Prolife and Prodeath Debate

I came across an interesting blog of Christian apologetics cartoons.

It was interesting because it was so unexpected – I was a little delighted to discover humour where I had never considered there could be any.

The cartoons are funny, sort of, even though I don’t share the sensibility they arise/derive from.

And, comments are open, so debate is encouraged.

11 thoughts on “Prolife and Prodeath Debate

  1. Pingback: Personhood, innocence depending | Random Ntrygg

  2. Of all the social views espoused by Christian conservatives, the one I can understand (though I still disagree with) is being against abortion. I support a woman’s sovereignty over her body and the decisions she makes regarding it, but I also hope she would give up her baby for adoption rather than abort it if she does not want it.

    However, three is nothing Christ-like about the glee with which people react to a state-sanctioned execution. It’s obvious in the second panel that the artist represents a prevailing view: It’s fun to kill people we don’t like.

    Naturally, if my (wife/sister/mother) were (killed/raped/turned into a frog), I’d want the person who did it to be killed. But that’s why we have a justice system and not a revenge system. Such decisions shouldn’t be based on emotion. Mob mentality quickly spins out of control.

    The panel on the right would take on a radically new meaning if someone had added a question mark after the word “guilty.”

    • That plus, if the justification for being against abortion is that all life is sacred – then all life is sacred and being against abortion but for the death penalty means that the death penalty is about revenge and not justice.

      If we assert that people who’ve done bad things have revoked the sacredness of their lives – that’s like saying abortion is okay for the high risk socio-economic classes because those babies might grow up to be criminals.

      If life is sacred before birth, then life remains so throughout the life – yet, that’s just not part of the analysis

      religious people seem to have knee jerk blanket understanding and simply do not consider the implications or consequences of their incoherent views. Sort of like their gay marriage platform – they know they don’t want gays to be able to marry, but they can’t define marriage in a way that excludes gays but not all heterosexuals – like atheist/agnostic or sterile/childless by choice.

      All that said, women aren’t brood mares, so if a woman doesn’t want the baby, it’s better for her to abort than go through a pregnancy/adoption – with all the potential risks and drawbacks being for nothing.

      People need to adopt the kids who are in the system already and who are in desperate need of parents. If the religious fol are so concerned for children, why are so many wards of the state and in foster homes.

      • Do you know anyone who has ever had an abortion? Do you know its health and mental dangers?

        How can a naturalist talk about justice? You even told me that you don’t believe people are innately good or bad. So, what could someone do that would make them bad?

        It’s easy to spit out a lot of claims that “religious people” think this or that. Let me ask: Have you actually taken the claims seriously enough to have investigated them? Your note on gay marriage, for example. Have you ever once listened to the other side? (And by “other side”, I don’t mean a screaming head on the TV.) If you have, give me some specifics, article name, author, etc.

        I don’t support gay marriage because it’s an oxymoron. Marriage has always been a man and a woman (ref. etymology of “marry”). A man and a man is unnatural, as is a woman and a woman. Saying that the homosexual lifestyle is unnatural is not a religious statement, but a scientific one, which should get the attention of a naturalist such as yourself. (Just look at an anatomy book.)

        Perhaps I’ll be accused of “hating” gay people”. No way! As a fan of some gay artists (Freddie Mercury (best album was “Barcelona”, by the way), Keith Haring. to name a couple), the homosexual lifestyle, like drugs, alcoholism, and any level of promiscuity, is an unhealthy lifestyle. (Both Freddie and Keith died of AIDS.) Is it compassion to just sit and watch a dude kill himself while snorting cocaine? What would you do if you genuinely cared about him? (Hopefully, you’d try to point out to him the inevitable consequences of his actions. Premature death.) And the homosexual lifestyle is extremely promiscuous-, disease-, abuse-, and depression-oriented lifestyle. (Yes, a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle is equally dangerous.)

        There’s a glimpse…

        • Yes, I do know women who have had abortions and I also know people who’s mothers should have had one, given the health and mental dangers of being an unwanted and abused child.

          Justice is a variable concept that is highly context dependent while nature is the context of everything.

          I don’t beleive anyone is anything all or even most of the time, people act out of their own self interest, sometimes in the immediate and sometimes with a longer view – it’s our choices that reveal whether we are good or bad – and badness seems to most arise from choices that are immediate to short term and in our own, rather than group, interest.

          Each and every claim that a person makes does not require investigation, most claims are patently false or possible on their face – and for patently false claims, the details of no consequence. I’ve been an atheist since I was 12 and at 43, am very familiar with religious claims. You can’t really live in North America without religion being part of the public discussion of any serious issue.

          Gay Marriage in particular – you do realize that I am a married lesbian living in Canada?

          The idea of marriage being one man and one woman paired up on romantic love and producing children as a family is an entirely modern construct. Most cultures lean towards polygamy, not monogamy. Marriage historically has been about creating alliances for political and wealth concentration.

          Putting aside the lifestyle thing – because there’s no such thing as a gay lifestyle, there’s as many ways to be gay as there are to be straight – marriage actually addresses the concerns that you have.

          Marriage encourages people to settle down and be more responsible – for example, single men are more likely to engage in criminal activity than married men.

          Gay marriage won’t change marriage for straight people – they still get married, beat their spouses, molest their children and divorce at a 50% rate.

