Abortion vs death penalty double standard (Liberals)
I always find it illustrative to point out how the liberals have double standards for everything. “Do as I say, not as I do.” We see it all the time, most often lately in doing things 100x worse than what they complained about under Bush. But perhaps the perfect example of how they view the world is looking at abortion vs the death penalty – here’s a very narrow example comparing “pain” involved in each.
Liberals hate the death penalty – the one for criminals that is. They love to spend lots of taxpayer dollars getting death penalty cases tied up the court system forever. Their solution is to eliminate the death penalty completely of course. A good example of their efforts was in Baze v. Rees. It argued that the the three-drug “cocktail” used by many states could lead to suffering for a moment between two of the drugs in the sequence. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that method was okay after all. Baze got to live an extra 15 years thanks to all these taxpayer-funded appeals and arguments. All he did to get on death row was to shoot two cops in the back multiple times with an assault rifle.
But now let’s look at the other side and consider possible pain and suffering when it comes to abortion. Nebraska is debating a bill that would make all abortions after the 20th week illegal because of the suffering of the baby vs the current law there that looks at viability on a case by case basis. I’ve emphasized a few words to show how ABC tries to paint this as an extreme notion.
The bright-line rule is necessary because of some medical evidence that a fetus can feel pain at that stage of gestation, sponsors of the legislation say.
The legislation has drawn national attention from groups such as the Center for Reproductive Rights, which sees it as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion. If the legislation passes, Nebraska will be the first state to ban abortions based on the controversial notion that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.
The same sort of liberals who didn’t want criminals to allegedly suffer for a moment just before death are absolutely outraged at this idea. They are worried because with the Roberts court having already okayed partial birth abortion bans in Gonzales v. Carhart that they might allow another “pillar” of Roe v. Wade to be chopped down by setting a fixed limit – a “bright line” – on viability.
So when you compare and contrast the two, you find that a “true” liberal believes that:
There should be zero chance of any suffering for even the most heinous criminals while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no executions.
There should be zero consideration of any suffering for babies in the womb while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no abortion restrictions.
source: Abortion vs death penalty double standard | RedState
When Does a Baby Have A Heartbeat? | New Health Guide
I always find it illustrative to point out how the liberals have double standards for everything. “Do as I say, not as I do.” We see it all the time, most often lately in doing things 100x worse than what they complained about under Bush. But perhaps the perfect example of how they view the world is looking at abortion vs the death penalty – here’s a very narrow example comparing “pain” involved in each.
Liberals hate the death penalty – the one for criminals that is. They love to spend lots of taxpayer dollars getting death penalty cases tied up the court system forever. Their solution is to eliminate the death penalty completely of course. A good example of their efforts was in Baze v. Rees. It argued that the the three-drug “cocktail” used by many states could lead to suffering for a moment between two of the drugs in the sequence. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that method was okay after all. Baze got to live an extra 15 years thanks to all these taxpayer-funded appeals and arguments. All he did to get on death row was to shoot two cops in the back multiple times with an assault rifle.
But now let’s look at the other side and consider possible pain and suffering when it comes to abortion. Nebraska is debating a bill that would make all abortions after the 20th week illegal because of the suffering of the baby vs the current law there that looks at viability on a case by case basis. I’ve emphasized a few words to show how ABC tries to paint this as an extreme notion.
The bright-line rule is necessary because of some medical evidence that a fetus can feel pain at that stage of gestation, sponsors of the legislation say.
The legislation has drawn national attention from groups such as the Center for Reproductive Rights, which sees it as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion. If the legislation passes, Nebraska will be the first state to ban abortions based on the controversial notion that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.
The same sort of liberals who didn’t want criminals to allegedly suffer for a moment just before death are absolutely outraged at this idea. They are worried because with the Roberts court having already okayed partial birth abortion bans in Gonzales v. Carhart that they might allow another “pillar” of Roe v. Wade to be chopped down by setting a fixed limit – a “bright line” – on viability.
So when you compare and contrast the two, you find that a “true” liberal believes that:
There should be zero chance of any suffering for even the most heinous criminals while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no executions.
There should be zero consideration of any suffering for babies in the womb while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no abortion restrictions.
source: Abortion vs death penalty double standard | RedState
When Does a Baby Have A Heartbeat? | New Health Guide
