How do you defend opposing capital punishment while supporting legal abortion?

The Nihilist · Mar 20, 2009

rosenherman said:
NO!!!!

But they just go to heaven, right? I can't really see a downside to abortion, at least from a christian perspective.

quatona · Mar 20, 2009

Joachim said:
But the interesting ethical question is why don't the fetii have full personhood and the condemned prisoner does?, especially when you consider what the condemned has usually done, I especially ask this in light of my condemned prisoner list.

Because personhood is not a positive emotional characteristic you earn by behaving well, but a word that describes certain abilities, such as communicating, acting purposefully, being conscious, self-aware etc.

A more interesting question would be, why would we then extend this to the axe murderer who molested children but then not extend it to other living creatures such as cows, deer, fish and the like?

I don´t think this is an interesting question. I think it is an absurd question.
You want to deny personhood to a child molester or an axe-murderer because they have done wrong, right?
Did "cows. deer, fish and the like" do wrong? Do they do wrong on a regular basis?
Where´s the logic in this comparison?

mpok1519 · Mar 20, 2009

Easy; the fetus isnt a person.

Good thing im pro-death-pro-death. Pro-choice, pro-capital punishment

Tenka · Mar 20, 2009

joachim said:
However, I can't for the life of me understand the the reasoning that goes behind the pro-abortion, anti-death penalty position. It is for this reason that I want to discuss and explore this very subject.

Pretty simple really, a death row prisoner is a thinking, feeling, conscious person, a fetus is not.

b&wpac4 · Mar 20, 2009

Joachim said:
But the interesting ethical question is why don't the fetii have full personhood and the condemned prisoner does?, especially when you consider what the condemned has usually done, I especially ask this in light of my condemned prisoner list.

A more interesting question would be, why would we then extend this to the axe murderer who molested children but then not extend it to other living creatures such as cows, deer, fish and the like?

Now you are shifting the question. YOu ask how people could justify it, not all the reasons behind that. You have your answer.

Wiccan_Child · Mar 21, 2009

jayem said:
As above, I'd limit personhood to Homo sapiens. Not that other living things have no rights whatsoever, but it's much less complicated to deal with only one species.

To be honest, I don't think the affording of rights should be dictated by something as trivial as practicalities. If the Great Apes are truly deserving of personhood, we should enshrine that rights in the appropriate legislation.

MinorityofOne · Mar 21, 2009

The Nihilist said:
But they just go to heaven, right? I can't really see a downside to abortion, at least from a christian perspective.

I lol'd. The downside is one less baby, and some Christians would say no, they don't go to heaven - we're all born in sin!

Daniel Tosh said:
My girlfriend's not pregnant, she's pro-choice. Don't 'oooh!', can't overturn Roe v. Wade tonight. It's my right as an American to have this joke! If you're not pro-choice all that means is that you've never slept with a stripper in Kansas City, cause that's a phone call no one wants. Nine months later, "Guess who's coming to breakfast? Cinnamon junior!" Not if my four-hundred dollars has anything to say about it!

Fantine · Mar 21, 2009

The justification seems to be that while the fetus is inside the mother's body, unable to survive independently on its own, the mother's wishes supercede the right to life of the fetus.

The prisoner, on the other hand, is easily able to survive independently.

CCGirl · Mar 22, 2009

Pro-life and pro-death penalty are an oxymoron. I dont care what crime was committed, emotions have no relevance in this debate. Noone has the right to kill other people, whether it is the state or not.

lux et lex · Mar 22, 2009

I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty. I have no problem holding these two beliefs. I'll go along with what the previous pro choice people have said about that.

With regard to the death penalty...I was always 100% against it because of people whose circumstances have led to false convictions. See: The Innocence Project. I did, however, struggle with it once it hit close to home. An acquaintance of mine was kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered my freshman year of college. They found the man who did it and he was convicted on a substantial amount of DNA evidence. As much as I wanted that awful man dead, I couldn't justify a life for a life. Because really...what's it going to do that life in prison without parole won't? I think it is cruel and unusual punishment as well, but I won't get into that in this thread.

Fin12 · Mar 22, 2009

Joachim said:
I support capital punishment. I also believe that abortion is murder and I would prefer it to be illegal, but I believe that this is a decision that can only be properly made in America by state legislatures as per the 10th amendment of the constitution.

I have often had the argument where people who oppose capital punishment bring up the fact of "How can you call yourself pro-life if you support the death penalty?" Almost always the person using this argument will also support legal abortion.

Logically, it follows very easily to support banning abortion and allowing the death penalty while still calling yourself pro-life. Fetii are innocent beings. They have done nothing to deserve death. If you believe that they have a right to life then you consider that they have done nothing to forfeit those rights. The condemned inmate is different. The inmate has usually done something to forfeit his right to life. He is not an innocent being. The fetii, on the other hand, are usually killed for no other reason than being an inconvenience.

(Before I go on I will note that I am not an absolutist, I believe that any abortion law has to have a health of the mother exception)

However, I do wonder, logically, how can you defend this position. The easiest position is one that defends both abortion and the death penalty. The anti-abortion and pro-death penalty one is slightly tougher to make but I just made it above. However, I can't for the life of me understand the the reasoning that goes behind the pro-abortion, anti-death penalty position. It is for this reason that I want to discuss and explore this very subject.

1. Pro choice means pro choice not pro abortion, I believe people have the right to an abortion, however I may not always agree with their ethics when choosing to have an abortion.

2. Personhood deal, the fetus isn't really a concious and sentient being I'd see it on the same level as euthanisia, killing someone/thing that has no ability to feel etc Whereas I see the DP as the killing of someone who can feel.

YamiB · Mar 22, 2009

Yeah it seems that the only ones who really have the chance to be hypocrites with this subject are pro-lifers. They will consider conception to be the start of a life and say it can't be ended because life is sacred while cutting programs to support quality of life and supporting the ending of life through the death penalty.

Hypocrisy does not usually go back the other way because many pro-choice people do not consider abortion to be the taking of a human life because they don't think a human life starts at conception.

lawtonfogle · Mar 22, 2009

Joachim said:
I support capital punishment. I also believe that abortion is murder and I would prefer it to be illegal, but I believe that this is a decision that can only be properly made in America by state legislatures as per the 10th amendment of the constitution.

I have often had the argument where people who oppose capital punishment bring up the fact of "How can you call yourself pro-life if you support the death penalty?" Almost always the person using this argument will also support legal abortion.

Logically, it follows very easily to support banning abortion and allowing the death penalty while still calling yourself pro-life. Fetii are innocent beings. They have done nothing to deserve death. If you believe that they have a right to life then you consider that they have done nothing to forfeit those rights. The condemned inmate is different. The inmate has usually done something to forfeit his right to life. He is not an innocent being. The fetii, on the other hand, are usually killed for no other reason than being an inconvenience.

(Before I go on I will note that I am not an absolutist, I believe that any abortion law has to have a health of the mother exception)

However, I do wonder, logically, how can you defend this position. The easiest position is one that defends both abortion and the death penalty. The anti-abortion and pro-death penalty one is slightly tougher to make but I just made it above. However, I can't for the life of me understand the the reasoning that goes behind the pro-abortion, anti-death penalty position. It is for this reason that I want to discuss and explore this very subject.

Actually, the issue is quite easy under some views. To begin with, we need to understand people see abortion differently. And I am not including pro-life here. There are many different schools of thought in the pro-choice camp. I am just picking one.

Now, first off, you claim the fetus has done nothing wrong. This is not true. It is true to say it has not meant to do wrong, and it is true in some cases it has done nothing wrong. But for a woman who does not want to be pregnant, it has violated the bodily integrity of the woman. And, considering self defense laws, we measure the protection of bodily integrity higher than the protection of life. Aka, I cannot forcefully violate your bodily integrity to save my life. As the often used example goes, I cannot forcefully take from you one of your two good kidneys (assuming you have two good ones) to save my life, even if you are the only one who my body will accept a kidney from.

As such, the objective is never to kill the child, only stop it from violating the mother's bodily integrity. Just, current day, the mother hires a doctor to defend her and the doctor uses lethal force. I personally wish to use non-lethal force (premature birth) to do the same, but for a variety of reasons, this is currently not a popular (or often offered) option.

Now, it is clear I hold bodily integrity as higher than the right to life, but what if the right to life is my next option. In other words, if you aren't violating someones bodily integrity, your right to life is next. This results in the opposition to the death penalty.

lawtonfogle · Mar 22, 2009

MaxP said:
But it's ok to take that chance from an unborn baby?
Shouldn't they die, or be born, on God's timeline, not ours?

Do you believe there is any chance of an unborn baby going to hell? Actually, unless you support an evil God (and what else could you call a God who sends the unborn children to hell), then you believe they go to heaven. So why don't you support abortion again (I am assuming you are very pro getting people into heaven).

lawtonfogle · Mar 22, 2009

Joachim said:
the right thing to do under Texas law.

You sound as if the law is justification of the action committed by it? It was the legal thing to do, that does not make it the right thing to do (as to if it was the right thing to do, that is still uncertain if all we know is that it is the legal thing to do).

lawtonfogle · Mar 22, 2009

Joachim said:
It makes all the sense in the world. We believe that we have rights but we also tend to belief that a right can be revoked, like banning released felons from firearms ownership or preventing released sex offenders from living near schools.

And rights can be given up even if you do not know that you were doing wrong, though one can argue that after you have been educated, assuming you live, you should have them returned. This includes the violation of bodily integrity by the unborn.

Also, yes there are horrible people out there, but there are others who got the DP which are very much uncertain if they even did the crime, much less if this was the correct punishment. Anyone know off the top of their head people proven innocent after their execution?

Here is the fruits of a quick search.

http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/588/588_12_Texas.shtml

And here is another, I'll quote one part of interest...

In Florida, Sonia Jacobs and Jesse Tafero were convicted of murdering a state trooper and his companion in 1976 and were sentenced to death. The chief evidence against them was supplied by the third person at the scene of the crime, an ex-convict named Walter Rhodes. In exchange for his testimony, Rhodes pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received a life sentence.
In 1981 Jacobs' death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. But in 1990 Tafero -- despite his protestations of innocence -- was executed. Micki Dickoff, a childhood friend of Jacobs', read about Tafero's execution and reestablished contact with Jacobs. Thanks to Dickoff's unflagging efforts, federal courts threw out Jacobs' conviction; in 1992 she was released when the state admitted not having the evidence to retry her. It now appears Jacobs was completely innocent. Why is the Jacobs-Tafero case so significant?
If Jacobs was innocent, then the execution of Tafero was probably the execution of an innocent man, because the same evidence (later shown to be insufficient) used to convict Jacobs had also been used to convict Tafero.
The information that freed her would have freed him -- if he had not already been executed.

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

So one can also oppose the DP on the fact that the system isn't perfect, but on the other hand, how can you not abort an unborn child who is not violating the bodily integrity (except for forced abortions where the mother has ok'd the child staying, but then pro-CHOICE are against force on both sides).

lawtonfogle · Mar 22, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
Now you are shifting the question. YOu ask how people could justify it, not all the reasons behind that. You have your answer.

He got his answer and he ask another question. Must he make a new thread for it, or do you think he is ignoring the previous answer?

lawtonfogle · Mar 22, 2009

MinorityofOne said:
I lol'd. The downside is one less baby, and some Christians would say no, they don't go to heaven - we're all born in sin!

Except these people haven't been born yet. Could be iffy in partial birth abortions, but I am fully against those. If the baby is half the way out, it can finish the trip without the mother being any worse off.

Jade Margery · Mar 22, 2009

Speaking as a pragmatist and a tax payer, I'm against the death penalty mostly because the cost of appeals, court fees, lawyers, and bureaucratic b.s. is far greater than the cost of keeping some possibly-innocent-but-probably-not felon locked in a dark cell for fifty years. Strange, but true. Ask me again when they've streamlined the process.

And yeah, I'm pro-choice, mostly for the body-integrity line of reasoning already mentioned. It does not really matter to me whether the fetus is a person or not, in fact I think it might be better if it was considered one, so that people who harm a pregnant woman who has chosen to keep her child can be charged for damage done to the baby as well as the mother. You can argue about the specifics of where life and personhood start until you're blue in the face, but I believe people have a right to control what is done to their own bodies. As was already mentioned, no one can take your kidney to save their life, right? They can't even take your blood, of which you have plenty. Why should nine months of your life be any different?

rosenherman · Mar 23, 2009

I support anyone's choice of sleeping with someone. Once you're pregnant you aren't dealing with just one person anymore and your choice needs to take into account the unborn's choice and the father's choice.

How do you defend opposing capital punishment while supporting legal abortion?

Contributor

"God"? What do you mean??

Veteran

Tenka

Guest

Trying to stay away

Contributor

Faith without deeds is worthless.

Dona Quixote

Resident Commie

light and law

Fin12

Guest

Regular Member

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Stranger in a strange land

Sparkly rainbow butterfly kitten

Similar threads