Tag Archives: Murder

Don’t underestimate the impact of Kanye West

I usually ignore celebrity endorsements on either side, as they can be fickle or even counterproductive (though I do like to see them pop up for Conservatives, given how nearly all are Leftists).  People like James Woods do a good job of articulating their views.

Kanye West’s meeting with Trump was absolutely golden.  The Left is in full attack mode against Kanye now, launching all sorts of racist attacks.  But as they often do, the Left may go too far.  This draws even more attention to people like West, Jim Brown and Candace Owens, who challenge blacks to get off the “plantation” that the Left has created for them.  I love how he calls out Liberals for their manipulation of blacks.

If people see Trump in a non-bombastic way like in the videos it can also modify their perceptions.  When Kanye said he loved Trump and hugged him it made for great TV.

Democrats take the black vote for granted, which is why they now like illegals better than blacks.  The Left has banked on more than 90% of the black vote for decades, and people like Kanye can chip into that – especially if people can see how quickly the Left turns on him.  So the Left will freak out and attack black leaders who give people hope and acknowledge that Trump’s policies are good for blacks.

Thou Shalt Not Murder

Cross posted at Stubborn Things

—–

Corollary: Thou shalt not redefine murder in a pathetic attempt to pretend it isn’t murder.

Having done prison ministry for the last 8 years, I’ve met more murderers than the average person – including one who, post-redemption by Jesus, could honestly claim that he was “as friendly as a basketful of puppies.”  But that hasn’t made me go soft on crime.  I admit that I enjoy reminding anti-capital punishment folks that not only is capital punishment – properly applied – a biblical alternative, it was actually God’s idea (see Genesis 9 and Romans 13, among others).  And no, Jesus didn’t overturn it, but that’s a separate topic.

You might think that people would intuitively consider any kind of murder to be the most serious sin against God and neighbor.  Murder takes the life of an innocent human being, it kills an image-bearer of God, it usurps God’s sovereignty over life and death and it is a culmination of a host of other sins: lust, greed, covetousness, hate, anger, pride, etc.   How could we explain that away?  Yet people have been rationalizing it since Genesis 4.

Not only do people create gods in their own images, they create words and phrases in their own images, such as “same-sex marriage” (pure oxymoron) and “reproductive rights/health/etc.” (deadly and misleading euphemisms, because abortion kills a human being who has already been reproduced).  Even highly intelligent people like the authors of Freakonomics insist that murder rates have gone done over the centuries, conveniently ignoring that abortion is murder.  People are Romans 1 poster children, pretending to be anti-murder while suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

I’ve even seen Christian pacifists support abortion.  One such activist was quote-mining some church fathers to develop a twisted appeal to pure pacifism but he ignored the clear accompanying admonitions against abortion.  What could be more violent than literally ripping off someone’s limbs and crushing her skull?   Yet with no hint of hypocrisy the pacifist opposed any abortion restrictions.

Then there are the Christian grandparents who pay for their grandchildren to be killed with deadly equivocations about how it is better to “ruin” one life than three – ignoring how the word is used just a little differently regarding the death of the preborn child than it would have been if he had been allowed to live.

The disabled are valued so little that it is now broadly considered a moral good to kill them in the womb and a moral evil to allow them to live.

It flows downhill from there.  When half of society considers it a moral good to be allowed to kill your child, why should we be surprised at anything else they come up with?

Part of the problem is worshiping government over God.  Even the writers of the The Simpsons understood this to a degree when they had Reverend Lovejoy say, “Once something has been approved by the government, it’s no longer immoral.”  They rationalize murder as being best for the rest of society (see abortion, or the Holocaust or the tens of millions killed by their Communist governments in the 20th century).  If you think the Leftists aren’t capable of trying to wipe out believers then you haven’t read The Gulag Archipelago.

The best solution is the authentic Gospel and making disciples.  That will transform hearts, minds and societies more than anything else.  It will drive out bad thinking and false religions.  But it starts with discipline – church discipline – which means getting rid of the wolves in sheep’s clothing running most major denominations.  The fault is actually with the Bible-believing Christians who let the wolves come in and take over.  They acted like they were being nice to allow alternate (read: apostate) viewpoints in the church, but they were really just being nice to themselves in the interest of avoiding controversy.  Sharing the truth of Jesus is not only the best way to make disciples but to transform societies for the better.  That will reduce murder and other sins more than anything else.  Absent a right view of the cross and the resurrection people will continue to do what is right in their own eyes.

And the Gospel is there for the salvation of those who have committed murder, including the hundreds of millions involved in the abortion process in some form.  I’ve seen God redeem murderers countless times in pregnancy center ministry and in prison ministry.  Jesus came with a perfect balance of grace and truth.  We have the truth on the seriousness of murder, the reality of murder, how to reduce murders and how to offer grace to those who have committed murder – and every other sin.

Q. If Obama likes abortion so much, why won’t he say the word?

A. Because deep down we all know it is murder.

From his recent statement celebrating the Roe v. Wade verdict that has led to the slaughter of 57 million innocent but unwanted human beings.  Count how many times he says the A-word (hint: zero).

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

That commits the most common pro-abortion fallacy, which is ignoring the unwanted human being killed during the procedure.  What about her choices, her body and her health?

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.

Never let them get away with the Orwellian term reproductive freedom.  It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization, so all abortions kill human beings who have already reproduced.  

And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

If you really want safe communities for children you should stop killing them.  Make abortion illegal and you’ll cut down on a few million murders per year.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

 

Everyone?  How about the unborn?  It takes a special kind of evil for him to say that while fulfilling the Democrats’ dream of increased abortions via taxpayer funding and no restrictions.  From their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Via Obama Celebrates 41 Years of Abortion: Roe an “Opportunity to Fulfill Dreams” | LifeNews.com.

Freakonomics’ double fail on abortion

Freakonomics Rev Ed: (and Other Riddles of Modern Life) is a fascinating book that makes a lot of valid and interesting points, but the authors had a double fail on the topic of abortion and crime.  (See the Amazon review at the bottom for more about the book, and also see their blog.)

First, while seeming to have cleverly uncovered the reason behind the dramatic 1990’s crime drop (they thought it was because Roe v Wade had reduced the number of potential murderers), it turns out that they missed some obvious race-based statistics and the impact of the crack cocaine explosion and recession.

Second, and more importantly, they ignored what abortion is: The unjustified destruction of an innocent human life, aka murder.  Yes, the Roe v Wade decision made it legal, but the act itself was unchanged.  So using their logic, if we legalized unjustified killings outside the womb then the murder rate would decrease.  Technically they would be right, but would that really be an improvement?

One of the charts from the book shows that by standard measures, homicides have gone down dramatically over the centuries and we are seemingly safer than ever.  And that is true — for those outside the womb.  But pre-born human beings inside the womb live in the most dangerous place on the planet — far more dangerous than a Chicago ghetto.

Simply put, even if the authors had been correct, murders outside the womb decreased because murders inside the womb were made legal. But that didn’t reduce overall murders, it increased them!  All they had done, ironically enough, was murder the future murderers before they murdered. Oh, and they also killed a bunch of non-murderers — tens of millions of them.  At least the book did get one thing right: Legalized abortion dramatically increased abortions.

This brings to mind Bill Bennett’s comments on this theory, when he noted that killing black babies would reduce crime while simultaneously noting how evil the abortions would be.  Of course, the Left still tried to brand his comments as racist, even though they are a mostly white group supporting mostly rich, white, male abortionists who kill black babies at a rate three times that of whites.  But they definitely aren’t racists . . .

All murder statistics should include abortions.  The real murder rate was decreasing until the 1970’s, when it spiked up dramatically.  We’ve just played word games to make it appear otherwise.

