Abortion & Death Penalty

I posted this on a right wing board last week. None there could answer my question:

How can you be pro one and anti the other? I'm pro-life 100% over and over. An unborn child has a right to life the same as a convicted felon. Why fulfill a sick desire to kill someone after you've already caught them and they are in prison? On the other side, why murder an innocent unborn human? For any reason?

(I am logical - I do agree that if the mother's health is threatened, then an abortion may be necessary)

I just don't understand why Conservatives are labeled as "Pro Death/Anti-Abortion" and Democrats are labeled as "Anti-Death/Pro-Abortion"

I'm Anti-Both. What does that make me???

This latest thing in England where the preggy mother aborted her fetus late in the term because it had a cosmetic birth defect makes me physically sick.

How can someone be so completely heartless?

If you are speaking of the woman who aborted due to the fetus having a facial cleft, you obviously did not read the articles and know little about cleft palate. It is far, far more than a mere "cosmestic defect" and has serious, life-long health ramifications. Such coldhearted ignorance coupled with such willingness to cast the first stone makes me ill.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=469278

Unfortunately, it does not detail any ramifications. Can you provide a link to something that does?

Note that the person who is bringing the court case had a cleft palate herself, corrected by surgery.

What are the serious, long-term health ramifications of a cleft palate?

Also, calling ignorance 'cold hearted' is a bit of a stretch. Better to just tell the person how such a condition is really 'far, far more than a cosmetic defect' and educate them than just insult them.

I am no physician, so I can't possibly answer the question about the serious, long-term health ramifications of a cleft-palate.

What I can do, however, is point to the fact that under the abortion laws of the United Kingdom, abortion is legal after 24 weeks of gestation if there is serious risk to the mother or if the unborn child is going to be born with a "serious handicap".

According to the article cited in the link above ( http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=469278 ), the "Doctors caring for the mother took the view that a cleft palate could be a "serious handicap" that permitted them to abort the pregnancy after the 24-week threshold."

Apparently, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom wrote a letter affirming the determination of the doctors caring for the mother. The letter apparently said that "a decision to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of "serious handicap" should be taken in consultation with the parents."

So it would appear that, at least in the UK, if the parents consider a celft palate (or any other condition) to be a "serious handicap", then doctors could legally provide an abortion after 24 weeks of gestation.

And who are we to question the determination of physicians -- especially physicians in the business of providing abortions after 24 weeks of gestation??

I've searched the internet for quite a while and 99% of what I'm reading calls Cleft Palate a cosmetic deformity.

Unless the cleft is associated with other abnormalities or there are serious complications such as Pierre Robin Syndrome, clefts of the lip and palate are not usually life threatening.

The painful process of coming to terms with the reality of having a child with an abnormality is the threat.

I don't know enough about this particular case to determine if the child actually was in danger. But to make the decision to take the child's life instead of dealing with the issue is sickening and morally reprehensible. The more I read about it, the madder I get. And for you to step up and say that I'm am somehow coldhearted and ignorant is the exact attitude that is driving the morality in this nation right down into the toilet.

I'll even concede that the case that this child had was in fact, life threatening. Here's the decision that was made: "I don't want to have to deal with it, let's just murder the child while it's still legal"

All I've seen in the news stories is that the woman bringing the legal action had one.

Statement happily retracted.

is pretty much on par with that of Kucinich (well, was...it was hard for him to change his views...said it on CSpan). He was pro-life and anti-death penalty.

I think you are principled in your own special way, that's all.

"I think you are principled in your own special way, that's all."

Just making sure I wasn't loosing my mind. I appreciate the sentiment.

:-)

Personally, I think you have a high regard for life. You are indiscrimnate in your views when it comes to matters of life.

However, if an abortion topic was brough up on DU, be prepared to back yourself up. A lot of the people on this board is pro-choice.

"...be prepared to back yourself up. A lot of the people on this board are pro-choice."

My opinion here is more of a moral belief rather than a scientific one. I know I'll lose that conversation based on that reasoning alone.

