Ive always wondered, How can any one claim to be pro life and pro death penalty? Either way, what gives another the right to terminate life in any fashion or form?

Easy. You piss someone off, they terminate you. Go prove to God that they haven't had a "right". The one who survives, writes crappy stuff about you in history books and procreates.

Pro life, you mean "anti-abortion" or anti-death penalty?

It's called good against evil.I am pro life and for the death penality.I belive that some peoples crimes are worthy of death.I know putting some of these people to death gives the victims a great deal of closure and comfort knowing that 1.)they will never get out and kill or assault again and 2.)They will not run up millions in tax dollars spending 20,30,or 40 years behind bars while sitting in a cell watching TV.

Killing a innocent baby is terribly wrong.The mother could put it up for adoption which there is a great demand for.I also think because there is abortion on demand it makes people much less carless about unprotected sex because they know if they get pregnant they can just go get a abortion.

I think most people who oppose the death penality have never been a victim of violent crime.Once they are they change their mind rather quickly.

Definitely pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

Someone takes someone else life, he must pay with his own.

Abortion? This is bad only if you believe that the life begins after the conception. I know I know of all the terrible images of moving babies in a womb. It moves, It breathes, it smiles.

It isn't a human being yet. It is alive, true. Human being? Not until birth.

Just my view.

Give it few more years, and the science will be able to take that unwanted fetus out and put it in the body of any willing pro-lifer. I bet there will not be too many of them hurling around.

While we are on the subject.Obama pledged that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the "freedom of choice act".This radical piece of legislation would make abortion a right.That would mean that doctors refusing to performing abortions could be fined or lose their licenses as this "right" would be the same as denying someone their freedom of speech or freedom of religion.Catholic hospitals said they would shut down rather than perform abortions against the will of their doctors.Scary stuff indeed!

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

One unnamed senior Vatican official recently told TIME magazine that the passage of FOCA would mean "the equivalent of a war" between Mr. Obama and the Catholic Church.

“It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our catholic hospitals entirely,” Paprocki said. “It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.”

In a news conference yesterday in Baltimore, George called such fears are “well-founded,” because “once something is enshrined as a right in law, then I have no authority to deny it to someone.”


http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2551




http://www.nrlc.org/foca/index.html

that's easy...one is as pure as the driven snow...God's gift...and...the other is the scum of the Earth, and the faster they fry...the quicker their punishment begins...

The wealthiest religiuos organization in the world is going to shut down their hospitals.. That's amusing if not ridiculous...



Shivers!!!
The Roman Catholic Church dictating .. hmmm

How can any one be pro life and pro death at the same time? We are all imperfect so how can the imperfect judge the imperfect?

The "scum of the earth" was once "pure as the driven snow", so who are we to say, hes one or the other

Any healthcare worker has the 'RIGHT' to refuse to participate in any procedure that is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. It is also against Federal law for disciplinary action to be taken against that employee for their refusal to do "a job".

What DOESN'T make sense, is it's against Federal law to ASK a person's religious affiliation in the hiering process. It may be within legal spec's to have a new hire sign an affifidavit declaring any proceedures they would not preform, at least I hope it is as an emergency is not the time to find out.

There is one predicament that many health organizations may find themselves in. My understanding is that, no matter what an organization calls itself; let's say "St. Mary's Womans Clinic" they can file the appropriate papers with the Fed, that would clear them for receiving Federal funds to assist in financial operations.

The predicament for such institutions is that they have to agree to staff without religious bias, in accordance with EEOC and they also have to agree to follow all Federal law, including implementing, without prejudice, all approved medical proceedures.

So signing an act for right to choice at the Federal level, would nulify Federal funding of any organization who would NOT follow the Federal dictate.

So I find it hard to believe that any hospital or even clinic would go out of business, simply because they refused, as is their right, to preform abortions, or surgical birth control, or invetro to lesbians - unless of course they have been recieving "illegally" a very large Federal edowment.

Imagine that!

I do so hate the topic of abortion, but that was interesting Red.

While I personally oppose the death penalty in the USA, there is a big difference between killing an innocent child, and executing a person convicted of horrible crimes.

That is a very nasty piece of legislation. While it is possible that the courts would partially overturn sections of the law to allow people to refuse to perform certain operations, it is not a certainty. At best this new law would result in years of lawsuits, as well as many court decisions about different aspects of the law. It would require the courts to write thousands of pages of new law to fix the constitutional questions of such a law.

At the very least, it would prevent Catholic hospitals from treating government employees, old people (medicare), and various private insurance customers. It is likely to require that Catholic hospitals either close down, or perform abortions. But it doesn't stop there, individual doctors would no longer be able to refuse to do abortions at public and private hospitals, and thus many doctors would have to switch to a different line of work.

This is also another example of why we should not have a big intrusive government. When the government provides medical care, they squeeze out the private sector, to the disadvantage of everyone. When the government employs a large percentage of the population, they control a huge portion of peoples daily lives.

Because government is so large and intrusive, the government must choose to support one group of people, and oppress the other. If the federal government was limited by the Constitutional restrictions of government power, this would not be such a huge and convoluted problem.

I am going to guess at this one. Pro life people are talking about not stopping the birth of innocent babies.
Pro death penalty people are talking about taking the life of evil murderers that kill nice people.

It's like being pro babies and anti murderers. you get?