I agree with that, its not black and white for me. I believe that the death penalty is necessary in some situations.
Life is is sacred or it isn't. If exceptions to taking life are recognized, then what is the brouhaha all about?
The sacredness of life has noting to do with it. Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an innocent person. Capital punishment can, in rare cases, be justified. I don't think these cases to justify exist in industrialized America, but do recognize the possibility.
It has everything to do with it. A single fertilized cell in a woman's body is not a person. It is life perhaps, but whatever that woman decides to do about it is only wrong if you consider life itself to be sacred.
It sure ain't an aardvark. If its life then its a person, and people just can't go around killing other people. Or, you can not care about life being sacred and you can recognize that people killing people for the hell of it is wrong... kinda like murder.
I don't know if that has ever been proven. Every study I have seen that makes a conclusion either way tends to be biased. I would like to see any study you can reference on it.
So infants, old people, and those in a persistent vegetative state aren't people? What about mute cripples? Who can we "abort" for lacking personhood?
