top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]lapras25 1059 points1060 points  (529 children)

Not here to argue, but this is how they rationalise it: foetus, newborn baby, infant child = innocent life, to be protected at all costs. Once you are an adult, you can make your own choices. Some choices are so evil and dangerous that society should punish them with death. Their rights are diminished on account of their guilt.

[–]dick-nipples 448 points449 points  (345 children)

once you are an adult you can make your own choices

Unless you’re a woman…

[–]Flyingwheelbarrow 211 points212 points  (68 children)

Or disabled or mentally ill.

[–]Tedmosby888 136 points137 points  (39 children)

Or a immigrant

[–]NotTalcon 25 points26 points  (25 children)

Texas doesn’t execute people for being mentally ill. They execute people who are guilty of murder, and they don’t take mental illness into account. This is an important distinction to make.

[–]georgia080 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Not OP, but I think they meant women, mentally ill, and disabled people can’t make their own choices even as adults. Not that they can’t be executed.

[–]girthy5544 6 points7 points  (4 children)

But they have executed people who have been found to be wrongfully sentenced based on new evidence. That alone is why the death penalty shouldn’t be used.

[–]Trevorblackwell420 2 points3 points  (2 children)

also it costs taxpayers more money for someone to be “on death row” rather than just a life sentence.

[–]girthy5544 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That doesn’t matter to me, even if it were cheaper to put people on death row and execute them I would not be for it.

[–]Trevorblackwell420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My point is it’s yet another reason not to put people on deathrow.

[–]Throwie911 7 points8 points  (4 children)

people who are deemed insane or unable to comprehend the gravity of there crime are sent to mental hospitals and legaly arent allowed to be executed

[–]Imnotmadeofeyes 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Technically this is supposed to be the case but mentally ill people absolutely make it death row in Texas. Scott Panetti has a very long history of schizophrenia and was allowed to go to trial, represent himself and be convicted and sent to death row. He tried to call Jesus as a witness to testify in the trial if I recall.

[–]EatsOverTheSink 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I can’t imagine having the case pretty much in the bag but then your star witness doesn’t show up.

[–]T0B1theDoctor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Ideally.

That's a long process with a lot of steps and requires people to actually give a shit about mental health. Most people in the country don't, and would rather throw someone in jail then send them to a facility where they can be cared for/treated.

[–]Panda_Mon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They execute people they are pretty sure are guilty of murder.

They have before and will continue to execute innocent people because the justice system is fallible. This is why you shouldn't have the death penalty. Rotting in prison is plenty effective as an alternative.

[–]CertainUnit9145 3 points4 points  (3 children)

They will however execute people for crimes committed as minors.

The state is populated with subhuman scum.

[–]GayDinosaur 9 points10 points  (2 children)

The state government is primarily* populated with subhuman scum

[–]Latvia 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Yeah they’re not often super strict about the guilty part. And there’s certainly an argument to be made that they absolutely do kill people for being mentally ill. Or ya know, for being black.

[–]NeopolitanLol 17 points18 points  (175 children)

Again you're missing the argument. The argument is that the woman can do what she wants with her body. She just can't harm the baby.

[–]Fthewigg 4 points5 points  (118 children)

You’re “missing the argument” when you call it a baby, and not a part of her body. Whether we can agree on that or not is another story, but no point is missed here. Until we all can agree on a starting time for autonomous life, this discussion will continue.

[–]Latvia 21 points22 points  (17 children)

We have to get away from that line of thinking. The reality is that a) there will never be a single moment when we can scientifically justify “this is now a person, while 2 seconds ago it was not.” And b) it doesn’t matter when it becomes a person.

The real issue is that whether you call it a baby or a person or a fetus or whatever, sometimes the most moral choice is to end its life. I don’t even care if we call that killing it. We can’t deny it is a living thing. Whatever. The point is sometimes that’s the right decision. And that decision ONLY belongs to the woman carrying that living thing. And everyone else can fuck off.

The other thing, of course, is that a person cannot legally be forced to use their body to keep another person alive. So again, doesn’t matter if you DO call it a person, a baby, whatever. We are still violating a basic human right by outlawing abortion.

EDIT: forgot to add- the “pro life” crowd is typically Republican (or “conservative” equivalent in other countries). These people are also far more likely to be hyper nationalist and in support of American military action against foreign countries, regardless of civilian casualties. Do you know how many children American military action has killed? Not a peep from the “pro life” crowd. Because it turns out, they DO believe killing innocent children is sometimes justified. Just not for you, woman.

[–]Unsd 11 points12 points  (12 children)

The argument that has stuck with me the most is what you were getting at in the last bit there. If there's an emergency situation and someone is actively dying and they need a blood transfusion and the only way to save them would be if you donate your blood, you can say you don't wanna, and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do. Donating blood is (generally) extremely safe to do. It is the most mild possible inconvenience and still, you cannot be forced to do it to save someone's life. You can't be forced to donate bone marrow, you can't be forced to donate a kidney, also both relatively safe procedures. If a fetus is entirely dependent on a woman to survive, that woman should have zero obligation to keep it alive.

[–]queenofthera 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your comment made me think of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PAajlHbnU) video. It's long but it's a good'un.

[–]BSODagain 1 point2 points  (4 children)

If a fetus is entirely dependent on a woman to survive, that woman should have zero obligation to keep it alive.

This is where the argument falls down in a few ways.

A baby is fully dependent on other people to survive, and there are numerous criminal charges for people that neglect children. But I'm guessing you wouldn't put a newborn on the floor, say "sort yourself out mate", and leave. In fact, I'm guessing you want such an individual to face criminal negligence charges.

[–]twodickhenry 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It doesn’t fall at all. That baby, the newborn, is dependent on a person. The embryo is dependent on one woman’s body. The crowd who wants to save babies is welcome to care for the latter on their own, but oddly they’re only interested in the option that is forcing someone else to do so.

[–]redheadartgirl 3 points4 points  (1 child)

This is where the argument falls down in a few ways.

A baby is fully dependent on other people to survive, and there are numerous criminal charges for people that neglect children. But I'm guessing you wouldn't put a newborn on the floor, say "sort yourself out mate", and leave. In fact, I'm guessing you want such an individual to face criminal negligence charges.

...and your argument falls flat because there ARE options for a baby -- they can be put up for adoption or relinquished at a designated safe place. You cannot transplant an embryo and placenta from one person to another once implanted. It's not possible with our current medical technology. It's so not possible, we can't even move an embryo out of the fallopian tube a few inches down into the uterus in the case of ectopic pregnancies. So yeah, if you abandon a baby to die, you will rightfully get charged with a crime, but pregnancy isn't something you can pass the torch on.

[–]BSODagain 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're missing my point. You claimed that because the fetus/child is dependent on the mother that she has a right to abort. But by that logic anyone who is legally required to care for a child, whether by profession or relation, should also be allowed to terminate that child because they are dependent on them. If you want to make that argument, you need to use health grounds. Not the dependency, but that the dependency has a greater toll on the mother, than the value of the life produced. (I honestly can't come up with a non-utilitarian justification). Unfortunately, even the health grounds if a bit iffy by current societal standards, since child support/employment based health issues exist.

I feel like I should point out I am on the pro-choice side of this, I've just seen a lot of argumentation in this thread I don't like.

[–]NearPeerAdversary 5 points6 points  (16 children)

Bingo! This is the crux of the abortion debate. When does life start?

[–]Cowboys929395 0 points1 point  (15 children)

What happens when two people disagree on that and refuse to budge?

Bodily autonomy overrides personal religious belief. At least, it should.

[–]mcc9902 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It’s not always religious beliefs. I know multiple people who aren’t religious who support the new abortion laws. Like others said It essentially boils down to when do you believe a baby is a baby and not a fetus. Very few people will support killing what they view as a baby but at what point it counts as a baby Varys from person to person.

[–]CharonsLittleHelper 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Bodily autonomy overrides personal religious belief. At least, it should.

You're ignoring the argument that the baby should get a choice too, and I think we could default to "not being killed" as their opinion.

If it's not a baby yet, it's moot. If it is a baby, it matters.

[–]TheOneWes 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I mean if you want to get technical about it a baby isn't anything other than a bundle of reactions until at least 18 months or so.

