Which are you?

Which are you?

I ask this question, because I have a friend who is anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, and he says that that is the only way a person can hold philosophically consistent positions on the two issues.

I won't say whether or not I agree with him, at least philosophically. Which are you, and do you think your position on the two issues demonstrates consistency on issues of life and death?

National statistics indicate that abortion rates have gone down in all but the poorest classes. That says something.

Under Clinton, abortion rates dropped in the poorest classes, too.

Anyone who truly holds themselves out to be "pro-life" would be working tirelessly, ceaselessly to eradicate the root *causes* of many abortions. Opposing abortion itself is a matter of treating the symptom and not the cause.

I'm only "pro-abortion" where Republicans are concerned.

Dear Leader is the best proof available that Roe v. Wade was decided a generation too late. The best part of him ran down his Momma's nasty leg.

by offering birth control and family planning.

Bush and the fundamentalists are against funding 100%. And their option is to introduce legislation to make women and their doctors criminals for choosing an abortion option.

The W Taliban America. Hold women responsible, and omit men from any role of responsibility. OBL would approve.

on the show that, if they would just sit down, America's fundies and the Middle East's fundies would find they have more in common than they imagine.

Then again, maybe it's better for us all if they don't. :puke:

As Democrats, we need to start asking the really hard questions, such as why a retired lady on a fixed income of $750/month only qualifies for $27/month in food stamps while we pay Halliburton $29/DAY/person to feed our troops.

We need to ask why the food stamp program is used to prop up retail.

We need to ask why the Social Security retirement age is going up instead of down in the "greatest nation on earth."

And we truly do need to begin to figure out why the wrong-wing hates women so much.

More for than I expected, from the discussions I saw.

Your friend is deluded, imho.

I understand his desire to find consistency. Not that I agree with him, but I understand why he feels the way he does.

Human life should be valued in all cases; I do not consider fetuses to be "human life."

I agree with you, that the whole "consistency" philosophy is hinged on whether or not one believes that an embryo is yet a human.

I agree that the two positions, together don't make sense. Problem is, they don't have to. It's just another arbitrary group of positions, cobbled together for one reason, or another. I still haven't figured it out.

You can be "certain" that a fetus isn't a "human life," (which is bullshit, because it's completely arbitrary), and others can be "certain" that an "eye for an eye" is the appropriate way to deal with murdering criminals.

I agree that the most ideologically pure position is pro-life and anti-death penalty. There are two common systems of belief that support this. The first, is the (child-molesting) Vatican, and the second are libertarians who believe that a fetus is entitled to life, liberty and property. The other libertarian position, in the framework of limiting state power: pro-choice, anti-death penalty, also works -- but I get the feeling that most people here who are harping about the death penalty aren't libertarians, and in lieu of certain specific sets of liberties, they have a whole other sheath of what could just as easily be considered "liberties" that they wish to curtail.

There is not a given probability that a fetus should have the value of a human life or not. There is not statistical debate over the question. It's a moral question, and thus one must go by what one believes.

Of course it's arbitrary, all moral systems are. They are attempts to phrase our philosophically arbitrary moral intuitions into statements applicable to situations like abortion and the death penalty. All even the best argumentation can do is sway people with certain moral intuitions into accepting certain applicable statements.

We are not an accessory or piece of luggage for a man.

I tell ya, some people got stick their agenda into every conversation.

:shrug:

Every conversation? Forgive me, but have I met you?

I can see a red herring a mile away. your response was way off topic, so I checked out your posts... seems they always come back to certain issues, none of which had anything to do with the topic.

I did not respond to the OP but to a particular post, and I was most certainly on topic.

Well 007, it's a good thing that you are here to research posters whom you deem opposing your point of view, particualy if they are what??--too liberal??--too feminist??--or are you just here to be a hall monitor???

I think I took a bad mood out on you. I find some women on these boards to be so hateful towards men in general. I don't know if you fall into that category. I am a very strong liberal and a supporter of the feminist movement. I just do not like it when I find women who make the same mistakes as the patriarchal men they criticize. It is a sensitive point for me as I think we need to work towards some healing process. I did not do that by attacking you. I am just tired of some of the male bashing I see on these boards, and responded in kind.

Anti-abortion, pro-choice, and anti-DP.

When "life begins" is a moot point to me, because I hate the entire concept of abortion. But I'm 100% pro-choice.

If that needs explaining, I'll elaborate. In any case, I think it's an important distinction: You aren't necessarily "pro-abortion" if you're pro-choice, or anti-choice if you're "anti-abortion."

I am using concise categories, assuming that DUers are smart enough to figure it out. If you can suggest better semantics for the limited space allowed in a poll line, please do.

I just don't have the confidence you do in everyone's ability to figure it out.

It's really a semantical stickler, though, to come up with a way to explain the question when your space is so limited.

:hi:

I'd advise against abortion, but the only people who can make the final decision are the potential future mother and her doctor.

I am, personally, anti-abortion in the sense that I do not want people in most situations to have abortions to terminate a pregnancy. I am also opposed to the death penalty, if that is defined in its strictest sense, i.e. a state sponsored punishment for a crime.

Here's the thing, though. I do not want the state determining whether a woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy, which for political purposes puts me in the pro-choice camp. That does not make me pro-abortion. In my personal life I have tried to counsel women I know not to have abortions, but I have not made that decision for them. I have helped them to see their options. Some chose abortion. Others did not. My opinion of what they chose matters not in the least.

No inconsistency in my position exists. I do not want the state making these decisions.

kill her "born" child, right?

The only difference is that you've assigned an arbitrary set of qualifications to each instance. You've designated, arbitrarily, that the fetus does not have the same set of rights as the born child. You do want the state to make decisions about life and death, but only in the instances that you feel is permissible.

I don't have a clear opinion on all of this, myself. I'm a left libertarian, and I'm stuck between being vehemently pro-choice, but slightly hung up on the "everyone's entitled to life, liberty and property," thing. I'm not criticizing you because of my own agenda. I'm just pointing out that you DO, in fact, assign the state the power to decide punishment, and whose life is worth protecting, and whose is not.

You introduced a different variable that I did not and made assumptions based on that.

Now, having said that, of course I am assigning the state levels of power, but not in the manner you claim. I am also making implied assumptions about the nature of a fetus. There is nothing arbitrary about it. A fetus, in my view, is not a person until it can exist without being physically attached to the mother and thus has no rights that are not superseded by those of the mother. Call that harsh, but that's the way I see it, and it is based on medical science. I base my personal opposition to abortion on the notion of potential life, which has its own complicated definition in my mind. But, again, it's not arbitrary.

So your argument is based upon whether science can sustain a fetus. I just read an article in Popular Science that a doctor is currently proposing the idea that they soon will be able to do just that. INteresting how this will affect the issue. Artificial wombs. Maybe bearing children in the future will not be a woman's responsibility anymore. I am not sure how many mothers (even pro-choice ones) would feel about having this sacred act being obsolete. I feel strange about it as well.

The big difference between the two arguments is that where you can be ideologically consistent about protecting life re: against the death penalty, the abortion issue is much more complex as it pits protecting the life of the fetus with the reproductive privacy and rights of a woman.

I too, am not a fan of abortion and hope that if it does happen, it does as soon as possible as I think the abortion argument gets more difficult to morally defend the longer the gestation period continues. But I think her right to her own body supercedes that of any institution or government or religion telling her she cannot.

The hard part for the anti-abortion people to understand is that this is a privacy issue and the hard part for the pro-choice people is that no matter how hard they justify it, they are destroying life.

the death penalty should be an extreamly rare occurance. It needs to be reserved for the most heinous and brutal of crimes and there needs to be absolutely, positively no doubt that the person is guilty. If there is doubt, then it shouldnt be applicable.

I know some people will object and thats ok I dont mind. However, I'm sorry but a guy who brutally rapes and then murders a child can fry for all I care.

It's just as hypocritical to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion as it is to be the other way. I'm consistent.

Full rights under the Constitution for women does not mean that those who have found themselves in the criminal (in)justice system should not have full rights, and visa versa.

I call it true pro-life.

That's what he calls it, too.

However, with regards to abortion, I respect people's rights to make their own decisions. You cannot legislate morality! I would tell my girlfriend not to get an abortion because I think it's un-ethical. But I will not make you tell yours. You have to come to that conclusion on your own. After all, we are a nation of individuals, and all we can do is live our lives by the beliefs that guide us. If we force these beliefs upon others, that is not democracy or freedom, it's tyranny.

i'm pro choice but against the death plenty.

I'm really confused about that! I feel that one is done with remorse and guilt to avoid raising a child that could be brought up in an environment like Tookie was. Poor, uneducated, savage and cold he was all of those things. People would of cared more about him, in vitro then after he was born.

Now to counter my own arguments, how can I advocate saving a criminal yet destroying the potential of a life. A life yet undefined, except by what I might fear. Simply put, I can't.

I'm pro life in the sense all life should matter. Once brought into the world, fed clothed sheltered and at the very least, treated kindly. I can't justify the Gacys or Bundys, a portion of their brain just works differently then most.

Even given their horrors, they should of been lab rats, studied and prodded, until we had a better grasp. Is it our lack of understanding and fear that leads to executions and even abortion? Our inability to face the unknown? I can't say, I'm still figuring that out myself.

For now, I've decided I'm a Hypocrite and will label myself as such until I rectify it.

I don't support legal abolition of abortion because of the mess it would cause, but I oppose the act of abortion vehemently with the exceptions of when it is necessary or when a pregnancy is forced on the woman through rape. She shouldn't have to carry a baby that was the product of rape.

I am pro-choice but anti death penalty.

I will however kill anyone who harms a family member of mine. See, individually I understand the victim's family killing someone, let's say before the cops get to them. I just don't think that the state should kill in their place.

I believe in meaningful education, to aviod having to make a difficult painful decision. When someone gets pregnant and can't or does not want to have a child I am for giving them as many appropriate and positive options as feasable, but then it is between her and the doctor.

I think the death penalty is applied often unfairly, and will most likely continue to be.

It means that you allow others to make choices regarding their own lives and their own morality. And, of course, it is not the state delivering abortions. I would fully oppose state sanctioned and mandated abortion. And believe me, when that day comes, it will be the god-fearing Republican party that will be doing the mandating.

That seems consistent to me. I don't want a government agency having control over life and death.


Chris

Politically I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Personally I am pro-life and anti-death penalty.

Legal abortion is not comparable to the death penalty, IMO, because abortion is not forced on society by the state just because it is legal. I have the choice not to have one. But if the state is executing people they are doing it with our tax money on our behalf.