Why do christians hate abortion but love murder?

Why do christians hate abortion but love murder?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why are atheists fine with murdering innocent babies, but get emotional when it comes to murdering criminals?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      didn't answer question. why do christians love murdering and hurting people?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You just found out that some Christians were and are murderers? How do they compare in general violence to other major religions? Do you have any handy charts?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      criminals have the capacity to feel pain and fear. The same doesn't hold for the clump of mass known as a fetus.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Do you know what said "mass of cells" is by week 20?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          So you admit fetuses aren't people until the twentieth week

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No you moron. I'm saying the line you people arbitrarily drew to decide when it starts being a person is monstrously moronic and demonstrably evil.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're the one trying to strip the criminal of their humanity.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        We're all clumps of cells moron
        >No I didn't kill him, I just put an end to the electrical energy moving through his brain.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, the implicit message of the "muh clump of cells" argument is that although the fetus is alive, it does not contain the thing that we value in humans.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It is telling that you can't write your own argument and need to screenshot random shit you found.
            The argument made there is obviously idiotic because it cannot non-arbitratily delineate what is a potentially sentient system.
            It also confuses consciousness with sentience. For instance, a sleeping person is unconscious but still sentient.
            Overall low IQ argument for low IQ people.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >For instance, a sleeping person is unconscious but still sentient.
            Prove it without waking up the person.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Clump of what cells

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      because criminals are their agents of course

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don't care about both, murded is more humane than life sentence.
      Fetus is not a baby and people will find a way to abort whether you christcucks like it or not.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Fetus is not a baby
        Would it matter if it was? Pro-choicers would be sperging out about whether it actually deserves "babyhood" and saying it doesn't have the agency to be considered human if they wanted to kill babies. Once you decide it's acceptable to kill innocent humans you can draw the line of acceptability anywhere you want

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Fetus is not a baby
        It's an individual human being with its own genetic code

        >and people will find a way to abort whether you christcucks like it or not.
        Murder and rape happen every day despite being outlawed
        Does it mean we should make them legal?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are atheists fine with murdering innocent babies
      Because they go to heaven, so it's objectively good to murder them according to christian morals.
      If they don't go to heaven I have doubts about your god being all loving kek.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I’m not Christian, but don’t most Christians essentially say “Obeying God is good because it just is” or alternatively “trust the plan”?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Athiests also find it repulsive to kill babies, dude. Just like Catholics fund inner city abortions. It is subjective.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They change the language to make themselves feel better. Atheists ultimately don't live in reality, but in a World completely made of text. See

      criminals have the capacity to feel pain and fear. The same doesn't hold for the clump of mass known as a fetus.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        meds

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It is very clear that atheists live in a primarily textual reality. Once atheists seized power in the institutions they cynically molded, twisted, and diluted language to suit their agenda so that useless idiots of the masses who parrot their rhetoric would assume that rhetoric to be truth. Case in point: A pregnant woman no longer carries a baby, but houses a "clump of cells." Atheists use this rhetoric and believe it to be true, when they haven't actually changed the reality of what it means to abort a child. You can see this in other ways such as forcing people to use pronouns or asserting that illegal aliens are "undocumented workers." The ones in power know that one need not change the reality of the thing, only the perception of the reality of the thing. The useless idiot atheists who use this language very obviously mentally exist within this textual space, because when confronted with the TRUE reality of the thing they freak out. This is why they get "triggered," which is different from religious people who feel disgust when confronted with things they don't like.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            didnt read take meds

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you lost and you're not cool

            The entire pro-life argument is literally just semantics. How little self awareness do you have?

            what

            No, the anti-life argument is entirely about semantics while the biological fact is that a foetus is a living human at an early stage of growth. Plants don't have brains or heartbeats but nobody would argue they aren't alive.

            said. You come from a womb. You were once a "clump of cells." It's interesting that this phrase was chosen to dehumanize the child for a couple of reasons. Nobody talks about how those are a unique clump of cells. Unique to our species, unique to the parents, and unique in the way they were created. Also, cells are still alive, so I never really understood this line of reasoning. Tree huggers cry when a lumberjack chops down a tree, vegans cry when a farmer cooks fertilized chicken eggs. So it's not the stage or type of life that is the point of contention. No I think the point of this phrase is to simply detach all emotion from the reality of the thing. "Clump of cells" evokes an image of a sanitized, soulless petri dish in a lab. Or maybe some dead skin or a finger nail. But that's not the reality is it? It's a false perception of the reality brought on by three tactfully chosen words to convince useful idiots who wish to remain blind to the destruction of innocent HUMAN life.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >human life
            >innocent
            homie do you even Christianity?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I do. The Church that has the fullness of the faith is more aligned with what I've said.

            >The Orthodox Church does not believe that children are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that unless freed of that guilt through baptism and communion they will die without God’s mercy. Such a notion is pernicious both for its barbarism and for its distortion of God. Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment (Romans 9:15).

            >We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The entire pro-life argument is literally just semantics. How little self awareness do you have?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No, the anti-life argument is entirely about semantics while the biological fact is that a foetus is a living human at an early stage of growth. Plants don't have brains or heartbeats but nobody would argue they aren't alive.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because atheists are criminals

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Thy shall not kill or something

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    These days, the only action that will lead to you being officially put to death by the state in a lawful procedure is murder.
    >inb4 assassinations and innocent people wrongfully put to death
    Eye for an eye kind of thing. The death sentence for murder is anti-murder. It is "karma" executed by the state. The only thing that would bring that upon you (ideally) is that it first came from you.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the death sentence for murder is more murder

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Murder is the illegal act of killing. Death penalty is legal and thus not murder

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Murder is the illegal act of killing. Abortion is legal and thus not murder

          • 1 year ago
            sage

            I remember when weed was the devil because it was illegal. I was willing to live as a hermit for the rest of my life over it

        • 1 year ago
          sage

          >Death penalty is legal and thus not murder
          The death penalty is not murder because it comes after a conviction. Death for a convicted aggravated murderer wouldn't ever reach him if he had never murdered
          Murder is killing without cause. If there was cause, or lack of intention, it's not murder

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You think murderers murder for no reason?

          • 1 year ago
            sage

            Don't talk to me if you're practicing for debate class, butthole.
            I said cause. JUST CAUSE. That's the legal term

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There is no just cause for murdering a criminal.

          • 1 year ago
            sage

            Don't talk to me if you're practicing for debate class, butthole.
            I said cause. JUST CAUSE. That's the legal term

            I'm not a Christfriend btw. But this is the kind of shit that makes people not know wrong from right
            Carry on. I guess I put in my two cents

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What would you have us do with the likes of Albert Fish? There is no rehabilitation for raping, killing, and eating children. He morally needed to be removed from existence.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It is immoral to murder a victim of socio-economic circumstances

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ok here's a moral dilemma. You have two choices

            Option A: 1000 empowered women gain 1 free abortion where it's otherwise banned.
            Option B: 1000 rich pedophiles are executed by flaying

            What is your choice?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            1000 rich pedophiles in all likelihood contribute more to society than 1000 failed abortions

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So your choice is to let 1000 rich pedos live? Are you sure you're not israeli?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you personally think 1000 would-be abortions should be subjected to an upbringing by a parent who would've aborted them if given the chance?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You did not answer my question.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Your question does not merit an answer.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you love pedophiles?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the one advocating for would be abortions to be raised in broken households like a pedophile would

            >But callhima israelite and you will be astonished athowherecoils,howinjuredheis,how hesuddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's almost too easy.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >But callhima israelite and you will be astonished athowherecoils,howinjuredheis,how hesuddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.'"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you personally think that killing babies is preferrable to sending them to an orphanage?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Orphanages are pedo farms.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They grow pedos there?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Pedos are able to act like pedos because of negligent parents and adoption centers.

          • 1 year ago
            sage

            Pedos are able to act like pedos because they are supported by rich and powerful pedos. Pedophilia is a mafia. Most pedos are owned and blackmailed by other pedos. Wake the frick up son. The ones who brainwashed society to murder babies are the worst satanic pedos. I will say no more. If you have 2 working brain cells you will figure it out.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know this because you're a pedo? Or does it just "make sense" to you that this would work?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Pedophilia is a mafia. Most pedos are owned and blackmailed by other pedos
            Schizo

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >He dindu nuffin, no real free will n shiet
            Determinism is truly the cancer of leftism

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >blocks your path

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Where is the just cause?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Judicial system was repeatedly proven to be unable to stop him from repeatedly hurting people OR bring him to justice
            >So despised that the only person upset about his death was the wife he married when she was a teenager by doing insane shit including burning down her parent's home.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are right. That is why we execute people. Since an execution isn't murder. However vigilante justice isn't justice.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Abortion isn't murder

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Depending on the state and country.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Murder is one person playing God and deciding someone doesn't get to live anymore.
        Execution has the whole society's will behind it, not just one person.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And the sentence for abducting someone and imprisoning them in your cellar is.....getting abducted by the police and imprisoned

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    not a christian but I think both are bad and should if at all possible not happen

  4. 1 year ago
    sage

    (You)

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can we just cut the crap and agree that abortion is fine for only the first trimester?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I dont give a frick about anyone's fetus and if anons are being honest, they dont either

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm fine with abortions being banned after the trimester outside of serious medical issues and such.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you want to kill innocent humans

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why does genetically distinct human DNA alone make an organism morally relevant? If tou provide a good reason for this that doesn't appeal to a deity, I will become an anti-abortion activist.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Why does anything make an organism morally relevant?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In its most basic form, morality is an intersubjective system that governs the behaviour of subjects towards one another. If an organism is not sentient (i.e. incapable of having phenomenal experiences), it's an object rather than a subject and thus only morally relevant by proxy insofar as it relates to actual subjects.
            You can create other more restrictive criteria, but subjectivity is the lowest bar and if you don't meet it, you're out.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's a nice opinion, basically as valid as a person who rolls dice to determine if something is moral or not. Each case you're just applying what you think is important.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Come again? I merely set the lowest bar at sentience because it flows from the definition of what morality is. I made no claims as to what any particular rules are beyond that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And? The point was what makes something morally relevant. You're saying it needs to have sentience right? I'm saying that's a fine opinion and as valid as any other system you can make up. Like rolling dice to see if something is morally relevant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But I didn't not choose it arbitrarily. Morality is an intersubjective system that governs actions between subjects. You need to be sentient to be a subject, otherwise you're an object.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's an arbitrary method to determine if something is morally relevant or not. Sounds like you're also saying only beings that can conceive morality (to some other arbitrary extent) are morally relevant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You keep repeating that it's arbitrary, can you substantiate it? I just derived it from what morality is.
            Also how am I implying that you need to be able to conceive of morality to be morally relevant?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What makes something morally relevant? Your response is - sentience

            Is that correct so far?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Did you read the reasons why I said that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yep, the arbitrary part is deciding that sentience or being an object preclude something from being acted upon morally or immorally

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How is that arbitrary? Explain to me how a "moral" rule that doesn't involve an action done to a subject can be associated with morality. Maybe give me an example other than abortion?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Killing any other living being in a painless way? But really the argument would be that it's all subjective in deciding what matters and what doesnt

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Killing any other living being in a painless way?
            That is still an action done to a subject. Try again.
            >But really the argument would be that it's all subjective in deciding what matters and what doesnt
            This does not follow. Even if what is moral is decided by god, all moral laws involve a subject. For instance, masturbation being wrong would either be due to the idea that it harms you (the relevant subject is you) or that it makes god angry (the relevant subject is god) or both.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Sentience means having the capacity to have feelings. This requires a level of awareness and cognitive ability.

            So killing anyone not currently at that level or temporarily not sentient. Easy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So you've ran out of arguments and started spewing bullshit definitions that no philosopher would agree with. I accept your concession.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lol okay your definition of morality is bullshit too? I literally just copied the definition from some paper. Sounds like you're out of arguments

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The issue is that you have the reading comprehension of an empty bag of chips, anon-kun. The definition said:
            >Sentience means having the CAPACITY to have feelings.
            You reinterpreted this to mean that sleeping people aren't sentient. You're out of your depth.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Someone sleeping or under anesthesia is no longer sentient they have capacity to become sentient in time. Just like a fetus does in time

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are redefining sentience because you have no argument. Good job proving that your argument is shit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't like the definition you copied
            >wait a minute, I got him now
            >oh wait, no your definition is bad

            Out of arguments again?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you that your definition uses the qualifier for capacity and thus doesn't say that sleeping people are not sentient.
            >b-but but... I CAN'T READ!
            Not my problem.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And who else has capacity for sentience? A fetus

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A fetus doesn't have the capacity for sentience. A fetus has a capacity for achieving a capacity for sentience later down the line.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >has a capacity for achieving a capacity
            That's called having capacity. Both cases involve them being able to do something in the future

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's not the same thing, moron. A sleeping person is sentient because they have the capacity to have phenomenal experiences (and often do have those even while they're sleeping).
            A fetus has the capacity to achieve sentience, but it isn't currently sentient.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't apply to people under anesthetic, they are not sentient at the moment, lots of people when unconcious.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They are sentient according to the definition you posted, numbskull.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, they are not capable of having feelings when under anasethetic, same with plenty of unconscious people.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They have the capacity for having phenomenal experiences, moron. They just aren't having them for the moment.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do they have the capacity at the moment? No and neither does a fetus
            Do they have the capacity I'm the future? Yes, does a fetus? Yes

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what a capacity is, moron-kun?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes something morally relevant?
            NTA but the answer is obviously Soul

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      abortion is fine in all trimesters for nonwhites. it should be banned in all trimesters for whites (unless they have a serious genetic deformity)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Which country's definition of white are we using? Do White Hispanics, Arabs, Persians, Indians, and/or Horn Africans count? Or just people of British or Germanic extraction?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Murder is killing a person who does not deserve to die.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    new born child = innocent
    repeat violent criminal= not innocent

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Killing isn't inherently murder. Executing Troyrese LeJackson Smith for killing an old lady and burning her house down is exacting justice against a threat to society. It is a defensive act against a proven hostile factor.

    A baby barely knows where it is for the first year

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >I’ll kill a soon-to-be person, no problem
    >I also wouldn’t mind humans dying, but that’s unrelated
    >but le cute animals..

    Misanthropy is a disease

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >killing sentient animals with the intelligence of small children is le good
      >killing a non-sentient fetus is le bad

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >sentience
        >it’s only bad if it hurts!
        You are a hedonist

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >if your standard for morals is sentience, you're a hedonist!
          Continuing the trend of christians on this board being microcephalic mutants.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No argument
            >morality is what uhhhhh… you need to be able to feel pain to have morals.
            >animals have morals

            I’d say sapience is what gives morality
            >inb4 fetuses aren’t sapient
            They are on track to being sapient, whereas an animal will live and die without ever having an intelligent thought. Also, children have infantile amnesia up until they’re like 4 years old, should 3 year olds be aborted?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            At least you're okay with it being an entirely arbitrary and subjective thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the ability to rationalize beliefs and use logic is arbitrary and subjective
            You have no idea what morals are do you

            To be expected from someone who kills babies, and won’t contest that abortion up to 3yo is a bad thing

            Likely the reason why you think it’s bad to kill animals but not humans is because you see yourself as an animal.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You arbitrarily pick sapience as the moral determiner, which itself is a subjective measure

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Is there any other way to experience morality without being able to consciously think about it? Or is being sapient incidental, and animals just have some kind of innate sense of right and wrong

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There are animals that do have a sense of right and wrong. If you're picking human level sapience then it doesn't apply to them. But it probably also doesn't apply to tards or africans.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Low IQ response. I never said that you need to be able to reason morally in order to be morally relevant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's a nice opinion, basically as valid as a person who rolls dice to determine if something is moral or not. Each case you're just applying what you think is important.

            Claim: Morality is the product of rational thought and self-reflection (sapience)
            >Counterclaim: that’s subjective.
            >refuses to elaborate
            Moral relativism at work

            There are animals that do have a sense of right and wrong. If you're picking human level sapience then it doesn't apply to them. But it probably also doesn't apply to tards or africans.

            Animals feel pain, and have autonomic behavior. Their predisposition to avoid pain and perform those behaviors is not morality. For it to be a ‘sense of right and wrong,’ there would have to be a conscious understanding. You clearly don’t have this understanding, you just avoid pain and incline towards natural urges (kill the baby, no reason aside from it doing anything).
            Considering there are universals in human morality, such as that needless murder is a bad thing, where does killing a forming human fit in? How can you plant a seed, rip out the sapling, and say that you didn’t just interrupt the potential of a fully formed tree?

            And? The point was what makes something morally relevant. You're saying it needs to have sentience right? I'm saying that's a fine opinion and as valid as any other system you can make up. Like rolling dice to see if something is morally relevant.

            What makes something morally relevant? Your response is - sentience

            Is that correct so far?

            >trying to define morality is a subjective endeavor
            Oh boy

            Just say you’re an amoral animal, and you’ll do whatever you want so long as nobody says anything about it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Morality needs to be subjective in that it needs to involve subjects. I made no claims about whether morality is subjective in the sense that each subject has a different conception of morality, all of which would be equally valid.
            A universally valid morality that doesn't permit different interpretations would still be subjective in the sense that it governs actions between subjects.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Claim: Morality is the product of rational thought and self-reflection (sapience)

            I agree that it is. Your claim is that if something can't conceive of morality things done to it can't be immoral.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Animals feel pain, and have autonomic behavior. Their predisposition to avoid pain and perform those behaviors is not morality. For it to be a ‘sense of right and wrong,’ there would have to be a conscious understanding. You clearly don’t have this understanding, you just avoid pain and incline towards natural urges (kill the baby, no reason aside from it doing anything).
            >Considering there are universals in human morality, such as that needless murder is a bad thing, where does killing a forming human fit in? How can you plant a seed, rip out the sapling, and say that you didn’t just interrupt the potential of a fully formed tree?

            Yea they already showed monkeys for example have a sense of fairness aka right and wrong in experiments.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yea they already showed monkeys for example have a sense of fairness aka right and wrong in experiments.
            Fairness is not right and wrong.
            Just because a monkey chimps out because it received a smaller portion does not mean it knows right from wrong. It just means that the monkey wants more.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What is fairness if not right and wrong

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Fairness is simply the perception that something is fair.
            >It's not fair that I got caught! Everyone else got away, why should I be punished? It's not fair!
            The shrieking monkey doesn't care about right and wrong, the shrieking monkey just cares about its self interest.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >defines a word with that word

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Babies are innocent. Criminals aren’t. There is no contradiction between being anti abortion and pro death penalty.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yup. Condemning the innocent to death for convenience is pure barbarism. History will judge these people harshly.
      Imagining trying to garner pity on Facebook after getting an elective abortion, only to and have a glaring record of committing infanticide for the rest of your life.
      People walking around thinking we ain't ever gonna bring back the guillotine.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >History will judge these people harshly.
        >People walking around thinking we ain't ever gonna bring back the guillotine.
        this is a power fantasy about some powerful entity punishing some random bawds you dont even know
        >Just you wait and see!!!!!!!!
        fricking cringe

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Catholic Church is against the death penalty

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Politically or dogmatically?

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because unborns are free of sin
    Meanwhile people that deserve death penalty are not
    Punishing evil and getting the world rid of sin is good. Killing unborn innocent beings is not.

    Is it really this hard to grasp for liberals? Where is the contradiction?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How does murdering a criminal undo the crime?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It stops further injustice by making it so the victims and the rest of society don't have to support them.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Abortion works because then society doesn't have to support the fetus.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Society doesn't have to support it already, just the parents who created it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you blatantly lying, or are you just stupid?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The parents are in society, numbskull

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We killed 2 people, society died.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The fetus is innocent
            Criminal is not
            There is nothing wrong than supporting the innocent, in fact its morally good

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Poor people are more likely to abort than rich people
            children raised in poor households are more likely to commit crime than those raised in wealthy households.
            I'm sure you can connect the dots from here.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ok and? We have free will, i fail to see your reasoning.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, I'll speak your language

            Poor people are more likely to use their free will to abort than rich people
            children raised in poor households are more likely to use their free will to commit crime than those raised in wealthy households.
            I'm sure you can connect the dots from here.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Statistics or household income have nothing to do with morality.
            Some ethnic groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes too but im not advocating for some collective punishment against them. It would be unjust

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it that when I point out that people in destitute circumstances commit more crime, you think about punishing them? Have you ever considered other alternatives?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Have you ever considered other alternatives?
            No, why should i? Sins are to be punished, the faithful, just and innocent helped and left to their own devices

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What does punishment accomplish?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Stops unrepentant sinner

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are wrong. Statistics show that punishment increases recidivism rates.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >punishment increases recidivism rates.
            They cannot become recidivists if they are dead or serving for life in labor camp

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So they deserve to die for being victims of socio-economic circumstances?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, they still have agency. You can be poor and not kill people

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you so bloodthirsty? As a christian, shouldn't you want to help elevate the poor to a higher standard of living so they don't resort to a life of crime?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Gas the poor, class war now.
            - Jesus of Nazareth, circa 29AD

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you want to take people's agency from them just because they're poor. Poor people can't help buy murder?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're right. Being charitable to the poor is clearly a violation of their free will and agency. We should send them all to labor camps instead.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The violation of their agency is when you act like they are poor so they have to commit crimes. Charity can be done but when they still commit a crime they get punished

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Does punishment make a person better or worse?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Depends, on the person and punishment, it can also make them not exist

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            should a punishment make a person better or worse?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Better mentally ideally, if it can be done without impacting others negatively. If not it should make thrn worse physically so they can't repeat crimes. Or just not exist at all in many instances

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So you infact believe in rehabilitation, not punishment, since it is the express aim of rehabilitation to make criminals better.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I infact believe in both as stated, if rehabilitation can be done without impacting others negatively "ex. Financially" then that's great. When they can't then punishment is needed

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            When a criminal commits a crime, is the criminal good or bad?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Bad, generally

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So why do you want to make them worse, since you acknowledge that rehabilitation helps people while punishment harms them?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Because it will stop them from doing more bad things. Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Because (punishment) will stop them from doing more bad things.
            You've just agreed that rehabilitation makes people better. Why are you contradicting yourself?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Where did I contradict myself? Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort

            See, doesn't say it's not better, just that it's not always possible and not always worthwhile, especially financially.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Describe the situations where rehabilitation is not possible or worth the effort or financial investment, or did you just assume such situations exist?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Any situation where it requires taxpayer money. And any situation where it is not proven without a doubt that person is rehabilitated

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Any situation where it requires taxpayer money
            American spotted

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You may be surprised to hear that punitive "justice" also requires taxpayer money. More than rehabilitative justice, infact.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Significantly less to let them die in a cage. No food, electricity, health care etc..

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think you're the good guy for advocating that human beings should die in cages instead of receive rehabilitative care and later become productive members of society?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And you think you're the good guy for making the victims pay to try and rehabilitate the people who murdered the children. To pay for their food, shelter, Healthcare. Pretty evil

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that's what it means to live in a first world country and not a third world shithole. You're welcome.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yep, pretty evil.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, suggesting people should just die in cages instead of attempting to improve society somewhat is cartoonishly evil.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Cool, we both think each other are evil. Also hilariously naive that you can think you can turn violent criminals into productive members of society

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Have you read an academic source proving that all violent criminals are impossible to rehabilitate and that all first world countries are stupid for trying, or are you just assuming?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Show me where all violent criminals become productive members of society? How long to pay off the cost it takes to rehabilitate them? Please tell me more about this logical and rational thing that has never happened

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There was an entire thread about it earlier, newbie. Educate yourself:

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lol it showed it doesn't happen. Rehab for violent criminals is a left wing delusion

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think rehabilitation is impossible?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not worthwhile and impossible to prove rehabilitation.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why does norway have a shrinking prison population while the US has a rising prison population?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Is Norway's population in general rising or falling?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Muslims are not allowed to be put into Prision, and the native Norwegians simply don't reproduce.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Demographics

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            tu quoque, ask me how I know you’re a pencil neck suburbanite
            >rehabilitation works because… because rehabilitation is a thing!
            >yeah there are serial rapists, murderers, thieves, etc, but if you think about it, they just don’t have the disposable wealth to distract them from those urges
            >also forget about the vast majority of criminals that get caught one or two times for minor crimes, and don’t reoffend again
            >I know the government can’t correctly implement any kind of welfare for the people, but making them the national therapist is different I swear

            Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.

            >you offend the public such that you got caught, then convicted
            >you don’t stay there forever unless you REALLY fricked up
            You go into the box when you prove that you can’t behave among normal people. You get out and try again, it’s not that hard.

            There was an entire thread about it earlier, newbie. Educate yourself:

            >what is the free rider problem
            >actual mentally handicapped people are on government support
            >also drug addicts
            >many drug addicts aren’t actually addicted, but they’re able to claim an addiction to get government support
            >mentally handicapped person, deserving of support, gets robbed outside welfare office by fellow prole (it’s like they forgot about the class struggle)
            These are daily occurrences, but you won’t know about it unless it appeared in a Reddit post or news article. Get outside

            >If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes
            Thats not the goal, the goal is to punish

            Punishment sets the example why not to do the crime
            Intelligent people (subset) know instinctively not to commit crimes
            You want the rule that applies for the minority to fit the majority, it’s just not tenable

            What is fairness if not right and wrong

            Oh anon

            I’m not Christian, but don’t most Christians essentially say “Obeying God is good because it just is” or alternatively “trust the plan”?

            >wait a minute, the spiritual basis of a religion sometimes isn’t accurately reflected by the materialist administration of the clergy?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Still costs costs more taxpayer money to have a guard pointing a gun at the cage 24/7, an institution to teach and certify the guard to point a gun, the manufacturing of cages etc.
            Not needed, they'll die in a cage in a few days. Or can always just shoot them. Either way Significantly cheaper than trying to rehab that criminal for 20 years under better conditions

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Guards to shoot the criminal and make sure it actually dies, diggers to dig mass graves and dispose of corpses, land mass for space for cages and mass graves, psychologists to take care all the personnel who will undoubtedly be traumatised by all the death and misery they are perpetrating, institutions to educate people on how to perform all these functions, factories and resources to manufacture all the tools required to undertake these procedures on a national scale...all taxpayer funded, by the way.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Right so not that expensive. They just have to shoot the guy a couple times, dump the body in the garbage truck, truck drops of all the bodies in a landfill. Will clean out most prisons in a month.

            Or you can also allow companies to pay to experiment on the criminals first and then kill them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Instead of performing a holocaust, you can rehabilitate criminals, and they can become productive tax paying members of society. No, that's too logical and humane...

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, won't happen, especially without making everyone else worth off financially

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Except they are worse off financially funding a punitive justice system over a rehabilitative justice system.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, which is why most shit countries can't even afford to try to rehab criminals. Can't treat them better than 90% of your citizens

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >shit countries don't rehabilitate
            >shit countries have high crime rates
            Makes you think, huh

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Banishment is more humane.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >taxpayer money
            Lol, do you think prison complexes and electric chairs appeared from thin air?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A fetus doesn't have the capacity for sentience. A fetus has a capacity for achieving a capacity for sentience later down the line.

            Because it will stop them from doing more bad things. Whereas rehabilitation is not always possible or worth the effort

            >has a capacity for achieving a capacity
            That's called having capacity. Both cases involve them being able to do something in the future

            meds

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Punishment as the name suggests should punish somebody, not improve them

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So punishments should make the criminal commit more crimes?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It should prevent them from commiting crimes via isolation or death

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes, why do you wait until they have committed the crime before you punish them?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If the goal of punishment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes
            Thats not the goal, the goal is to punish

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What's the point?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >deserve
            Stop it with these childish fantasies, this is a board for adults.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            5 minutes later
            >NOOOOOOO these fetuses DESERVE a chance at life!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >DESERVE
            See

            >deserve
            Stop it with these childish fantasies, this is a board for adults.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Learns that there is a correlation between poverty and crime
            >instead of suggesting that society should help the poor somewhat, wants to wait for the desperately poor to commit a crime then sentence them to death
            Let me guess, you also think without religion, specifically christianity, everyone would rape and murder eachother?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >instead of suggesting that society should help the poor somewhat,
            Why should society help the poor "somewhat"?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A dead person can't sin again.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >sin
            crime*

            If that person was given a proper chance at life, he would not commit a crime at all.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >anyone that commits a crime wasn't given a proper chance therefore no one can be punished

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >crime
            sin*

            They were given a proper at chance, unlike these innocent babies, and they turned to be wicked beings worthy of death.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >sin
            crime*
            >wicked
            antisocial*
            If they were born in destitute circumstances, they were not given a proper chance. People aren't inherent antisocial. The environment and upbringing shapes the person.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >People aren't inherent antisocial.
            Wrong

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You cant undo the sin, you can only repent or stop it from occurring again. If the offender doesnt repent he should die to prevent future sins

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >sin
          crime
          >repent
          rehabilitate

          Cool it with the religious language. This isn't /x/

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Most of us aren't american.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    criminals deserve death. babies don't.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What does it mean to deserve death?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    God has an impressive history of killing motherfrickers

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >liberal: abortion has no limits, and euthanasia is beautiful.
    >Also liberal: nooo, you can't kill a serial killer, anybody can be rehabilitated.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is it just me or do other people think we should kill every sub human being, babies and criminal included. Why differentiate? An unborn child of a single mother abusing tobacco and alcohol during her pregnancy is the same to me as a convict in the chair. They are simply at different stages in life. There should be no debate really. You terminate each as they are different sides of the same ephemeral coin that needs to be spent.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I oppose BOTH Abortion and the Death Penalty OP. Both are murder.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Gay actor Michael Douglass

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How to BTFO pro-baby murderers:

    >If the fetus could be taken out of a woman and grown in an artificial womb, would you support ending abortion?

    The way a person responds to this question tells a lot about their character.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because murder sometimes rids the world of impurity while abortion rids the world of purity.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    tu quoque, ask me how I know you’re a pencil neck suburbanite
    >rehabilitation works because… because rehabilitation is a thing!
    >yeah there are serial rapists, murderers, thieves, etc, but if you think about it, they just don’t have the disposable wealth to distract them from those urges
    >also forget about the vast majority of criminals that get caught one or two times for minor crimes, and don’t reoffend again
    >I know the government can’t correctly implement any kind of welfare for the people, but making them the national therapist is different I swear

    [...]
    >you offend the public such that you got caught, then convicted
    >you don’t stay there forever unless you REALLY fricked up
    You go into the box when you prove that you can’t behave among normal people. You get out and try again, it’s not that hard.

    [...]
    >what is the free rider problem
    >actual mentally handicapped people are on government support
    >also drug addicts
    >many drug addicts aren’t actually addicted, but they’re able to claim an addiction to get government support
    >mentally handicapped person, deserving of support, gets robbed outside welfare office by fellow prole (it’s like they forgot about the class struggle)
    These are daily occurrences, but you won’t know about it unless it appeared in a Reddit post or news article. Get outside

    [...]
    Punishment sets the example why not to do the crime
    Intelligent people (subset) know instinctively not to commit crimes
    You want the rule that applies for the minority to fit the majority, it’s just not tenable

    [...]
    Oh anon

    [...]
    >wait a minute, the spiritual basis of a religion sometimes isn’t accurately reflected by the materialist administration of the clergy?

    mass repliers are the biggest pseuds.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So where do you get your morals from, o wise mass replier? Kek

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    gaslight thread OP is a baby killer

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