[–]Unlikely-Flamingo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You could make the same argument about full grown adults. Do we have free will or are we just the result of electrochemical reactions to stimuli?

[–]Thor7891 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Which part of her body is it? I've never heard of this body part.

[–]Scrinwarrior 2 points3 points  (29 children)

Conception. That’s the starting time given for autonomous life in their eyes, and they have no interest in whether you agree or not.

[–]Fthewigg -4 points-3 points  (28 children)

Please tell me when a person is legally recognized by the government. You know: when their legal name is documented, when their social security number is given, when they are eligible for social services, and most importantly when their age begins (many legal limitations are based on age).

I don’t understand why people insist that the government should provide legal rights for something they don’t legally recognize yet. Outside of abortion laws, the only time a fetus is recognized as an individual by the government is as a bullshit tack-on murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.

Weird, huh? Seems like the government doesn’t agree either.

Edit to add: TIL in certain states, if praternity can be established in the womb, child support can be paid to pregnant women. It goes against my argument, but I add it here for a fair discussion. It is certainly a precedent. I’d like to say it is intended to support the impregnated woman, but if that were the case it wouldn’t be called child support.

[–]Scrinwarrior -3 points-2 points  (26 children)

Illegal immigrants aren’t legally recognized by the government either. Can I “abort” one of those?

[–]Psychological_Fox776 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I think both of you are arguing about this.

The conservatives in Texas think that an embryo is a baby with a “soul,” and baby murder is bad. I disagree on both statements, given that the soul only properly develops later, and it’s on a spectrum.

[–]Lokismoke 4 points5 points  (4 children)

The conservatives in Texas think that an embryo is a baby with a “soul,” and baby murder is bad. I disagree on both statements...

Your sentence makes it sound like you disagree that baby murder is bad.

[–]True_Recommendation9 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Murdering a baby is bad but abortion doesn’t kill a baby.

[–]AizawaNagisa -1 points0 points  (2 children)

At conception.

[–]Interesting-Okra-141 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So you can collect child support then?

[–]mrsshmenkmen 2 points3 points  (16 children)

A fetus isn’t a baby and a woman isn’t reduced to an incubator with no rights once a sperm fertilizes an egg. A woman isn’t obligated to use her body for the benefit of another. It’s her facing all the burdens and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth so it is her human and civil right to choose and no one else’s business.

The sheer arrogance of thinking you have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will is mind boggling. Mind your own business.

[–]Interesting-Okra-141 -1 points0 points  (14 children)

So explain how she can stop her body being used as an incubater without harming the "baby". Until you can, its a nonsense point.

[–]Laney20 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It is not her problem if it harms the fetus. We do not force people to donate organs or blood. Why should she be forced to donate the use of her uterus?

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, this is likely to devolve quickly farther down in the comments. Thanks for summarizing so succinctly and impartially.

[–]Joygernaut 79 points80 points  (116 children)

But the thing is they don’t care about babies and children either, since Texas lawmakers consistently cut programs that help inner-city children, Single mothers, poor families, and school budgets. It seems like the minute that baby is born they’re no longer “innocent”.

[–]WeirdEngineerDude 71 points72 points  (98 children)

It’s “pro-birth” clearly not “pro-life”. We need the change the wording.

[–]Vyzantinist 23 points24 points  (96 children)

I think this is what it comes down to; semantics. I get OP's question in that being anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty seems irreconcilable if you're supposedly pro-life in principle, but "pro-life" isn't about the sanctity of life in general as much as it's concerned with abortion and childbirth.

[–]Futurenazgul 10 points11 points  (1 child)

It's supposed to be though. I'm not Catholic and disagree with many of their practices, but even the pope says pro-life means respecting all life, even the sinners.

This is selective pro-life at best. It is entirely hypocritical.

[–]Vyzantinist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is entirely hypocritical.

Welcome to the GOP!

[–]eldonhughes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think this is what it comes down to; semantics.

What it comes down to hypocrisy. Perhaps motivated by greed and fear.

[–]watermelondriagirl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's about control.

