How is it consistent to oppose the death penalty for murder and to favor abortion on demand?
May 18, 2010 · Filed Under Law & Ethics
Bruce asked:
I don’t get liberalism: To wax sentimental over vicious killers while casually tossing prenatal human victims into the trash?
Lisa, aside from not addressing the question, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that the death penalty for murder is not cruel and unusual, perhaps because the Constitution itself refers to “capital” crimes, thus implicitly recognizing the justice of the death penalty.
Those who take the radically unscientific view that the prenatal child is not a living human individual should consider that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be living human individuals. We get into big ethical trouble when try to redefine our potential victims as subhuman.
Origen, good answer; but could you clarify what you mean by “hard cases”?
Excellent, Misty. Those who argue that the prenatal child is not a living human individual never seem to be able to demonstrate that the child is alive, or a human, or an individual.
I don’t get liberalism: To wax sentimental over vicious killers while casually tossing prenatal human victims into the trash?
Lisa, aside from not addressing the question, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that the death penalty for murder is not cruel and unusual, perhaps because the Constitution itself refers to “capital” crimes, thus implicitly recognizing the justice of the death penalty.
Those who take the radically unscientific view that the prenatal child is not a living human individual should consider that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be living human individuals. We get into big ethical trouble when try to redefine our potential victims as subhuman.
Origen, good answer; but could you clarify what you mean by “hard cases”?
Excellent, Misty. Those who argue that the prenatal child is not a living human individual never seem to be able to demonstrate that the child is alive, or a human, or an individual.
Have they never seen the 4-D scans of the developing child in utero?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTLMihGO4HE
home theater equipment
Comments
15 Responses to “How is it consistent to oppose the death penalty for murder and to favor abortion on demand?”
funny fortune cookies
It sounds like 0bamaism to me.
play poker online
It is perfectly consistent if you devalue human life. You neither protect the unborn from abortion nor take practical steps to protect the innocent from murder.
A consistent pro-LIFE position welcomes the death penalty for proven murderers and drastically restricts abortion except in hard cases.
funny fortune cookies
The argument is there is no debate on if a person already born is living or not. They are a living *breathing* human being. However an unborn potential baby is no more at first then human cells forming into the possibility of a baby and its a debate over what constitutes being alive. We can all agree on when someone is living and breathing on their own accord they are living. However when something can’t survive on its own and is dependent on a parasitic type of bond to survive is that really life and human life yet? Also when do they become conscious and truly aware? It all comes down to peoples personal belief on what “life” really is. Is it just having your own energy? rocks have that. Is it breathing? Is it being conscious of ones full surroundings? Is it the self ability to grow and perpetuate? Philosophers have been trying to answer that for thousands of years and still we are no closer. So in the end its all a war of opinion and as long as its opinion you really can’t tell someone whats right and wrong for them.
Then always we could argue the baby is simply a part of the mother until it is born and shows it has its own separate conscious and as part of a person its within their right to discard it.
But who’s to say who’s right or not… its all a crap shoot of opinion on what life really is and what being *alive* really is.
trade the qqq
These are two totally different issues. Abortion is seen as unethical to those who are pro-life because they believe a fetus is a human being. The law and pro-choice people do not believe a fetus is a human being, but that it is a fetus. So, basically the difference is based on two different groups and when they think life begins. Regardless of wether you are pro life or pro choice, we can all agree that someone who is eligible for capital punishment is a human being. We are not arguing if they are or aren’t. So the death penalty is more based on someone’s personal view of morality and ethics, rather than a philosphical/religious definition of what constitutes a human being. There are many pro-life people who are in favor of the death penalty, go figure.
comic book buyers
Dead is Dead; Abortion is a death penalty. public exaqusen is a death penalty. How Adolf Hitler : got a way with killing &.5 million people
he kill eney thing with out a voice. What the deference between Tarrier Shivo and or abortion. Nothing For Dead is Dead.
trade silver
I think it’s perfectly consistent. People who support a woman’s right to choose clearly don’t think a fetus is a person. Isn’t that really the difference between pro-choice and anti-choice people to begin with?
On the other hand, I might argue the opposite. How is it consistent to say it’s OK for the government to kill an adult, but not a fetus? If you believe so strongly in the sanctity of life, shouldn’t that apply to anyone, even killers?
As an aside, I don’t think saying that anyone who opposes the death penalty and supports choice is necessarily a “liberal.” There are plenty of right-leaning people who feel the same way.
/prepares for thumbs-down
trade the qqq
You need to take this up with our forefathers who wrote the Constitution then because that is where this dichotomy is rooted.
The 8th Amendment doesn’t allow cruel or unusual punishment so many interpret the Constitution as if the death penalty is cruel.
The 14th Amendment includes Substantive Due Process. And that means that the government cannot invade our privacy and getting involved in the decisions we decide for our bodies is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy (as long as it is before viability, which is usually 28 weeks). The state can regulate the procedures to get an abortion as long as it doesn’t constitute an “undue burden” though.
funny fortune cookies
whats the difference between that and the cons wanting death penalty and denying abortions?
im sorry but a parasite that has yet to be born is not alive. therefore, i dont care what side of the fence you are on, it NEEDS to be pro CHOICE not life.
if someone kills someone, by all means lets kill the offender. im all for it. but please, dont go ranting about pro death penalty and then come back and say, “women, you dont have a say in whether you carry your UNborn fetus or not, im telling you you must keep it.”.
Misty-
actually yes, most states define when life starts i.e IL statues say life begins at conception.
whether that is true or not is another story. when the cells are developing in the first trimester, they are simply a mass of cells that have no correlation with each other, they do not work together, they are their own cells working for themselves=single celled. humans are MULTI cellular. all the cells work together to form one body.
“choice” is not fancy rhetoric as you may believe. it is a word that defines the people that feel they have a CHOICE about their bodies. which they do. im not religious therefore life, as i see it/studied it/interpret it, begins when the “cells” are born and can live on its own. if you believe one thing, fine i wont change your mind, that is your right. but if i believe something else, who are you to tell me im wrong and ultimately cant do it because it is against what YOU believe in. im not you. define life when you want to, i will when i want to. if i want-that is if i were female and could have kids-to have an abortion then god damnit i should be able to get it without interference from you. if i have regrets about it then that is something i should and would have to deal with.
custom imprinted pens
because not everybody views a fetus as a human life, yet
funny fortune cookies
It’s crazy isn’t it?!
collectible webkinz
Interesting that many of the answers indicate that the “fetus” is not a person, and that the law (and pro-choice) back this up. In reality this is not true. The law has never stated when human life begins, or when a person is a person.
Abortion rights fall under a woman’s right to privacy, and makes no distinction on the issue of when life begins.
During the years of slavery many people felt, believed, were of the opinion, that blacks were not human beings. Many black slaves were killed without so much as a care, because after all, they were not really human.
And so we kill our unborn with the same purposeful ignorance. Those who cry “choice” use words like “potential human” or “collection of cells” in order to remove the FACT that it is a human being.
Women who are pregnant and carry that pregnancy to term ALWAYS give birth to human beings. There is never any doubt that a woman is pregnant with a human baby…without fail. All that fancy wording designed to remove guilt can only fool those who choose to be fooled.
The true pro-life position is all life is sacred from conception to natural death. The circumstances of a person’s conception do not add to or take away from the value of life, ever.
visor clips
Liberalism is quite plain and simple a plan of selfishness for adults.
Why oppose the death penalty? Because I don’t want to be “punished” for doing something I did wrong.
Why favor abortion? Because I don’t want to be “punished” for something I did wrong (in most cases, not all).
Whereas thinking for the victim puts it into perspective. Why favor the death penalty? To protect others from you & your rash selfish desires and decisions.
Why oppose abortion? To protect others from you & your rash selfish desires and decisions.
collectible webkinz
Death penalty is opposed and as well abortion on demand.
game system reviews
There is no inherent contradiction in being pro-choice and against capital punishment, OR vice-versa. The abortion issue generally comes down to where you believe that life begins. Pro-lifers think life begins at conception (and therefore, logically, abortion is murder), whereas pro-choicers believe life begins at birth. Both sides will dazzle you with scientific studies and convincing evidence (like your video) to support their case, but there simply is no way to “prove” either side - it boils down to what you BELIEVE.
The death penalty is a completely unrelated issue. I’m against it for many reasons - NONE of which have anything to do with sympathy for criminals:
- Mistakes happen. In the last 35 years in the U.S., over 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA and other new evidence (DNA is not available in most homicide cases).
- Because of the legal apparatus designed to minimize wrongful executions, it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.
- It is not a deterrent - violent crime rates are consistently HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions.
- It is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.
- It fosters a culture of violence by asserting that killing is an acceptable solution to a problem.
- Many people argue “an eye for an eye.” I’m guessing they don’t realize that Jesus was against it (see Matthew 5:7 & 5:38-39, James 4:12, Romans 12:17-21, and John 8:7).
- Life without parole (LWOP) is on the books in most states now, and it means what it says. People who get this sentence are taken off the streets. For good.
trade show items
because babys are stinky and poop and cry alot and are really annoying