is innate, does not meant that the right cannot be forfeited. That is how our society works. 

            As an American citizen, I have a right to free public education. If in school, however, I jeopardize the rights of others to get an education (by being disruptive, making threats, etc, etc.) my right can be forfeited. The difference between the murderer on death row and the fetus is the person’s choice. 

            A right (since it is innate) can only be forfeited by the choices made by the person to whom it belongs, not be choices made by another. A fetus has a right to life. A murderer has a right to life. The fetus did not choose it’s “host” (mother). A murderer chose to become a murderer. Giving up of “innate” right happens all of the time in our society. Just because we use the word “right” or “innate” doesn’t mean a choice cannot take the right away.

          7. If a “right to life” is not innate, when does it manifest?

          8. Sorry, wrong person. That is not the argument you made.

          9. Where do you get the “life is life” argument? Are you saying that we should overlook people’s crimes in the name of equality? Because we all have inherent rights that we forfeit if we commit a crime, be it our right to freedom, our right to privacy, or our right to life. A baby has committed no crime. You’re making a moral equivalency where there is NONE. Zero. Insisting that there is one only shows how absurdly biased toward abortion you are. You can’t defend your position no matter how many times you repeat it.

            Worse yet: if you’re pro-“choice” and anti-capital punishment, you grant a child raping murderer a HIGHER degree of moral significance than an innocent human child.

            Here’s a thought to consider: You think a pregnant woman should have a choice to murder her child because it depends on her for its existence. Based on that logic, taxpayers should have the choice to execute criminals because they depend on them for their sustenance.

            I agree with the poster above: If we’re supposed to treat murderers as if they are morally equivalent to unborn children, then where are the unborn children’s trials by jury?

  4. Excellent article. God bless you for articulating this so well.


  5. As someone who worked with and supported willing adopters for a woman who was contemplating an abortion (we talked her into keeping the child), I disagree with this article. Whether you are for or against abortion isn’t the issue, the logical flaw in the argument is the issue. You can’t say someone has an innate right, and then say their actions later invalidates their innate right because it goes against the rules of society, no matter how heinous they are. It’s as simple as that. I am not a particularly religious person but I admire the consistency of the Catholic Church for being against the death penalty. Have a good day everyone!


    1. Like this excect for the part about the Catholic Church being consistent. They put about 99% of the attention on anti-abortion and about 1% on anti-death penalty.


    2. I would disagree. I have a right to liberty, but if I started to suffer from homicidal mania or committed a crime that warrants jail time, I would forfeit that right. I have a right to get a driver’s license and drive a car, but if I drove irresponsibly I would forfeit that right. Similarly, I have a right to life, but if I commit murder I forfeit that right.
      The unborn child has committed no crime worthy of death, the murderer or rapist has. It’s that simple.


      1. You do not have a right to get a driver’s license and drive a car.


        1. Umm… I most definitely do have the right to get a driver’s license, because I have gotten a driver’s license.


  6. Pro-life movement are not so much concerned with preserving life as stripping “reproductive rights” from people.


  7. For all those that consider right to life to include rapists and murderers–Should I do everything I can short of killing my aggressor just so I won’t violate his “right to life”, even if that means the wrongful death of me or my children? 

    Pro-Life, to me, means the protection of innocent life. Your right to do what you want with your body ends where my body, and the fetal human’s body, begins. When you infringe upon the right to life and liberty of another human being, you forfeit your own rights to the extent that you violated others’. 


  8.  If one believes Christ died for our sins, then one should realize that executing someone for those sins goes against God’s wishes. God may allow an execution to happen but the fact is, those sins were already paid for with the blood of Christ. So yes, if you are a Christian that believes the only way to Heaven is through the blood of Christ then one is in a state of cognitive dissonance if they are pro-life and pro-death penalty.


  9. The pre-born infant has committed no crime. She has had no legal representation. She does not have the voice to plead her case. She simply, through no fault of her own, exists, an entire and complete human being from the moment of her conception. She is blameless.”

    If you’re a Catholic (I’m not sure about other Christian religions) then you believe in original sin, so the pre-born infant is technically not innocent


    1. But she is legally innocent, having broken no law. And man has no right or duty to punish original sin.


  10. I find it interesting that your preborn-infant was a “she” and your executed offender was a “he”.  What are you really trying to say? 


  11. I truly think, Ms. Walker, you are full of crap. Life is life. In which category do the pro-lifers put the abortion doctors that are killed by pro-lifers?? Are they, too, justified killings – like those facing the death penalty? Sorry Ms. Walker, you are either pro-life or not. If you pick and choose who has a right to life and who doesn’t, well then, you are pro-choice, my dear. You pro-lifers make your own rules and the rest of us are supposed to buy into your ridiculous arguments. I tell you very simply: you are very full of crap.


