DEATH PENALTY FOES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST UNBORN [ARTICLE ON PRO-LIFE OF THE MONTH ~ MAY 2013]

NOTE: As I am not able to find many Pro-Life articles at the moment, it will be Pro-Life Article of the Month, not Fortnight. Once I can get more, I will change it back to twice a month.

NOTICE: The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. As Maryland had abolished the death penalty on 2 May 2013, I will post the article of the Pro-Life of the month from Cal Thomas. Thank God the abolition does not apply to the five men on death row but sad but to admit this, why does the Governor support abortion?

PAGE TITLE: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists

ARTICLE TITLE: Death penalty foes discriminate against unborn

DATE: 18 March 2013

AUTHOR: Cal Thomas

AUTHOR INFORMATION: Cal Thomas A.K.A John Calvin "Cal" Thomas (born 1942) is an American syndicated columnist, pundit, author and radio commentator. Thomas was born in 1942 in Washington, D.C.. He attended the American University for his undergraduate education. During the 1960s and early 1970s he worked as a reporter at NBC News. His program on CBNC was nominated for a Cable ACE Award in 1995. His column, which began in 1984, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. Thomas joined Fox News as a political contributor in 1997. He is a panelist on Fox News Watch, a Fox News Channel program criticizing the media, and until September 2005 hosted After Hours with Cal Thomas on the same network. He also gives a daily radio commentary, which is heard on more than 300 stations. Thomas has written extensively about political issues and he supports, among other things, many American positions related to Israel. He has written 10 books, including Blinded By Might, that discussed, among other things, the role of the Moral Majority in American politics of the 1980s. Thomas was vice president of the Moral Majority from 1980 to 1985. He is an evangelical Christian. A study at Hamilton College indicated Thomas as the least accurate prognosticator among 26 notable pundits.

URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/cal-thomas-death-penalty-foes-discriminate-against-unborn/article/2524703

Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas: Death penalty foes discriminate against unborn

March 18, 2013 | 9:00 pm 

The Maryland legislature recently voted to abolish capital punishment in the state, making Maryland the sixth state in the past six years to eliminate the death penalty.

The primary argument for abolition is that our justice system is imperfect and it's possible an innocent person could be condemned. Indeed, anti-death penalty activists presented Kirk Bloodsworth, a former death-row inmate, convicted of the 1984 rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl. His conviction was overturned on appeal after the court found the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. However, Bloodsworth was retried and sentenced to two life terms, a conviction later upheld on appeal. Then in 1993, Bloodsworth was exonerated after DNA linked someone else to the crime.

Death penalty opponents say the law is worth repealing if just one innocent life is saved.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told the Washington Post, "State after state is deciding that the death penalty is simply not worth the risks and costs to retain." He predicts other states will soon follow Maryland's lead. According to the Post, 33 states still retain capital punishment, though "many are using it more sparingly than in the past."

In the debate over the death penalty some have argued that it's a deterrent to crime, which can't be proved, any more than it is provable that abolishing it will encourage some to kill, knowing the worst they will face is life in prison without parole. Others have argued the death penalty is "too expensive" because the court system allows for numerous appeals, a process that takes years.

During the debate in Maryland, Democratic state Sen. John C. Astle told the Post, "The idea of strapping someone down and deliberately taking their life -- it was a little difficult for me."

Which brings me to abortion; abortion may not involve the "strapping down" of a convicted felon, but it takes a life.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley has been a passionate advocate for repealing the death penalty, but equally as passionate in opposing limits to abortion in his state. "I believe that it is an issue that is best left to the individual conscience of women," he told the Maryland Catholic Conference in October.

In 2008, according to the Guttmacher Institute, while the number of abortions in the U.S. remained "virtually unchanged from 2005 when the abortion rate was 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women," Maryland produced "a rate of 29 abortions per 1,000 women. ..." Maryland is a liberal state, economically, socially and politically. In announcing his decision to oppose the death penalty, Baltimore Republican Del. William J. Frank at least sounded consistent when he told the Post: "I'm a reluctant convert to supporting repeal, but a convert nonetheless." Frank cited his "respect for human life."

Respect for human life should mean a murderer ought to forfeit his or her own life as payment for the life taken. Life in prison is unequal punishment. It is not fair to the victim, to the victim's family or even to the killer who has not received his or her "just deserts."

In the case of abortion, obviously there can be no sentence of death or life in prison for the "murderer." But that doesn't mean that Maryland cannot exercise an equivalent respect for life through laws that restrict abortion. Shouldn't the unborn also be spared a death sentence? If the Maryland legislature can stop the state from taking the lives of murderers, it can adopt restrictions that save the lives of many threatened by abortion.

I have often proposed a deal for my liberal friends who are anti-death penalty but pro-choice: I will surrender my position in favor of the death penalty, if pro-choicers support laws that protect the unborn.

It seems like a fair deal to me, but so far I've gotten no takers. This seems ideologically inconsistent, if they argue all human life is valuable.

The death chambers will close in Maryland for a few murderers, but thousands of abortions will continue in Maryland each year -- more than 1 million annually nationwide -- "sentencing" innocents to death without due process.