———-

Amazon review:

Economics is not widely considered to be one of the sexier sciences. The annual Nobel Prize winner in that field never receives as much publicity as his or her compatriots in peace, literature, or physics. But if such slights are based on the notion that economics is dull, or that economists are concerned only with finance itself, Steven D. Levitt will change some minds. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don’t need to be so mysterious: they could be illuminated and made even more fascinating by asking the right questions and drawing connections. For example, Levitt traces the drop in violent crime rates to a drop in violent criminals and, digging further, to the Roe v. Wade decision that preempted the existence of some people who would be born to poverty and hardship. Elsewhere, by analyzing data gathered from inner-city Chicago drug-dealing gangs, Levitt outlines a corporate structure much like McDonald’s, where the top bosses make great money while scores of underlings make something below minimum wage. And in a section that may alarm or relieve worried parents, Levitt argues that parenting methods don’t really matter much and that a backyard swimming pool is much more dangerous than a gun. These enlightening chapters are separated by effusive passages from Dubner’s 2003 profile of Levitt in The New York Times Magazine, which led to the book being written. In a book filled with bold logic, such back-patting veers Freakonomics, however briefly, away from what Levitt actually has to say. Although maybe there’s a good economic reason for that too, and we’re just not getting it yet. 

It isn’t just Gosnell

The pro-abortion media, politicians and false teachers want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell, convicted baby-killer, was a rogue abortionist.  But as you might expect, people who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the laws surrounding how to kill babies for a living.  And the phonies who pretend that Gosnell is some lone monster are have blood on their hands.

Here’s one example of many from Abortion Doc After Baby Born Alive: “What could I do? I killed the baby.” 

Davis also reveals what Dr. Tucker told her about an event that happened at one of the clinics he ran, a different clinic from the one where he employed Davis.

According to her testimony:

Then one day, Dr. Tucker came back to Alabama, where I was. He had been working in Mississippi. He said, “I had a real hard time in Mississippi, we had a problem and you need to go out and try to calm down the employees.”

I said, “What happened?”

He said, “There was a girl who came in for an abortion. I thought she was eighteen weeks. She ended up being closer to term. I inserted the laminaria and she went into labor. She went into labor and delivered a live, healthy baby.”

I said, “What did you do?”

He said, “What could I do? I killed the baby. But all the employees are really upset, so you need to go and take care of this.”

Remember that technically speaking the crimes of these “doctors” are that they killed the babies a few seconds too late.  But all abortions, except the very rare occasions to save the life of the mother, are just as immoral as killing the baby outside the womb.  Don’t let people forget that.

And remind them about the media blackout on Gosnell and the rest of these killers.

It isn’t just about Gosnell

The pro-abortion media, politicians and false teachers want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell, convicted baby-killer, was a rogue abortionist.  But as you might expect, people who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the laws surrounding how to kill babies for a living.  And the phonies who pretend that Gosnell is some lone monster are have blood on their hands.

Here’s one example of many from Abortion Doc After Baby Born Alive: “What could I do? I killed the baby.” 

Davis also reveals what Dr. Tucker told her about an event that happened at one of the clinics he ran, a different clinic from the one where he employed Davis.

According to her testimony:

Then one day, Dr. Tucker came back to Alabama, where I was. He had been working in Mississippi. He said, “I had a real hard time in Mississippi, we had a problem and you need to go out and try to calm down the employees.”

I said, “What happened?”

He said, “There was a girl who came in for an abortion. I thought she was eighteen weeks. She ended up being closer to term. I inserted the laminaria and she went into labor. She went into labor and delivered a live, healthy baby.”

I said, “What did you do?”

He said, “What could I do? I killed the baby. But all the employees are really upset, so you need to go and take care of this.”

Remember that technically speaking the crimes of these “doctors” are that they killed the babies a few seconds too late.  But all abortions, except the very rare occasions to save the life of the mother, are just as immoral as killing the baby outside the womb.  Don’t let people forget that.

Abortionist declared a murderer . . . wait, isn’t that redundant?

Good news: Kermit Gosnell convicted on 3 of 4 counts of murdering babies, killing 41-year-old woman.

When your legal job description is to deliberately kill innocent but unwanted human beings, it is a little weird that you would get convicted of murder. Yet because Gosnell killed the babies 30 seconds too late he will (hopefully) spend the rest of his life in jail (I doubt capital punishment will be an option given his age).

But never forget: Just because his victims were a little bigger than average and his clinics a little dirtier than average doesn’t mean he isn’t virtually indistinguishable from the other “doctors” who kill babies for a living.