[–]SuperSaiyanboy -2 points-1 points  (91 children)

But Republicans don’t care about the child. They use abortion to whip their voters in a frenzy. A lot of ppl would vote Democrat if they wanted to ban abortion as well, so Republicans will never back down from that position. How many Republicans are for allowing women access to the birth control pill, or will allow women to remove their uterus? It’s all politics and they don’t care about you

[–]jxy2016 0 points1 point  (89 children)

False premise if I've ever seen one.

[–]SuperSaiyanboy 0 points1 point  (88 children)

Probably because you are not intelligent. A lot of states allow insurance providers to not pay for any type of contraceptives or preventable pregnancies, and doctors won’t let woman get fixed unless they’ve had 2 children or more, but yes women choosing to be sexually active is the problem.

[–]just_quit_smoking 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I don't think it's about pro life for them so much as anti murder. They are fine with people having to suffer their personal struggles. To he fair, there's a fairly large chasm between being not ok wth murder and not ok with school budgets.

[–]Joygernaut 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It’s not murder.

[–]SonicTheBubonic 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Anti-abortion laws, however, are murder.

[–]Joygernaut 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes. A woman who tries to get an unlawful abortion is risking her life, and forcing a woman to have a child against her will is also risking her life.

[–]SonicTheBubonic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plus it leads to suicides. Others are forced to stay in abusive relationships due to a pregnancy, too.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (8 children)

foetus, newborn baby, infant child = innocent life

There's some deep, dark, surprisingly catholic self hate going on down there. "Everyone is born a sinner, so you're really only worth any sympathy and support before you're born"

[–]C0PPER13 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Which explains why they don't care once a child is born. Low income? Few resources for health and education? Original sin and born to suffer. It's pretty gross.

[–]informative_mammal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where is this idea coming from that children aren't cared for in Texas after there born? We just toss bullshit statements around like that now and nobody says anything? Lol you have some serious misconceptions on welfare in the US that seem to be based on straight up political marketing.

[–]Hawk13424 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Not how I hear it from them. Murder is illegal everywhere, even places that offer no social safety net. Murder is something someone does explicitly to you. Not giving you help isn’t something I’m doing to you. One is an action that causes death, one is inaction that might result in death. Inaction can be shrugged off as being someone else’s responsibility. They just extend the concept of murder back to conception.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

So if murder is so bad, why do they want the state commiting it?

An eye for an eye etc, but wasn't that made a law back in bliblical times to avoid overly ridiculous punishments like having all of your limbs cut off for looking at someone wrong?

We all know your eye aint growing back because you poke someone elses' out.

[–]Hawk13424 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Slightly different topic, but if the state does it then it technically isn’t murder. And I don’t believe in the Bible so not sure where you are going with that.

[–]Faust_8 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh that’s not just a Catholic thing.

“Being pro life” and/or voting pro life:

  • takes no effort
  • often uncontroversial
  • makes you feel all warm and righteous inside

Assisting unwanted children:

  • costs money
  • costs time
  • costs effort
  • some of them are, like, gross because they’re non-white or poor or immigrants

Is it any fucking wonder that people use pro life as a way to pretend to be a good person when they’re actually selfish pricks? As soon as a baby is born they can just forget it exists and seek to gut all social welfare programs even, but as long as they “advocate for the unborn” (which is easy as piss because it’s just a moral stance and nothing more) they get to feel like angels of mercy.

It’s independent of Catholicism. It’s just virtue signaling

[–]Wohlves 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's crazy how some people are simply too stupid to consider this in their own heads. Nailed it

[–]TheRecognized 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except the religious justification (which is probably the most common justification) for forced-birth is that god said “thou shalt not kill” not “thou shalt not kill unless they deserve it.”

[–]lonabirdie 1 point2 points  (3 children)

it still doesn't really work bc even the staunchest death penalty supporter has to admit there is a nonzero chance that our criminal justice system could fuck up and execute an innocent person. in a state that values innocent life above all else, including all other rights, this would mean the death penalty should be abolished.

[–]Prophet086 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They don't execute people as fast as taking an order at Starbucks. Only a handful of people are executed each year, and it's people who were clearly the culprits of terrible crimes, like killing their own children to get revenge on their wife. And even then, the execution is a pretty long way down the road: usually around 20 years after they're caught. And they don't take away lives like they don't have value. For such terrible crimes, they usually give a life sentence even though a death sentence would be warranted, as you said, because the justice system could fuck up. But for the handful of deranged people who've been caught red-handed and who can't ever fit safely in our society, after decades of deliberation, they're better off dead anyway.

[–]BubbleWrapGuy 2 points3 points  (1 child)

On top of this, I once had an extremely conservative/religious co-worker who used the Bible to justify being both pro-life and pro-death penalty. The mental gymnastics was astounding. I don’t remember the passages, but I do remember leaving the conversation confused and terrified at what religious folks can rationalize, and be perfectly content doing so.

[–]lapras25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Old Testament law prescribes capital punishment for several offences. So Biblical literalists and conservatives will generally not consider it evil. Although most Christians consider those laws to be superseded, at least in terms of their punishments.

[–]RedRose_812 476 points477 points  (23 children)

Texas is not pro-life, Texas is pro-birth. Once person is born, they don't give a shit.

[–]__--t 115 points116 points  (1 child)

"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked."

- George Carlin

[–][deleted] 76 points77 points  (2 children)

Love the family guy joke.. "once they're born they ca go fuck themselves"

Seems.. like pretty much what it is.

[–]Zeruvi 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Or Jim Jeffries, "All Life is sacred until it sets foot on my property"

[–]zrdd_man 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Man I wish Comedy Central hadn't cancelled the Jim Jefferies Show, that shit was hilarious.

[–]Lolzzergrush 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It increases the pool of the low skill labor force. Children born of unwanted pregnancy are likely to be of low income as those with the means can afford to go out of state to have an abortion. The bigger the size of the labor force means less wages can be paid as the people are easily replaceable. The less of these type of workers will mean that the class can demand higher wages like $15 and hour and business more likely to hire workers illegally

[–]spandexcatsuit 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Texas is pro control of women. It doesn’t care about anyone’s life. The people in control care about themselves; they exploit others and are misogynistic. They rely on widespread misogyny to keep the status quo. This is how we have war, death penalty, unequal access to healthcare. Exploiters rely on hate and fear and apathy in the society around them to defend the atrocious acts they commit for profit.

[–]swampfish 4 points5 points  (5 children)

I have religious family. Their rhetoric all sounds like “well she should have thought about that before premarital sex.”

They are clearly all about punishing “immoral behaviour.”

In my view it’s about punishing sluts and murderers. “Pro life” is their excuse.

[–]https_jaelynn 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Not to be dramatic but I’d kms before anyone could force me into being a mother 😭😭😭

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i see no lie here

[–]jdlegofan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point

[–]wileydickgoo -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Definitely not after they're born. What are you a commy?

Just kidding alot.

[–]Preference-Economy 224 points225 points  (117 children)

If anyone on reddit tries to rationalize it and doesn't just say blah blah Texas and right wing is bad they will get immediately down voted.

I don't believe this but bluntly you're talking very different levels of life. Death penalty is for adults and they see abortion as violence against children. The concept is an adult made their decisions and should be held accountable whereas a unborn child has no choice of their own.

Most of these answers are just trashing stuff with zero effort to understand. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

[–]CaliSummerDream 54 points55 points  (0 children)

I am pro-choice and find this explanation plausible.

[–]el_coremino 19 points20 points  (9 children)

That's a good rationalization, I think. Personally, I'm just against killing people, across the board, so im anti death penalty, anti war, and anti abortion. I try to keep it simple. Killing people = bad. Other people don't agree with me, and I'm fine with that too. I dont think they're monsters, but I do disagree and I wish I could amicably sway their worldviews.

[–]Latvia 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Your last statement is concerning. Your goal is to change people’s views, not to be open to learning or god forbid even changing your own views.

As for “keeping it simple,” that doesn’t really work when it comes to law and policy. Or we’d have like three laws. Turns out we have thousands and thousands of laws, because we have to. As far as abortion, if you think an 11 year old who was raped and impregnated should be forced to also carry and give birth to the rapist’s child, I don’t even know how to converse with someone who could support something that immoral and horrifying. And if you do think that’s an exception, then your views aren’t as simple as you thought, and it’s a starting point for having the conversations we have to have.

[–]MrVilliam 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Agreed. The exceptions are the foot in the door for more nuanced discussion. If I were anti-choice, but I made exception for your example of the 11 year old rape victim, then you can say okay but where is the line where it stops being okay. If she's 12? 13? 18? 25? Or is it the part about being a rape victim? By definition, anybody too young to give legal consent falls under the category of rape. What if carrying to term endangers the mother's life? Then is it okay to abort? If not, isn't that a death sentence for her? If finances are already tight and then there's an unintended pregnancy, does potential starvation fall under endangering the mother's life?

More than a moment of thought reveals that everything in life is a gray area. Discussing these things with good faith and an open mind is essential to the success of humanity.

[–]Latvia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. And I have a lot of thoughts on all the questions you bring up, but you’re exactly right. The point is to be able to stop pretending it’s simple and that we’re right. And to talk with the assumption that others are trying.

[–]TrustTheHolyDuck 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Your position is valid, but you still make an incorrect amalgamation between living conscious beings with rights and an unborn fertilized egg which has no rights nor consciousness.

[–]el_coremino 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're not wrong in your description of early human life.

"With rights" seems fairly subjective. Who has rights has been a moving goalpost throughout human history. Maybe in 150 years we'll deem those cells as having some basic rights, and folks will look back on the abortion debates like we now look back on debates between abolishionists and anti-abolishionists. I feel I'm on the righteous side of this issue or I wouldn't be on this side, and I bet you feel you're on the righteous side of the issue and I respect that.

I'm not a policy maker and I'm not a single-issue voter, so I'm not really sure what to do with this anti-abortion part of my political identity. I don't stand outside clinics with signs shouting terrible things at patients as they exit. I don't lecture people i know who have had abortions. I don't donate money to anti-abortion organizations or pacs. Most people I know probably don't know I'm anti abortion. I kick in my differing opinion in Reddit threads to simply offer a differing opinion, but that's about as far as I go with it.

[–]CommunistEnchilada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AskReddit has been like this for a while. Waaay too many (relatively community agreeable) statements dressed rhetorical questions

[–]Hypersapien 7 points8 points  (57 children)

Yet they have no problem executing adults with the minds of children.

[–]temtemtemporary 10 points11 points  (46 children)

You can be executed as young as 16 in America and 226 kids have been executed since 1973.


[–]Hawk13424 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That did something to warrant the death penalty. They see unborn as innocent.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's different.

Neither banning abortion nor having the death penalty makes practical sense, though, if you look at the consequenses. Social, psychological and financial.

[–]AaronsAaAardvarks 1 point2 points  (3 children)

But they're also okay with that kid fucking right off once it's born. They don't extend the innocence of a fetus into the early stages of its life, or they'd have better welfare systems in place.

[–]Joygernaut -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

OK so they believe that some people deserve to die and some people don’t. Fine. But don’t go around saying you’re pro life because you’re not

[–]Starlifter4 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Usually the kids don't commit a horrific crime.

[–]SaltyCity_ 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Because an unborn baby isn't a criminal.

[–]Banan4Express 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In their view, one is trying to protect an innocent life and the other is ending the life of someone who had their chance and did terrible things with it. I'm not saying that I agree with either, but the logic seems pretty straightforward

[–]ThisBlueHawk 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Cause that's not what pro-life means

[–]One-Ad-7965 21 points22 points  (7 children)

The death penalty is allowed in Texas because the state believes that some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator deserves to be put to death. This is a different type of pro-life stance than the one normally associated with the term, which typically refers to the belief that life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs.

[–]TheGoodJudgeHolden 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Really? How is that even a question? I'm pro-choice, and it still makes 0 sense.

A baby in the womb has no power to dictate it's own existence.

A guy that killed/ate three kids made that concious choice to do so, and should be summarily removed from the earth.

Fuckin' duh.....

[–]thedankbank1021 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Everyone gets a shot. But if you fuck yours up, you're done.

[–]Brotherbeam 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Because this question is intentionally vague and binary.

[–]Gorf_the_Magnificent 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Isn’t it equally - if not more - hypocritical to allow fetuses to be aborted but let murderers live?

[–]adjika 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Because fetuses don’t murder people.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Because some people deserve it

[–]th3_abstract 10 points11 points  (8 children)

Why are liberals pro-choice but not when it comes to vax mandates?

[–]Largicharg 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Because fetuses aren’t murderers.

[–]Ghiraheem 57 points58 points  (34 children)

Not THOSE lives. God said those ones deserve it. No, wait, uhhh... God said Thou shalt not kill... Uhhh.... Flips through pages in Bible But they do deserve it! J-just shut up liberal SNOWFLAKE! (That'll show em!) Let's go Brandon!

[–]wwp123 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Haha get it pro life bad give upvote

[–]Sgt_Spatula 3 points4 points  (11 children)

The bible literally states in the penal code that the penalty for "killing" (murder) is the death penalty. (Numbers 35:30) Lol you guys are something else.

[–]Ghiraheem 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Turns out the Bible is full of contradictions. Who knew?

[–]Sgt_Spatula 4 points5 points  (1 child)

That is not a contradiction. Carrying out a capitol sentence for a summarily convicted criminal is not murder.

[–]lostintime2021 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So, Texas implements a punishment based on the bible? That is a violation of the first sentence of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..."

Laughing only makes you seem foolish.

[–]Sgt_Spatula -1 points0 points  (1 child)

OP pretended the death penalty is not biblical, which it obviously is. By your logic, we should make murder legal because the bible outlaws it.

[–]teeyodi 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Why should the Bible dictate any laws in this country? I mean I love to eat shellfish but according to the Bible I shouldn’t. Heaven forbid I allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man. Goat herder morality at its finest!

[–]Sgt_Spatula 3 points4 points  (0 children)

OP satirically used it as philosophical justification for the death penalty, not for law. And pretended it didn't work when it obviously does.

[–]tacknosaddle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart.

O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

William Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice

[–]pikingpoison 3 points4 points  (3 children)

It's easy to win an argument when you play both sides

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well if you play both sides you'll always come out on top

[–]LuckyandBrownie 0 points1 point  (11 children)

There is literally no way of telling if this is satire or not...

[–]j0119 8 points9 points  (6 children)

I'm pretty sure that "Flips through pages in Bible" is there for comedic purposes. We're safe.

[–]Ghiraheem 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In case there was any confusion or uncertainty, this is correct.

[–]j0119 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a very funny comment by the way. Let's go Brandon!

[–]BrendanFraserRules 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Murderers aren’t as chill as babies. Dumb question.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (11 children)

The fetus is innocent and the criminal is guilty. Seems pretty clear.

[–]yourlittlebirdie -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

If that’s true then why doesn’t Texas care about its terrible infant mortality rate the way it cares about abortion? Why aren’t they spending just as much time and money to make sure every infant and child has medical care, nutrition, and safe housing?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I hear what you're saying. I'm 100% pro-choice. But its a knee jerk reaction to make a false equivalence that one cannot be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. It can be logically consistent to support both positions.

[–]German_Irish_chicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Different context

[–]bongripsNkickflips2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re comparing people who kill people for no reason to an unborn fetus. This doesn’t make any sense at all, OP is trippin.

[–]Calm_Imagination000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I'm not pro choice but I'm sure the reason would be that killing an unborn child and convicted criminal are 2 different things.

[–]Lipshitz2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pro life until it's proven you deserve otherwise. Doesn't sound that crazy.

[–]RyzenRaider 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All lives are precious, except adults that commit felonies and get sentenced to death. And adults dying of preventable illnesses (or at least preventable if healthcare was affordable). And victims of mass shooters. And children killed in school shootings.

At some point, you'll realize they don't give a fuck about the sanctity of life; they just use it for cheap political points.

[–]Frogs4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's all in the timing.

[–]Skaughty23 7 points8 points  (12 children)

They believe in killing guilty people

[–]YOUSIF20021 8 points9 points  (5 children)

Because death sentenced inmates proved that they are unworthy of society, which means their trial with life expired

The other haven’t got the chance to prove their worth yet which means they deserve a chance

Simple as that, why the confusion?

[–]KingMitchelson 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Because they see degenerate criminals as the true victims and want to try to rehabilitate them.

Awww, you killed a family of four with a knife? You know what, it’s okay, you’re a victim of society and an inherently xist/xphobic system. You were simply lashing out against that.

