You don't believe in capital punishment?

[LDB]

We should have an iron curtain to keep criminals out and nobody sane can argue capital punishment for this guy if legitimately convicted.

Man Who Killed Two Deputies Was Deported Twice : PatriotUpdate.com #patriotupdate @patriotupdate

 

[cheri1122]

That you do undermines your 'pro life' argument that "life is sacred - except when". Because you're perfectly willing to make exceptions, as long as they conform to your viewpoint. A woman's right to decide for herself whether she will continue an unplanned pregnancy doesn't suit your beliefs, therefore, women should be forced to remain pregnant.
Brilliant logic - not.
I believe I'm sane, and I'd be fine with life in prison, as long as it actually meant 'until the end of the scumbag's life', and not a minute before.
I'd also be fine with giving the scumbags a choice: work to pay for your room & board & medical care, or don't. If you choose not to work, you get zero privileges of any kind, period. I think that's reasonable, myself.

 

[Turtle]

That you do undermines your 'pro life' argument that "life is sacred - except when".

I've read the OP cover to cover and can't find a single mention, much less an entire argument, for or against "pro life."

This post is about criminal aliens and the killing of them when they commit capital murder. It's not about "pro life" or even about how or why the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement managed to let him back in the country, twice, to commit these crimes.

Let's at least make the meager attempt to remain on topic. Please?

 

[cheri1122]

I think it's apropos, if not [to start with] on topic. The cognitive dissonance between being 'pro life' and pro death penalty is pretty amazing.
I think I made my position clear on whether [I think] the killer should be executed: no. I just can't reconcile capital punishment with the possibility of human error. If not in this case, then in others, because we know it has happened, and that bell can't be unrung.

 

[Turtle]

I think it's apropos, if not [to start with] on topic.

If you reply to the post, and not the poster, then there's no way you can possibly think that, as there's nothing in the text of the original post, nor in the story linked, that has anything even remotely to do with choice of abortion.

The cognitive dissonance between being 'pro life' and pro death penalty is pretty amazing.

So is the cognitive dissonance between 'pro choice' and 'anti death penalty' but that another topic for another thread, one in which you are more than free to create if you'd like to discuss it. But not here in a thread that has nothing to do with that topic.

 

[RLENT]

We should have an iron curtain ...

An interesting aspiration ...

and nobody sane can argue capital punishment for this guy if legitimately convicted.

I'd say that the desire to prohibit and limit discussion and argument fits right in with your initial proposal ...

Some folks are just cursed by being born at the wrong time and in the wrong place ...

 

[Ragman]

. . . I just can't reconcile capital punishment with the possibility of human error. If not in this case, then in others, because we know it has happened, and that bell can't be unrung.

Why the pro death crowd can't understand this, is beyond me.

It's not the act itself that i object to, it's the law that allows it, is flawed.

 

[LDB]

Not that it needs any explaining but for those who can't follow context the salient points were keeping criminals out followed by for this guy if legitimately convicted which limits the context to one single individual and as always only with a 100% irrefutable conviction.

As to the unrelated comments, there is a major difference between supporting capital punishment of the worst criminal offenders, who through their own choices and decisions chose to accept forfeiture of life due to the worst of the worst criminal actions compared to an outside individual choosing to murder the absolutely most innocent of all possible lives who made no choice or decision to warrant being executed. There is such a difference it's unfathomable a properly functioning mind can't see that.

 

[scottm4211]

Pot meet kettle.

 

[RLENT]

 

[Ragman]

Not that it needs any explaining but for those who can't follow context the salient points were keeping criminals out followed by for this guy if legitimately convicted which limits the context to one single individual and as always only with a 100% irrefutable conviction.

As to the unrelated comments, there is a major difference between supporting capital punishment of the worst criminal offenders, who through their own choices and decisions chose to accept forfeiture of life due to the worst of the worst criminal actions compared to an outside individual choosing to murder the absolutely most innocent of all possible lives who made no choice or decision to warrant being executed. There is such a difference it's unfathomable a properly functioning mind can't see that.

 

[LDB]

Yes, that is exactly right regarding those who won't get it. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

 

[cheri1122]

Not that it needs any explaining but for those who can't follow context the salient points were keeping criminals out followed by for this guy if legitimately convicted which limits the context to one single individual and as always only with a 100% irrefutable conviction.

As to the unrelated comments, there is a major difference between supporting capital punishment of the worst criminal offenders, who through their own choices and decisions chose to accept forfeiture of life due to the worst of the worst criminal actions compared to an outside individual choosing to murder the absolutely most innocent of all possible lives who made no choice or decision to warrant being executed. There is such a difference it's unfathomable a properly functioning mind can't see that.

100% irrefutable? A conviction that warrants the ultimate penalty is supposed to be beyond any possibility of doubt, and how many times has that turned out to be an 'oops'?

Replying to the post & not the poster is a good rule, one which I generally follow. Except when it becomes necessary to question or challenge a contradiction, because the poster doesn't cooperate by putting two contradictory positions in the same post or thread.
The contradiction is that one who is 'pro life' will allow for exceptions, guaranteed, [may actually be salivating over the possibilities, sometimes!], but only for certain reasons. Since they don't consider an unintended pregnancy reason enough, and there is no 100% foolproof way to avoid it other than not having sex, they apparently believe women should simply not have sex unless they want to get pregnant. Is this in any way a reasonable expectation?
Defining a 12 week fetus as a baby or an innocent life is a deliberate deception to evoke an emotional response. But then, deception is the modus operandi for 'pro lifers' - from describing protesters as 'sidewalk counselors' to advertising 'pregnancy counseling' that rejects any questions about termination, to billboards that depict adorable real babies, rather than the accurate truth, because the truth is not on their side.
Maybe the operative word in capital punishment is 'punishment' - bad people should be punished, and that includes women who have sex when they don't want to have babies?

 

[Turtle]

It is never "necessary" to hijack a thread.