  12. Whether you are a pro feminist , religious fundamentalist or a socialist liberal or radical atheist you can exercise the right to fact based opinions rooted in logical arguments. You should and can post what they like in a free society. But you are not allowed to spew propaganda and twisted logic and expect to get away with making lousy arguments with pathetic one line retorts cloaking religious ideals or biased moralization without getting your proverbial head handed to you. The argument for pro life is a transparent argument that does not stand.
    Science tells us what a fetus is and when it pain receptors form and when cognitive awareness begins along with rights as a sentient being.
    The ridiculous assertion that life has such high standards in a country where this self same lie of the importance of life is made apparent by the use of the poor who seek government funding for education and employment through a military that sacrifices human lives in wars for oil and power. Two more things that have less to do with preserving life than with finding new ways to manipulate ,exploit and finally destroy it.
    Life feeds on life. Lets face it even vegetarians kill. Trees fall everyday, cows get slaughtered and babies get aborted to fulfill the cycle. Intrinsically the revolving door of right to lifers argument for saving lives that can not advocate on their own behalf acts as a safety valve on making a bullet point over whether or not a society has the authority to control the choices over the individual , confusing since most fundamentalist , right wing , moralists fight the interference of big government or Federal interference in citizens lives. If a woman can not be allowed to make the choice over her own right to either bring life or not to bring life into this world then none of us have rights any longer. Once her right goes, so does that of the homosexual, the black man , the jew, the catholic etc. Who is next ? This has less to do with Life than the control of it. If some one else’s opinions of faith , belief or superstition trumps my own rights to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness where then is my rights as an American. Two hundred seventy six years ago this on going revolution started called America and it was created to change life for those who were tired of living under the hopeless yoke of the old world ideas. If America has any chance of surviving it will be through this continuous process of rebellion and struggle to give everyone the right to exists free.


  13. I think death sentence should not be abolished complitely, not for now anyway, but at the same time its usage is abused. Death sentence is only for serial killers in their full mental state (what I mean by full mental state is to be aware of your actions and their consequences).

    But then again, as you started in your blog you can’t compare the two. For me, it happens I’m consistent, I think some cases of abortion should be OK, most not; as well as for death sentenced, but most people are not consistent. Some people decide that it is OK to have an abortion but not OK with capital punishment and viceversa.

    If there are people really opinionated about such issues and their basic argument is that life is a wright and it cannot be taken away than definitely they should apply it on ALL cases. If it is a right then it should be a right for ALL people: children, fetuses or criminals.


  14. Most pro lifers who also are for the death penalty, say that most people put to death are guilty. That statement alone proves that we’re killing innocent people and that you are no better than pro choice


    1. Capital Punishment – Estimated 4.1% innocent lives taken (about 57 people out of 1389 total executions since 1976, according to PNAS study)

      Abortion – 100% innocent lives taken (about 53,984,769 people since 1976, according to Guttmacher Institute)

      ^^^^^^^^^^NO COMPARISON sorry!!


  15. I am pro-Life. I understand that we want to be Big Tent and want to focus on abortion as a more abhorrent evil to be stopped, thus we like to insist that one can reasonably support he death penalty and oppose abortion. That said, I do believe that the teaching of Pope Jon Paul II was pretty clear that to justify recourse to the death penalty it had to really be proven that it was the only way to protect society. In the US it seems pretty clear while the effectiveness of the death penalty could be debated, it does not seem to be needed to defend society.In fact once we have someone in custody they are under control of the state. True they could still commit further crimes in prison, but even there measures can be taken to protect even those lives. For this reason I believe, at least from a Catholic prospective, we should oppose the death penalty, if for no other reason as a sign of the sanctity of human life, as if we were fasting from something that may be legitimate in the name of the spiritual good – protecting all human life. Even more so it should be opposed because the bishops have asked us to recognize that while the CCC recognizes the possibility of the need to have recourse to it that such such recourse is rare or non-existent in the USA. I add the relevant quotes below:

    [Punishment] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender
    except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not
    be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of
    steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases
    are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
    —John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995

    If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect
    peoples safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such
    means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the
    common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
    —The Catechism of the Catholic Church

    Addiitonal notes are available at the USCCB website.


  16. What a BS article! Seriously. It’s well meant, however, the logic used is so utterly flawed!

    “The pre-born infant has committed no crime. She has had no legal representation. She does not have the voice to plead her case. She simply, through no fault of her own, exists, an entire and complete human being from the moment of her conception. She is blameless.”
    This can also be true for some of the people that are standing in court! Some don’t even have the IQ to understand they have done something wrong, nor can’t they follow the trial. They’re mentally disabled or so retarded they just do not have the capacity. This, however, does not hold back the juridical system to punish these people with the death sentence. You think a murderer in every case must understand their actions and is fully conscious about what they’re doing. Well in fact, some are not. I can’t see how you can judge over these people by saying well, if you’re born stupid, it’s your problem, we take your live anyways.

    “By contrast, the vast majority of people who are executed by the state are guilty. And even in those rare cases where the accused was wrongly convicted, at least he had a chance: to live, to make other choices, to run, to escape, to defend himself.”
    How can this possibly be an argument? One in seven cases now turns out the person has been wrongly convicted. You think that is rare?? Really? And you seriously think this person could have run? Run from what? Run from the police that makes the arrest? Sure, if you want to be killed on the spot. How can you write that the person could have make other choices? If a witness wrongly thought he/she saw you at the crime scene. What other choices are left? Bribe the witness? This argument is so out of touch, I just can’t believe it!


  17. So here’s another reason why this opinion is so majorly flawed: The lack of abortion actually leads to an increase in crimes, and possibly death penalties! If you don’t believe that, check out how Roe v. Wade decreased crime rates in the U.S. by a significant amount as numerous non-partisan studies have showed this exact correlation.
    Unwanted children might suffer their life-long from the family mistreating them. Also, adoption isn’t always an option and so children end up in foster care and, as we’ve seen lately, can spend their lives being tossed from family to family, suffering greatly, they could be abused physically and sexually, and then forgotten the day they turn 18. Which would you want for a child? Some of these children suffer so dramatically, they rather commit suicide. Wouldn’t it be easier for them so save them from all this harm and suffering? And one a site note, why is America the only country in the world that can’t provide maternity leave? WHO IS PROTECTING THE BORN CHILD??


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *