Double standard?

[jlujan69]

Which, if either, would you consider to be a double standard POV: pro-choice & anti-death penalty or pro-life & pro-death penalty? Please explain your answer.

 

[Beanieboy]

Do you have a term paper due?

I would have to say pro-death penalty, pro-life, becauuse the person seems more interested in the unborn, then those who have been born.

 

[ReverendDG]

those aren't a double-standard
now i agree with BB, being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocrisy.
it shows that people don't really care they just want to suppress things they find distasteful

 

[mpok1519]

i am pro-death penalty and pro-choice. So in a way im pro-death-pro-death. Not too much of a horrible double standard. =P

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Which, if either, would you consider to be a double standard POV: pro-choice & anti-death penalty or pro-life & pro-death penalty? Please explain your answer.

Pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Being pro-choice is being for the death penalty for unborn human beings.

There is a consistency in pro-life and pro-death penalty, because executing GUILTY murderers is thought of by rational people throughout history as saving lives, by preventing the guilty person from ever doing it again and persuading some people not to murder someone else because they in turn would not want to be killed by a guilty verdict and the (possible) resulting judgment. Not every guilty murderer is given a death sentence.

 

[Bombila]

Sentimentality on both ends. Pro-life people hear embryo or foetus and visualize cute little baby as oppsed to three cm larval looking reproductive bud. Their marketing types go to great lengths to encourage such visualization. When it comes to the death penalty, it's all a revenge fantasy played out to the sentimental tune of closure for the families of the victims.

I don't see it as necessarily hypocritical, though. It is a failure to grasp reality, IMO, the reality being that the death penalty cannot be shown to reduce the number of murders; innocent people are far too often convicted, and rather too many victims of the state are fairly obviously mentally disabled in one way or another; and it is gruesome in the extreme to tell a sentient being that you are going to kill them on a specific date.

Many, if not most, pro-lifers, while calling abortion murder, get very unforthcoming when asked if, then, women who obtain abortions (a premeditated murder if they believe what they are saying), should be tried for murder and condemned to death or to life in prison. Somewhere beneath the sentiment, they do understand that killing a born person is a far more serious wrong than removing a six weeks embryo.

This at any rate has been my experience in debating these issues.

 

[cantata]

It's not a double standard.

But it is pretty weird to value foetuses more than adults.

 

[platzapS]

I don't think either is a double standard, because the cases are very different. (I'm strongly pro-choice, weakly anti-death penalty).

 

[mont974x4]

pro-choice and anti-death penalty seems very odd to me. Why would you support (or at least allow) the killing of our weakest and innocent citizens but be against capital punishment for someone who is a known crimininal that has been convicted and sentenced according to the law?


Being pro-life and pro-death penalty makes sense to me. I want to protect the innocent unborn children and the Bible says that the just punishment for murder is to pay with your own. Life is so precious that there is no other way for them to pay their debt to society.

 

[Washington]

The "double standard"' would only work if the one considers that both fetuses and adults qualify as human life. The pro-life/pro-death position does just that. The pro choice/anti-death does not: only the adult is considered to be a human life. So only the pro-life/pro-death position could be said to be holding a double standard. HOWEVER, there is a mitigating circumstance here. The fetus is considered innocent and not deserving of death whereas the adult is considered to have "earned" his execution. So, would it be hypocritical to be both pro-life and pro-death penalty? I don't think so, and I'm pro choice/anti-death.

 

[CCGirl]

Who would value a human being, whom is alive, over a foetus, which is not? That is the double standard.

 

[mont974x4]

It only appears that way to those who don't think a baby is alive in the womb. I've seen enough ultrasounds to know otherwise.

 

[CCGirl]

It only appears that way to those who don't think a baby is alive in the womb. I've seen enough ultrasounds to know otherwise.

I've seen my own ultrasounds, and the foetus was alive, yes. It is not a baby.

 

[mont974x4]

Then what is it? When a sperm and egg join it provides a complete set of human DNA, it simply can't be anything else.

However, I understand your desire to dehumanize becaused it makes it easier to justify the killing of the unborn. Hence, you're calling it a fetus...and misspelling even that. Then there's you're little backpedal when corrected about it being alive.

 

[CCGirl]

Then what is it? When a sperm and egg join it provides a complete set of human DNA, it simply can't be anything else.

However, I understand your desire to dehumanize becaused it makes it easier to justify the killing of the unborn. Hence, you're calling it a fetus...and misspelling even that. Then there's you're little backpedal when corrected about it being alive.

1). USAians are spelling it wrong! In proper English it is foetus.

2). It is a foetus, or more likely a zygote when the sperm and egg meet. Not a baby.

 

[mpok1519]

hehe. feotus.

but i always spell things wrong like labour, colour, mourshmallow....=P

a complete set of human dna doesn't make a person. One strand of polypeptide sequenced amino acids doesn't necessarily constitute a person.

 

[cantata]

A foetus MUST be a baby because it certainly is a baby after it's born.

A baby MUST be a child because it is certainly a child at age 4.

A child MUST be a teenager because it is certainly a teenager at age 13.

A teenager MUST be an adult because it is certainly an adult at age 21.

An adult MUST be an elderly person because it is certainly an elderly person at age 70.

Now if A = B and B = C and C = D and D = E, then A must be equal to E. Therefore a foetus is an elderly person.

Yep.

 

[Washington]

1). USAians are spelling it wrong! In proper English it is foetus.

The word fetus is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young.[4] It has Indo-European roots related to sucking or suckling.[5]

Fœtus is an English variation on the Latin spelling, and has been in use since at least 1594, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which describes "fœtus" as "incorrectly written". The variant fœtus may have originated with an error by Saint Isidore of Seville, in AD 620.[6] The preferred spelling in the United States is fetus, but the variants foetus and fœtus persist in other English-speaking countries and in some medical contexts, as well as in some other languages (e.g., French). In technical usage, fetus is now the standard spelling throughout the English-speaking world.
source
​

 

[platzapS]

pro-choice and anti-death penalty seems very odd to me. Why would you support (or at least allow) the killing of our weakest and innocent citizens but be against capital punishment for someone who is a known crimininal that has been convicted and sentenced according to the law?

I'm strongly pro-choice (because I don't believe a fetus is a person, and the mother's will takes precedence. I don't have any strong anti-death penalty feelings, but I'm against it just because there's the possibility of a mistaken conviction, and with the appeals process it's even more expensive than life in prison.

 

[mont974x4]

Life in prison should not be an option and years of appeals violate the right of quick justice.