This will go down in history as one of the biggest stories buried by the Liberal media. They try to ignore it, or when they do report it they treat him as an anomaly. But he’s much closer to the mean — just like Planned Parenthood.  People who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the rules in place for killing babies for a living.

Roundup

9 Things You Should Know About Female Body Image Issues — hopefully this gets people to re-think their views.

9. The only complete way to overcome the problem is to have our beliefs about body image transformed by the Holy Spirit. As Heather Davis says in the Journal of Biblical Counseling:

In pursuing worldly beauty, we strive to become this elusive image in place of who we really are. You and I are created in the image of the living God. Our purpose is to reflect His image to the world. But since the fall, we let the world inscribe its image on us. It is the very picture of sin and ultimately death. Instead of being transformed to God’s image, we conform to the world’s image. We are hopelessly stuck in a lifeless cycle, exchanging God for the creature as our object of worship. But God in His mercy rescued us!

In love, God sent Jesus Christ to take on the consequences of our idolatrous affair. He became sin so that we might become righteous. In Christ, God gives us freedom from sin’s power now and hope for its eradication in heaven. God makes you beautiful with the beauty of His Son, Jesus. It is in gazing at God’s image in Jesus Christ that you are transformed. Romans 12:1-2 says, “Therefore, I urge you, (sisters) in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

The 2nd Amendment is safe — for now.  Mercifully a few Senators did the right thing.  Note how Obama was more upset at losing this bill than he was after Benghazi.  And how he has ghoulishly milked the Newtown tragedy but was nearly silent on Aurora.  Why?  Because the latter was before the election.

But kudos to Senators Cruz, Lee and Paul for being willing to provide leadership where there has been none.

Now – on to Immigration.

More good news: The most important thing about yesterday’s vote: national reciprocal concealed-carry is doable.

And still more good news:  Could Obama’s gun-control push cost Democrats the Senate?

A good summary of the moral argument for God’s existence as well as responses to objections to it.

“Day of Silence” — annual homosexual assault on children in schools — taking place this Friday, April 19. Parents can fight back! — Hey, how about a day of silence for the 1,000,000+ unwanted human beings who will be killed in the U.S. this year via abortion?

Never forget the real issues with the Kermit Gosnell story.  It isn’t that he did some bad things.  What would you expect from an abortionist?!  Never be surprised that people who kill babies for a living will lie, have unsanitary clinics, kill babies 30 seconds after it is legal, hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, etc.

The real issues are:

  1. The Liberal media, Planned Parenthood and false teachers knew that he was far too similar to other abortionists so they tried to hide the truth.  
  2. Killing babies 30 seconds after being born is morally equivalent to killing them in the womb.
  3. The political correctness of abortion meant that the safety regulations were not enforced for 17 years.

Newtown shooting reaction = take the guns from law-abiding people.  Boston bombing reaction = take the guns from law-abiding people.

These scenarios are nearly guaranteed.  The media, Liberal politicians and false teachers will be very, very sad if it isn’t #2.

What we can expect once we know what the attack was about:

  1. If it was an Islamist, Dems will immediately proclaim that the person(s) was a lone wolf and not representative or part of the Islamic world in the least, and if you try to link the even to Islamic terrorism, Sharia law, etc, well, you’re an Islamophobe. They’ll also say that we should have more spending and federal government because of this 1 off incident.

  2. If it was a domestic plot, they will immediately look to portray the person(s) as far right, and will keep that narrative up despite any evidence to the contrary, and will make this about the Conservative movement/Republican Party as a whole, demonizing all, attempting to destroy all on the Right, despite Conservatives disowning these fringe groups. Oh, and call for more government and spending and liberty restrictions.

  3. If the person is easily known as a liberal (Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Black Bloc, some environmentalist, etc, groups that Liberals rarely disown), the media will either completely downplay the link and still find a way to blame Republicans or let the story quietly die out while also mentioning that this was an aberration and means we need X (gun control, more spending, bigger government, higher taxes, etc).

    Also see: Left hopes bomber is a white dude.

