The Stupidity of People Who Condone to Abortion and Condemn the Death Penalty at the Same Time
One of the greatest hypocrisies of people today is that they are against the death penalty while they are for abortion. By the Word of God, this is really hypocritical considering the reality that the Bible both condemns abortion and orders the death penalty for certain crimes.
I hear more often than not that the death penalty is barbaric and inhumane. I hear people whine and say that death penalty supporting states are barbaric. At the same time, a lot of these people (not all) say that abortion is perfectly okay because the fetus is "just a glob". That is a huge lie considering that science proves life begins at heartbeat. Even introductory biology shows that the fetus is a living person otherwise it would not grow, it would not be able to kick the mother's womb, it would not take nourishment and it would not be born as a child. It is not an "it" but a he or a she.
Do you know that God considers the life of the fetus to be sacred? Below is the verse that shows that God has ordained a crime against any damage to an unborn fetus.
One can say, "Oh that is just Old Testament Law. It is obsolete." never mind that person saying that line may hate the entire Bible. What people do not realize is that the moral law has not changed. You may go ahead and eat shrimp and bacon all you care because of Peter's vision in Acts 10:1-16. While I do not advocate the eating of carnivorous and/or rabies carrier animals due to the health hazards but eating of pork, shrimp, squid, octopus and the like can be considered safe with proper safety measures. If the Old Testament was become completely obsolete then murder, thievery, human sacrifice, incest and every other sin condemned under the moral law should be perfectly okay. But no, when it comes to the moral law - it more or less remains the same.
The death penalty was prescribed against murderers. People can go ahead and say that death penalty is now obsolete because we are in the New Testament. They can also misquote Jesus' case with the adulterous woman out of context without realizing that her trial was not even legal to start with. In John 8:1-11, the whole issue was about talking the Law into your hands. The Pharisees sought to trick Jesus into breaking the Law. Jesus showed compassion to the repentant adulterous woman. At the same time, know that the prescription of adultery required both the man and the woman (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22) to be stoned. The man was nowhere there plus there was no due process. The death penalty required a due process to prevent innocent people from getting killed.
In the proper use of the death penalty, it was never about revenge but protection of society. When we have the eye for eye, tooth for tooth system, it was meant to be the standard for punishing offenses and not about carrying one's personal vendetta. The Old Testament did not even encourage revenge as Deuteronomy 23:35 says that the LORD alone will avenge for every wrong. When He said eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, it means He will also avenge wrongs in due time and it was also set that punishment must be dealt with according to offense. Littering meant you paid a fine, stealing meant you need to restore with interest and coldblooded murder meant you paid with your life. It is not a harsh or unjust law but it kept society safe and in check.
The Bible recommends that perjury can also put a person to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). Many innocent people go to jail because perjury is not treated as a criminal offense. Judges who do not punish perjury had refused to think how much the person suffered for a crime that they did not commit. Lying in court to get an innocent person punished is a huge crime in the eyes of a holy, righteous God. It should not be just a slap in the wrist. If perjury cases got the punishment meet for the false accuser's intent then there will be much less cases. If false witnesses either had to spend jail time or even get the death penalty depending on the criminal offense they accused the innocent party of doing then there would be a huge drop of lying in court. Doing so is not an unjust act but it protects people from getting punished for what they did not do.
In their quest to be "pro-life", how can they be pro-life if they refuse to execute murderers and other dangerous criminals while they support the abortion of defenseless unborn babies? Unborn babies are truly innocent and dangerous criminals are a threat to society. The death penalty for dangerous criminals or to shoot down a dangerous criminal protects human rights. To go against just and proper death penalty is a real violation of the rights to life. To abort a child is a violation of the unborn to life. Society today no thanks to their rebellion against God has fallen into more foolishness than you can imagine when it comes to their definition of pro-life.
I hear more often than not that the death penalty is barbaric and inhumane. I hear people whine and say that death penalty supporting states are barbaric. At the same time, a lot of these people (not all) say that abortion is perfectly okay because the fetus is "just a glob". That is a huge lie considering that science proves life begins at heartbeat. Even introductory biology shows that the fetus is a living person otherwise it would not grow, it would not be able to kick the mother's womb, it would not take nourishment and it would not be born as a child. It is not an "it" but a he or a she.
Do you know that God considers the life of the fetus to be sacred? Below is the verse that shows that God has ordained a crime against any damage to an unborn fetus.
Exodus 21:22-23 - If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
One can say, "Oh that is just Old Testament Law. It is obsolete." never mind that person saying that line may hate the entire Bible. What people do not realize is that the moral law has not changed. You may go ahead and eat shrimp and bacon all you care because of Peter's vision in Acts 10:1-16. While I do not advocate the eating of carnivorous and/or rabies carrier animals due to the health hazards but eating of pork, shrimp, squid, octopus and the like can be considered safe with proper safety measures. If the Old Testament was become completely obsolete then murder, thievery, human sacrifice, incest and every other sin condemned under the moral law should be perfectly okay. But no, when it comes to the moral law - it more or less remains the same.
The death penalty was prescribed against murderers. People can go ahead and say that death penalty is now obsolete because we are in the New Testament. They can also misquote Jesus' case with the adulterous woman out of context without realizing that her trial was not even legal to start with. In John 8:1-11, the whole issue was about talking the Law into your hands. The Pharisees sought to trick Jesus into breaking the Law. Jesus showed compassion to the repentant adulterous woman. At the same time, know that the prescription of adultery required both the man and the woman (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22) to be stoned. The man was nowhere there plus there was no due process. The death penalty required a due process to prevent innocent people from getting killed.
In the proper use of the death penalty, it was never about revenge but protection of society. When we have the eye for eye, tooth for tooth system, it was meant to be the standard for punishing offenses and not about carrying one's personal vendetta. The Old Testament did not even encourage revenge as Deuteronomy 23:35 says that the LORD alone will avenge for every wrong. When He said eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, it means He will also avenge wrongs in due time and it was also set that punishment must be dealt with according to offense. Littering meant you paid a fine, stealing meant you need to restore with interest and coldblooded murder meant you paid with your life. It is not a harsh or unjust law but it kept society safe and in check.
The Bible recommends that perjury can also put a person to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). Many innocent people go to jail because perjury is not treated as a criminal offense. Judges who do not punish perjury had refused to think how much the person suffered for a crime that they did not commit. Lying in court to get an innocent person punished is a huge crime in the eyes of a holy, righteous God. It should not be just a slap in the wrist. If perjury cases got the punishment meet for the false accuser's intent then there will be much less cases. If false witnesses either had to spend jail time or even get the death penalty depending on the criminal offense they accused the innocent party of doing then there would be a huge drop of lying in court. Doing so is not an unjust act but it protects people from getting punished for what they did not do.
In their quest to be "pro-life", how can they be pro-life if they refuse to execute murderers and other dangerous criminals while they support the abortion of defenseless unborn babies? Unborn babies are truly innocent and dangerous criminals are a threat to society. The death penalty for dangerous criminals or to shoot down a dangerous criminal protects human rights. To go against just and proper death penalty is a real violation of the rights to life. To abort a child is a violation of the unborn to life. Society today no thanks to their rebellion against God has fallen into more foolishness than you can imagine when it comes to their definition of pro-life.
See also: