The criminal in question here stabbed, shot, and slit the throat of an innocent woman. He set hr body on fire and her 19 month old daughter died from severe burns.

Erasing this man who savagely took away innocent life IS pro-life.

How is it pro-life, Roland? Who did it save? Who did it bring back?

He did a brutal and horrific thing but executing him is not pro-life.

Erasing this man who savagely took away innocent life IS pro-life.

You are ridiculous. Killing can never be pro-life. Choosing death over life should never be mistaken for being pro-life. You can say it is justice - you would then at least have an argument.

But you cannnot pretend that it is pro-life.

eliminating a murderer is the ultimate exression of being pro-life. The lives of all innocent law abiding people in society rather than someone who forfeited their own humanity when theychose to murder an innocent person.

Eliminating a murderer....doesn't get much more pro-life than that.

eliminating a murderer is the ultimate exression of being pro-life.

Impossible. Eliminating a murderer does absolutely nothing in favor of life, and you know it.

It is the strongest statement society can make saying we will not tolerate the taking of innocent life. We believe so strongly in the sanctity of innocent life, that we will give the ultimate punishment to anyone who takes it. Murder of the innocent will not be taken lightly. We will severely punish anyone who commits it.

It doesn't get any more pro-life than that.

No, Dave, I really don't think Roland knows at all. I'm beginning to think he couldn't even have a rational discussion about the weather.

Yeah THAT was rational.

It is the strongest statement society can make saying we will not tolerate the taking of innocent life.

Except when we bomb them. Or execute people who didn't actually commit the crime. Or abort them (which, yes, I realize you're not for).

Of *course* we'll tolerate the taking of innocent life. Making empty "statements" by killing people who have been convicted of crimes doesn't protect life. Not killing people does.

war and murder are two different things. Especially when we're at war to remove a mass murderer.

Killing murderers is the strongest expression of being pro-life.

Yeah THAT was rational.

Yet you continue to prove her right...

It is the strongest statement society can make saying we will not tolerate the taking of innocent life.

No...it is completely inconsistent to pretend to be in favor of life and support killing, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

How can you, as a professing Christian, claim that the guilty are less valuable than the innocent? It simply doesn't work.

The guilty ARE less valuable than the innocent and as I've said before, Jesus put a lot of value on protecting the innocent. Taking the life of someone guilty of taking INNOCENT life is the ultimate expression of placing value on innocent life.

When you take an innocent life, you forfeit your humanity. No one did that to you. You did it to yourself.

The guilty ARE less valuable than the innocent and as I've said before

Just because you say something does not mean it is truth. Justify this Biblically.

war and murder are two different things.

Like I said: this society will tolerate the killing of innocent people. Which is why the statement you supposedly make by supporting the death penalty is so hollow and meaningless.

Taking the life of someone guilty of taking INNOCENT life is the ultimate expression of placing value on innocent life.

I'd have thought refraining from killing them was the ultimate expression of placing value on their lives, myself.

I'd have thought refraining from killing them was the ultimate expression of placing value on their lives, myself.

No. Killing them places value on the lives of everyone else. Saying "if you murder, you will pay the ultimate price. So DON'T do it. We place such a high value on innocent life that we will punish severely anyone who violates that thing that we value so highly."

Just because you say something does not mean it is truth. Justify this Biblically.

Have you never read the sayings of Jesus in which he says ominous things about anyone who harms innocent people like children? I could look them up for you if I wasn't already late for work.

When you murder, you voluntarily forfeit your right to live. No one did that to you. You did thnat to yourself through your choices.

Killing them places value on the lives of everyone else.

No...it places value on vengeance and death.

Have you never read the sayings of Jesus in which he says ominous things about anyone who harms innocent people like children?

Yes Roland, I have. And what does it mean in context? Did Jesus say that man should kill any man that harms a child? I don't think that is what the text says. It is referring to some form of spiritual/eternal punishment, is it not?

Further, if your argument held up, it would only be true for those that harm children. Which is a small percentage of those that receive the death penalty, and you know it.

So again, please justify your vengeful attitude Biblically. I want to see verses that claim, or even imply, that guilty life is less valuable than innocent life. And I want to see you justify Biblically why you are less guilty than a murderer.

if you murder, you will pay the ultimate price. So DON'T do it.

The death penalty has been shown not to work as a deterrent, though, hasn't it Roland? And if you want proof, there's a simple equation: there are more people on death row now than there was twenty years ago. That is an increase, not a decrease. So the message that you claim is sent by capital punishment clearly is not being heard.

I agree with what Dave says about vengence. I don't think it is particularly helpful to society to wish bad things to happen to 'bad' people. However I will admit that when I read this that you wrote:

I could look them up for you if I wasn't already late for work.

I thought this: I hope you work in Walmart.

None of us are immune to thoughts of vengence, but it doesn't make us or the world any better.

Roland, I was unclear. What I was saying was that not killing innocent people was the ultimate expression of placing value on innocent lives. But you support a war which has killed tens of thousands of noncombatants. You support an administration which sets up prisons at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere where people are tortured and beaten, sometimes to death -- and we have no way of knowing whether those people are guilty or not, as they can't get a trial.

That's what I mean when I say that your claim "It is the strongest statement society can make saying we will not tolerate the taking of innocent life" is hollow and empty. The strongest statement society can make saying we will not tolerate the taking of innocent life, is to *actually not take innocent life*.

Never mind "statements" that are written in human blood; let's have some actual intolerance of killing for a change.

(BTW, my focus here on "innocent" life is not meant as an acceptance of your framework that there are "innocent" lives that can't be taken and "guilty" lives that can. One problem at a time.)