          What marriage will do is dramatically change the gay community – so if you don’t want gays to die young from sexually transmitted diseases and having multiple partners and drugs and so forth, then marriage is the way to get people out of that.

          So if you want to prove how much you care about people, then you should be for gay marriage. Otherwise, you are condemning people to live a solo life of parties until they die, not building a life, putting down roots.

          It’s because gays and lesbians have had to exist at the fringes where society says we don’t matter.

          We’re not going to stop being gay, so doesn’t it make sense to stop pushing us to the margins of society and include us in a healthy way?

      • Ay-up my Canadian blogger, hope you don’t mind a little diversity.
        You are right, women aren’t broodmares, so maybe women shouldn’t do as animals and have unprotected sex when there’s Trojans everywhere. Maybe we humans can be a little smarter and not have unprotected sex if we don’t want unwanted pregnancy. I know I’m Christian and you may think I’m stupid but the liberal idea of sexual freedom then dispose of the consequences that follow, is kinda’ stupid. And talk about knee jerk, liberals say fix everything by throwing out all tradition. Knee jerk is throwing out the baby and not considering the consequences, such as a lifetime of recollecting killing your child or the post-traumatic stress that weighs on a woman down like a ton of bricks.

        Just as liberals want to save the trees, the whale, the spotted frog and etc., I prefer to save all human life, the innocent unborn child and the guilty incarcerated murderer. I was once pro-choice and pro-death penalty evolved to anti-abortion and pro-death penalty then evolved to my present form, anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. Couldn’t cheer for one without cheering for the other.

        • Multiculturalism and diversity are Canadian strengths, and I totally love your avatar!

          I totally go with you on the birth control – if you’re gonna have sex and you don’t want babies or STDS, use protection.

          That said, even the best protection isn’t 100% – and the use of protection is the responsibility of all participants – and it seems strange to me that while sex carries more consequences for women, that too often, men complain more about using protection – that old like showering in a rain coat – perhaps if there was less circumcision, men wouldn’t be so desensitized and wear condoms without whining about it.

          One more reason to be a lesbian, seriously gals.

          Liberals want to save trees, animals, ecosystems for people in the future to continue enjoying them – it’s not enough to want to preserve life, there’s a quality issue that religious/conservative thinking fails to address, possibly because they are waiting for their god to return and reset the earth to Garden of Eden factory settings

          but we can’t wait for that, we have to solve the problems that we’ve created – and one of the problems is 7 billion people at once with not much slowing that down.

    • The second panel wasn’t meant to convey the idea of killing people we don’t like is fun. (I know because I drew it.) There’s nothing fun about death or killing. The entire point of the cartoon was that the crux of the abortion / death penalty debate is guilt or innocence. I appreciate that you, at least, partially support life of unborn children. If we’re not going to defend the helpless and innocent, what right do we have to protest over the killing of someone convicted of a crime?

      And think about this: The guy on the right was convicted in a court. There was a systematic review of evidence, claims and counter-claims, and he was found guilty. It’s not an emotional decision. Since you don’t seem to support the death penalty for certain crimes, what would you do to people that are serial rapists or murderers?

      But your last sentence is very telling. We want to give the benefit of a doubt to a person proven guilty by their peers because there may be some ambiguity; our conclusion might be wrong. Why not extended the same courtesy to unborn children?

      • That’s interesting, I had no idea that the way folks dealt with the cognitive dissonance of being against abortion and pro death penalty was a distinction about innocence or guilt.

        To my mind, it’s not a valid distinction, either life is innately valuable or it’s not. I lean towards valuable because it’s the only life we know we have, but the distinction for me is that life that exists is more important than potential existence. There’s so many things that can and do go wrong during pregnancy and birth, that it’s better to not get your hopes up about it. It’s a Viking attitude, you deal with the facts on the ground.

        The criminal may well be convicted, but the system is highly flawed and innocent people are convicted. If courts worked as you describe it would be one thing, but they don’t. People are involved, which means that emotions are involved. Police are under public pressure to catch and punish and let’s be honest, the public cares more that someone pay than making sure it’s the right person. Police, lawyers judges, all have biases and something to gain or prove – same for juries. Sometimes the correct person is caught and convicted, sometimes not.

        But as long as minorities are over represented in jails, are given longer sentences than white people for the same crimes, as long as convictions are a measure of how good your defense lawyer is – and most poorer people have public defenders, we cannot be entirely sure, not certain enough to take a life – short of the person having trophies or video of their crime – and yes, some criminals are that way and there is no doubt.

        But in the current system, it’s cost more in a death penalty case than keeping them in prison for life – and since we can’t know about any afterlife, we have to punish them according to the rules of our society, which, if we want to claim it’s civilized, then how do we prove we are civilized when there’s state executions that are painful and inhumane and potentially, falsely convicted or erroneously sentenced?

        If a person is convicted for life and is later proved that they didn’t do it – there is no restorative justice for an already executed person.

        And, if you want to talk about justice, what punishment should there be for people who executed an innocent person?

      • As for why not extend the same to the unborn?

        7 billion people on the planet, humans are at greater risk for extinction from overpopulation.

        Because erring on the side of adding a baby is a horrifying thought when that baby is not wanted. There’s enough people with that kind of baggage already – and frankly, it’s practically a recipe for a lifetime of criminal conduct.

        So there’s a certain efficiency of avoiding the process early on than getting and killing them later, don’t you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s