Examiner Columnist Cal Thomas is nationally syndicated by Tribune Media.

OSAMA BIN LADEN AND THE VALUE OF JUSTICE [CHRISTIAN ARTICLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY ~ SUNDAY 28 APRIL 2013 TO SATURDAY 11 MAY 2013]

NOTICE: I will post a quote or article from a Christian in favor of capital punishment every fortnight. The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.

PAGE TITLE: http://thegospelcoalition.org/

ARTICLE TITLE: Osama bin Laden and the Value of Justice

DATE: Monday 2 May 2011

AUTHOR: Kevin DeYoung

AUTHOR INFORMATION: Kevin DeYoung (born 1977) is an American Christian Reformed Evangelical theologian and author. DeYoung is a pastor in the Reformed Church in America and a member of The Gospel Coalition.

Kevin DeYoung was born in South Holland, Illinois and largely grew up in Jenison, Michigan where his parents worked with Christian radio. Both of DeYoung's grandfathers were from Dutch Reformed backgrounds. DeYoung graduated summa cum laude from Hope College in Michigan in 1999 and then received his M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts in 2002. DeYoung first served as a Pastor at First Reformed Church in Orange City, Iowa and since August 2004, he has served as Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan near Michigan State University. DeYoung has authored or co-authored many books and articles, and his book Why We're Not Emergent won the 2009 Christianity Today book award. His book Why We Love the Church won the 2010 Christianity Today Book Award and Leadership Journal Golden Canon Book Award. DeYoung is a member of the Gospel Coalition with Tim Keller, John Piper and others.

URL: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-and-the-devaluing-of-justice/

Kevin DeYoung

Christians are already beginning to weigh in on the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Not surprisingly, Justin Taylor has a quick roundup of the first couple of internet volleys–both of which are very good. I’m sure there is more serious reflection to come. But since I’m a blogger, I’ll do what bloggers do, and that’s add my thoughts to the mix.

There are really two questions to answer: 1) Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? 2) Did those who killed him have authority to do so? I believe the answer to both those questions is yes. Consequently, his death was a matter of justice for which we can be grateful.

1. Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? Genesis 9:6 suggests he did: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Capital punishment for murder is not an assault on the image of God, but a defense of it.  It is because human life is so precious, that the taking of human life needs to be punished so severely. The principle of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound” (Exod. 21:23-25) was not a matter cruel and unusual punishment, but of controlled retribution as a means of protecting the community and valuing the dignity of human life.

At this point, some earnest Christian will object, “But we will all deserve to die. If God should mark my iniquities, I would be a goner too.” The objection makes sense on one level. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). And yet, even with this doctrine of total depravity the Bible never acts as if everyone deserves to die physically right now. Some have deserved immediate death, so God killed Nadab and Abihu and struck down Uzzah and inflicted judgment on the Egyptians, Amorites, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, and Babylonians. We all deserve condemnation apart from God’s grace, but some deserve death now because some sins are worse than others and some sinners commit more egregious sins.

It is one of the half-truths of our day that every sin is the same in God’s eyes. On the one hand, every sin renders us liable to God’s judgment (James 2:10). On the other hand, not every bit of iniquity is equally offensive. Some sins are high-handed. Some are premeditated. Some are slip ups. Some are habitual. Some are contrary to nature. The Law did not demand the same penalty for every infraction. Neither did Jesus (Matt. 10:15). We do not promote the glory of the gospel by pretending that no one is more righteous or more wicked than anybody else. Some sins so destroy the image of God that those who commit them deserve destruction.

2. Did those who killed Osama bin Laden have the authority to do so? Only God has the authority to take human life. But God has ordained that he should exercise that right through the power of the state. Romans 13:4 says the governing authorities are God’s servants to do good, “but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” The Navy SEALs that raided bin Laden’s compound did not violate the sixth commandment because, as the Heidelberg Catechism says, “Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword” (Q/A 105). Surely, this was an instance where the U.S. military, by killing bin Laden, was acting in an effort to prevent more American citizens from being murdered.

Obviously, Jesus condemned private retaliation, vigilante justice, and hatred (Matt. 5:38-48). But there is no indication the Gospels mean to overturn the centuries long Jewish understanding that some warfare was justified. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they needed to do to repent, he could have easily said, “Resign from the evil Roman army.  You can’t be a soldier and a part of the new people of God.”  But instead he said, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14). Jesus went so far as to hold up a Centurion as a model of faith (Luke 7:6). It reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s quip: “There is nothing that throws any particular light on Christ’s attitude toward organized warfare, except that he seems to be rather fond of Roman soldiers.”

In the end, though there are mixed emotions from last night’s announcement, at least one of the attitudes should be thankfulness for the bravery of the men who, with proper authority in a just cause, killed a man who deserved to die. I thought President Obama’s remarks last night struck the right tone. There was a sense of gratitude without gloating. The dominant theme was justice. In our every day lives in this squishy pomo world, we have a hard time with justice. As a nation we feel sorry for people better than we feel joy over justice. But sometimes we need to be reminded that we live in a moral universe where actions have consequences. And when deathly consequences are merited by despicable actions, we should be glad the world is working as God designed.