Speaking of the media not reporting important stories, see Top Ten Excuses for Black Mob Violence.  So is it racist to report on black-on-white racism? Apparently.  Try finding these in the national news.

12 Things You Should Know About the Gosnell Infanticide and Murder Trial

If you have a Twitter account, post about #gosnell and ask why there is a media blackout.

Why aren’t more people outraged about this?  Where are the “if we can only save one child” chants?  Look how many human beings Gosnell destroyed compared to Newtown.

See 9 Things You Should Know About the Gosnell Infanticide and Murder Trial for a good overview.  Read them all, including the parts about the explicit racism (white women got better care) and the unsanitary conditions.  Where are Jesse, Al and the mainstream media when you need them?  Oh, right . . . the abortionist was black . . . and, well . . . an abortionist.  So where they usually see racism in everything, including where it doesn’t exist, they ignore it when it is undeniable.

Then consider these 3 additional things:

1. The mainstream media has a blackout on this case.  It has everything they would normally love — bizarre murders, cover-ups, blatant racism, etc. — but it involved an abortionist, so they keep silent.  Search for Kermit Gosnell at MSNBC and Politico and you will literally get zero items, even though it is one of the most frequently searched items (more on that below).

2. President Obama and Planned Parenthood are both on record defending the killing of infants who survive abortions.

3. Killing those babies was just as evil as regular abortions on smaller human beings. The media knows this, which is why #1 is there.  It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization.  It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.  The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons).  Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

From Sifting Reality, this screen shot says it all.  Try it yourself at http://tv.msnbc.com/?s=kermit+gosnell .  The same thing happens at Politico and the LA Times.

Not. One. Story.

Just how many infanticides would an abortionist have to commit before MSNBC and Politico would find it newsworthy?  How many would he have to commit before President Obama, the Democrats and the  false teachers spoke out against it?  Do not let them preach to you about gun control until they address this topic and the media,  political and church silence.  If they really cared about children they would do something about this instead of consciously ignoring it.

This screen capture is not photoshopped.  I took it at 8:50 PM tonight

msnbc no match

Please consider sharing this with everyone you can!

Why is there a mainstream media blackout on the Gosnell live-birth abortion trial?

This is as spectacularly gruesome as any case you’ll ever read about in the media — Gosnell Worker: Baby Screamed During Live-Birth “Abortion.”

Today’s testimony during the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell was no less shocking than previous days. Today, a former employee described how she heard a baby scream during a live-birth abortion.

Abortion clinic employee Sherry West described an incident which “really freaked (her) out” and related to the jury how she heard a child who was born alive following an abortion scream.

West remembered how she referred to the dead children killed in these gruesome abortion procedures as “specimens” so she could avoid the mental trauma associated with know how they died.

Why does the media go full-tilt for so many other cases yet completely ignore one as bizarre as this?

The answer, of course, is that they 90+% pro-abortion extremists and will do anything they can to cover up these murders and the filthy conditions at the abortuary.

If you haven’t heard of this case you need to seriously expand your media consumption.  There is no way you are getting any sort of balance to your news.

Has your media of choice told you about the abortionist on trial for killing born-alive babies?

If not, you should really expand your horizons.  Shouldn’t this be front page news, and worthy of extended series a la Casey Anthony? Via Assistant to Kermit Gosnell admits to killing ten born-alive babies:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist now on trial in Philadelphia charged with seven counts of first-degree murder–he allegedly cut the spinal cords of late-term aborted babies who were born alive–apparently used to joke about the large size of some the infants he aborted and in one case, according to what a co-worker told the grand jury, said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

Gosnell, 72, who ran a multi-million dollar abortion business in West Philadelphia, was arrested on Jan. 19, 2011, and his trial started Monday, Mar. 18, 2013. The first-degree murder counts refer to seven late-term aborted babies who were born alive and then killed, their spinal cords cut with scissors.

Gosnell is also charged with the third-degree murder of a pregnant woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who died after being given a pain killer at Gosnell’s office. He also faces several counts of conspiracy and violation of Pennsylvania’s law against post-24-week abortions.

I was in 24 Hour Fitness at lunch one day and surprised that CNN was actually covering part of this, but my understanding is that the rest of the Leftist media is ignoring it.  After all, it doesn’t fit in with their pro-abortion propaganda or these loving abortionists who just want to help women.  Interestingly, even the pro-abortion CNN anchor was visibly mystified at a guest’s suggestions for Gosnell’s defense arguments.

In addition, did your media of choice tell you how aggressively President Obama fought to make Gosnell’s actions legal?  His battles to permit the killing of babies who survived abortions are well documented.

As has been thoroughly documented with Planned Parenthood, people who kill babies for a living will do all sorts of other evils: Hide statutory rape and sex trafficking crimes, lie, cheat, ignore safety and health regulations and more.

Note that as gruesome as these crimes are, killing a one week old human being in the womb is just as immoral.

Pro-capital punishment = pro-life

gavel.jpg

I received a comment on this old post so I thought I would re-run it.

First, the comment.

I could only get through about the first few paragraphs before getting bored of the same old hypocrisy.  If killing people is wrong, then killing anyone is wrong. And that includes killing those that kill.

My reply:

Can you see the difference between A and B?

A. Innocent but unwanted human being crushed and dismembered in the womb with no appeals.

B. Convicted rapist / murderer put to death in least painless way possible after surviving 10+ years of appeals.

If you can’t, then rational dialog here will be impossible.

Too many people confuse the principle of capital punishment and the practice. There is nothing wrong with capital punishment in principle: A life for a life. There can be things worth debating about CP in practice.

There are 20,000+ abortions in the U.S. per week and one capital punishment. If anyone thinks CP is unfairly applied then they are welcome to oppose it. But if they are pro-legalized abortion then I will mock them until my fingertips are raw.

The original post

Huh?  How can a pro-capital punishment position be considered pro-life?  OK, I’ll concede that it isn’t particularly pro-life for the one receiving the death penalty.  But it is pro-life for the rest of us.  For what it is worth, I do prison ministry and know more murderers than most people do.  I’m not all hot-blooded about killing people, I just don’t like to see bad arguments on either side of the issue.

I realize that the media, pro-choice people and comedians like to mock the alleged inconsistency of pro-lifers who are also pro-capital punishment (“They oppose killing in the womb but don’t mind it for those outside the womb!  Ha!”).    I’ve heard many Christians poke fun at it as well.

But that argument is just a foolish sound bite, as it assumes that killing an innocent unborn human being is morally equivalent to killing a convicted murderer.   One is innocent, the other guilty.  If they want to argue against capital punishment then they need better reasoning than that.

Capital punishment is pro-life in that it regards the taking of innocent human life as the greatest crime, and thus deserving of the greatest punishment.  It also recognizes the deterrent effect as well as the prevention of future murders (executed criminals hardly ever kill again).  Therefore, it seeks to preserve additional innocent lives.  This is consistent with the pro-life view that abortions are permissible if the life of the mother is at stake.

If people want to make jokes about inconsistencies, a better example would be those who don’t mind the crushing and dismemberment of innocent human beings (without anesthetic) but protest when a convicted murderer is to be executed and who want to ensure he dies as painlessly as possible.

As always, I am pro-choice provided that the unborn get the same 10 years of appeals that convicted murderers do.

Perhaps we should just call capital punishment “123rd trimester abortions.”  Then the pro-choicers would support it.

Finally, consider how many pro-legalized abortionists wax philosophical about how we just don’t know when life begins.  Aside from the scientific fact that life begins at conception, they never consider erring on the side of caution.  If you aren’t sure where life begins, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of life?  But here’s the bigger irony: While they ignore that rather obvious point, they have no problem saying we should never use capital punishment because we might be executing someone who is innocent.

I realize that there can be legitimate concerns about whether capital punishment is always applied fairly, but that is a topic for another day.  Just for the record I do have concerns about how it is applied in the U.S. If we used a Biblical model for justice (i.e., two eye witnesses and punishments for perjury equivalent to the crime in question) then I’d be more comfortable with it.

Also see ineffective arguments against capital punishment and somewhat effective arguments against capital punishment.