A Progressive Blog from South Dakota
One can firmly believe that human life is precious but that a person can pose such a threat to society that they have forfeited the right.Or that if they have not forfeited the right that they are such a threat that when that right is balanced against the rights of others to live, work, operate and function, that the person must be killed.Having said that I think P.J. O'Rourke actually put the real moral dilema of our time better:"Thou shalt not kill." Why, in the opinion of jerks, is it wrong to kill a baby but all right to kill a baby that's so little he hasn't been born yet? And why do the same jerks who favor abortion oppose the death penalty? We can imagine people so full of loving kindness that they can accept neither the abortionist nor the executioner. We can even imagine people so cold-hearted that they embrace them both. But it takes a real jerk to argue in favor of killing perfect innocents and letting Terry Nichols live."
What about the "jerk" who has no problem putting living breathing people to death for revenge and has no problem with the death of thousands of women due to back alley abortions. Those deaths are due to the supposed "life" stance of that movement. Save a blob of cells, but damn the living and turn your back on the living breathing children. How is that compassionate or even responsible?
Post a Comment