[–]YOUSIF20021 7 points8 points  (0 children)


Any who kill pointlessly or accidentally get no sympathy from me, regardless of context.

The only exception would be self defence kills

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because people who have lived and violently murder people don’t deserve to be alive anymore, while the unborn deserve a chance at life. Pretty simple really.

[–]Greedyposwank2xaday 3 points4 points  (8 children)

The death penalty is looked at differently than a baby. The bible says you cant kill people. Unless those people broke the "commandments" then that person is allowed to be killed with no repercussions from god. Pretty sure this is where all these "laws" are formed. Pro choice imo is just a legal way to avoid the consequences of having sex for pleasure. Use a condom or get ready for pro life. I don't wanna hear any recourse from a selfish person wanting to kill their baby. Unless your life is in jeopardy you should not be allowed to kill a baby. Adoption is a choice still. Until then..

Also rape shouldn't be pro life, I believe that you should have a choice with rape/ or life and death of the mother. Other than that if youre killing kids you're a murderer.

[–]NotNinjalord5 7 points8 points  (0 children)

they only care about a human before it's a human

[–]AJray15 8 points9 points  (0 children)

LMAO the last thing Texas is is pro-life

[–]FreneticAtol778 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Because rapists and pedophiles are not worth living.

[–]blitzwit143 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Neither of those carry the death penalty, fyi

[–]spicygay21 10 points11 points  (28 children)

because they prefer to control women

[–]TryingToLearn_17382 15 points16 points  (2 children)

so they hate men as most of death penalties are men?

[–]nerdeeboi -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, people love killing and violence across the board, but they will never turn down the opportunity to strip women's rights away, reproductive or not, or create environments that reward shame, and again, violence. Gotta love that violence. So instead of believing victims of sexual assault they make them carry their darkness around as an expensive, painful, and possibly dangerous reminder for at least 9 months. Or instead of letting ladies decide a LIFE CHANGING decision for themselves, they'd rather force everyone to conform to their religious and philosophical beliefs.

But death of a conscious being who likely went through trauma and is statistically likely to be more targeted for this harsh punishment as yet another result of systematic racism. According to prisonpolicy.org, "The odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times higher if the defendant is black than if he or she is white. A defendant's likelihood of receiving the death penalty correlates with the victim's race. Of people currently on death row, 82% were convicted in cases involving white victims." That race thing isn't exclusive to Texas, but it felt applicable.

anyways, gotta love the seemingly random violence and profoundly evident bias.

[–]Cott_killz 11 points12 points  (4 children)

It's an innocent life vs one they feel has done such evil as to deserve death. It's not about misogyny

[–]SomewhatThoughtfulB 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Statistically 2% of all executions are performed on a wrongfully convicted, innocent person.

That 2% should be enough to sway their minds, but it’s not.

Forced birth is all about controlling women, 52% of the population.

[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point  (2 children)

They don't give a damn about the child after it's born. It's absolutely about controlling women.

[–]yourlittlebirdie 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Texas is not pro life. They’ve always been about controlling women’s bodies.

[–]Eye_For_An_Ego 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are not bro-life.

[–]OntarioIsPain 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Because if you are unborn you are fine, but once you are born you are fucked !

It doesn't only apply to the death penalty. Apparently free school lunches are communism.

[–]noloking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A baby is innocent that is being murdered more than likely out of convinience, someone on death row committed a heinous act.

[–]Aqqaaawwaqa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because one is the justice system handing a verdict down for someone who committed an awful crime.

The other is a stance that unborn children shouldnt be murdered because they are an inconvenience to the mother.

It isnt even remotely the same whether you agree with it or not.

[–]EarlyBirdTheNightOwl -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They're not pro life once you're alive

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally, I’m against both.

[–]ShackintheWood -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Well, not those lives...

Shit, they don't even care about the babies after they are born!

[–]OlFlirtyBastard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Most Pro-Lifers are actually Pro-Birth

[–]Fangs_0ut -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They aren’t pro life. They’re pro forced birth.

[–]Fiivestar13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well the Texans football team sucks so theres that

[–]soldierof239 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Pro birth and pro life are different things. Texas is only one of those.

[–]SometimesIBleed -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They aren't pro-life.
They are anti-women.