However, I'd like to talk to the people who think the gal in England was justified for aborting her child due to a cosmetic flaw?

(Does anyone have a link to this story? I only saw bits of it on the news)

I don't think abortion should be banned in any case. I trust the medical community, not corrupt politicians trying to pander. I don't think the government has a right to legislate what people can and can't do with their bodies... drugs, abortion, etc... I consider a fetus a fetus until it's born. Yes, even up to the day before birth. Most people might find that immoral, but such cases of abortion just simply don't happen. No woman goes through 9 months of pregnancy just to decide at the last minute she doesn't want the kid. And the so-called "partial-birth" abortion (which BTW, isn't a medical term at all), is only performed when the health of the woman is at risk. That is according to the largest organization of OB/GYN doctors and the American Medical Association.

I also support the death penalty in principle. It's not about revenge. It's about punishment. But I think the justice system is corrupt and there should be a moratorium to clean it up. But clear cut cases, like the Bali bomber... there's no question that guy should die. There's no punishment on earth worthy of that kind of evil. Send him to the next to be dealt with. And if death is an infinitely long endless sleep, then so be it. At least there's no possibility he'll ever commit another murder.

"There's no punishment on earth worthy of that kind of evil."

You're telling me you can't think of a fate worse than death? I can think of thousands of things this guy should be subjected to other than the release of death.

So, since we all die - does that mean we are all being punished to the full extent of the law? Come on, death is a release into something unknown. I say we kick the crap out of this guy, wait for him to heal then repeat the process.

IMHO - That would deter crime.

I think there are things that are worst than death. Loniness, Hopelessness, etc. I don't know, this is just my personal belief.

If these two are equal, I'll eat my balls.

"If these two are equal, I'll eat my balls."

LOL - Now comes the quest of proving they are equal.

Obviously, they are not equal. The principal of killing either of them is an equal assessment. I'm not saying "don't punish the criminal" - I'm just saying it's unnecessary to take the life.

Sure, torture could be worse, but we have that darned Constitution. Things would be so much easier without it right? :p

"Sure, torture could be worse, but we have that darned Constitution. Things would be so much easier without it right?"

I was just ranting. Still, solitary confinement can't be a cakewalk.

I know I'd want evil people to suffer and stuff, but it's important not to succumb to those urges. I'm more for death penalty because of the cost of imprisonment.

Solitary can be bad, and some people may even welcome death, but I just don't see why someone should live in prison until they die of natural causes. They're gonna die anyways, just get it over with and save the money. Let's feed starving Africans before we feed murderers. :D

The cost of imposing a death sentence is MUCH higher than life imprisonment.

how can one be anti-choice and pro death penalty?

not about saving life... I can't respect anti-choice people who support the DP

I can, however, respect people who truly are pro-life. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their love of living things. For some, it is genuine.

to put someone on death row than put them in prison? From what I understand, it is super expensive for a death penalty trial AND also for the appeals. It runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Most Democrats -- both elected and registered -- support the death penalty. And most registered Republicans are pro-choice -- a little-known fact. So, both Republicans and Democrats are pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

I don't see a contradiction in being for one and against the other at all.

If you're pro-death penalty but anti-abortion, you believe that innocent lives are worse preserving, but the lives of criminals are not.

If you're anti-death penalty but pro-choice, you believe that criminals shouldn't be killed because they're still people. Fetuses aren't people (at least not until a certain point).

> criminals shouldn't be killed because they're still people

Furthermore, not everyone who is convicted is guilty. Our criminal justice system is, at this time, so seriously marred by racism and double-standards for the wealthy, that a serious inquiry regarding each and every death row case is warranted. Even GOP gov. Ryan understood this.

The best justification for the death penalty I've heard is that it keeps a vicious criminal from escaping and doing further harm. But first, one must be sure by a higher standard than our current "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person convicted is the perp. Every time a convict is freed on the basis of hard (e.g., genetic) evidence, there MUST have been reasonable doubt at some point that was not recognized by the jury.

So long as our justice system is run by human beings, it will never be perfect. Probably the strongest moral position against the death penalty.

I am pro-choice because I don't think government should claim jurisdiction over a woman's body.

I am very much against the conditions that cause many women to choose abortion. If government were truly pro-life it would adopt policies that cherish and support the life of mother and child together. It would choose to enact policies to make living as a single parent a much more tenable proposition. There would be consideration for the 'rights of the born' as well as the unborn.

There is no serious consideration of the 'rights of the born' as long as this pertains, I will remain pro-choice.

I am anti-death penalty because it is an overt action by government to take life. It sets the example that we condone killing as a way to solve problems. Many murderers believe that they are solving their problems in a similar way. They feel justified in their actions. This is the nature of a 'crime of passion'. The calls for revenge that are most often associated with death penalty proponents are of a kind with those who commit crimes of passion.

The death penalty does not deter crimes of passion or the acts of the insane. I believe it contributes to the atmosphere that results in this country having one of the highest gun violence rates in the industrialized world.

A human does not have a soul until it is born and draws breath, a murderer is already alive and killing him will speed up his divine retribution. Conservative viewpoints are not founded on quality of life issues, medical ethics or population control arguments.

The number of total souls must be maximized, the actual secular existence in this world is secondary to saving the maximum number of souls. That religious dogma damages the long term health and sustainability of the human race and does not enter into the equation because to many rapture is right around the corner.

"A human does not have a soul until it is born and draws breath"

I've read this sentence over 10 times and I can't help but think you're saying it as a definitive statement. I somehow doubt you know something the rest of us don't.

I respect your opinion, I completely disagree with it.

And how do you tell if you or someone else or something has one?

I don't. But I don't take the unnecessary chance either.

And it is a sentence (unverifiable, of course) which I'm sure you've seen or heard before.

(note as an atheist do not think I subscribe to these views)

http://www.newchurchissues.org/bca/am83aadg.htm

This disregards positions such as 'the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison' and just examines the 'moral' angle, as I think this is what you are interested in. Anyway, on with the rationalizations, I suppose.

Pro-choice + anti-deathpenalty = values living humans, even if they have commited terrible crimes. At the same time, they do not value fetuses who have not commited crimes, generally because they are not defined as human (ie are not human). So this is a consistent position holding all human life sacroscanct. It is just that fetuses are not human life.

Anti-choice + Pro-deathpenalty = values potential to become human, but not if you have commited a terrible crime. This is a consistent position saying that if you commit a crime, you can lose your rights, and this includes life. But unborn babies have not commited crimes, so we can't kill them, because they are human and we don't kill humans unless they have commited a terrible crime.

So the main points of difference are 1) whether one can forfeit one's right to life by commiting a crime and 2) whether a fetus/unborn child is defined as human or not. While it may seem on the face of it that both the standard 'liberal' and 'conservative' positions are inconsistent, if you look at them like this I think it makes more sense. 1 and 2 are seperate questions.

I apologize for any incoherence ;)

I can see that rational - But I still don't understand it. I know the thought process I'm lacking. It's the ability to say 'this life is worth more than this life'

I just can't do that.

I understand the above mentioned positions but just can't absorb them as reality. *sigh*

I know I'm in the minority here. I was in the minority when I posted the same question on the right-wing board. Only found one person there who agreed with me.

I don't think it's the entire problem with the direction of the country, but I do think it plays a part. How do we view ourselves as human beings who have a right to survive and a moral duty to protect that life?

You seem to be looking at it from a strong rights based view, with life as the primary right.

Personally I am at the point (right now, anyway) where I tend to look at things from non-moral viewpoints and from a generally utilitarian viewpoint where I do think about subjective morality. Perhaps more precisely, I tend to look at effects, which are not commonly thought of as having to do with 'morality,' though they are central to Utilitarianism. If by killing 1 random person I could save 1000, for example, I would do so in a heartbeat. Or for example if abortion were banned, it would still exist and fetuses/babies would still be killed, but more dangerously for the mother. And there would also be millions of new babies that no one wanted to adopt.

So I think opposition can be based on something as simple as basing ones conception of morality on a different ethical theory than yours. (I think this applies at least only partially to most people on abortion and the death penalty, though)

But I think I can see and understand your view (I sort of/almost/held it once). I think it is essential to realize that differing views on this sort of thing are based on different assumptions, or axioms, which lead to different conclusions, and thus different worldviews that come into conflict. Politics is the battle to spread ones assumptions.

"It is just that fetuses are not human life."

If that is so, then what, exactly, are human fetuses?

It seems to me that if you suggest that human fetuses are not human life, you must necessarily argue that they are either not human or not life.

If they are not human, then what are they?

And if they are not life, what are they? They certainly are not dead.

But I'd just like to say the responses here in the last 30 minutes have been 100% better than the last 5 days of the right-winger responses.

Thanks!

I personally am not in a position to have an abortion and might possibly NOT choose that route for myself but frankly, I DO think it is a PRO-LFE position since women will get abortions anyway and am old enough to remember when back room procedures with unsterile equipment killed them in the course of obtaining one.

BTW, so you played on a right wing board admittedly and you posted this question here. Therefore, I feel it is a fair question...which are you ? Right or left wing?

You are correct. That is a fair question. Here is my answer:

Neither.

I understand the DU position and I may very well be kicked out for stating that I am not a pronounced democrat.

My stance waivers depending on the person running. I'm what you would call a "swing vote"

I've voted democratic and republican in past elections. I've even obstained because I liked neither candidate.

My purpose here on DU will be to partake in your left-wing discussions because, frankly, I agree with some of them and would like to participate in said discussions. Those I disagree with, I will do my best to keep my mouth shut and fingers tied out of respect for your site.

Or a 'consistent life ethic' person. There is a free bumper sticker you can find on the net that shows the following words with circled lines drawn through them (as in "Stop"): http://madprof.home.mindspring.com/ethic.html

War Poverty Abortion
Euthanasia Capital Punishment Racism

I'm largely in agreement with you, but spending time on this discussion board and around other progressives has led me to try hard to open my mind to the pro-choice position.

That'll make a very good bumper sticker!

Thanks for the link!

My candiate as Serp says was pro life and against the death penalty for the longest time, hes changed his stance on abortion but still oppposes the death penalty. I am pro choice and oppose the death penalty but soley welcome to DU and I respect your opinion, its the same one of my devoutly Catholic grandmother. BTW I think theres some people not a majority of DUers who may share your belief. Welcome, and I hope abortion can be reduced but not through making life hard for the mother and I also hope the death penalty can be banned.

I do not like the concept of either one.

Murderers should be kept in a maximum security prison for life. I have no sympathy for them but I cannot see the point in the Death penalty. If the victim is dead, then killing the aggressor will not bring them back.

I do not like killing in any form.

and I'm pro-choice.

and I'm a Bruins fan :shrug:

Sorry....back to the topic :)

I guess the answer to your question would be the difference between guilt and innocence.

One person has committed horrible acts, been tried, found guilty by a jury and sentenced to death.

The other is the absolute pinnacle of innocence, not having even been born yet.

You're asking how it could be justified to kill one and not the other?

I really don't see a problem logically with it?

Guilty should be punished, innocent shouldn't be.

Or is it a discussion of the type of punishment? If that's the case, then there really isn't any tie-in to abortion because no one is arguing to punish the fetus.

I will show up the fundamental illogic of your argument (such as it is): the death penalty is performed by the state; an abortion is performed only if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy ocurring within her own body. Now, if the state suddenly decides to force women to continue pregnancies against their will, then there might be some parallel between capital punishment and forced birth.

You should know that EVERY pregnancy is a threat to EVERY woman's health (source: Williams Obstetrics). I guess that means you support every woman's right to decide how much of a risk to her health and her life she's wiling to take.

"I'm Anti-Both. What does that make me???"

A Roman Catholic?

You are painting liberals and conservatives with a broader brush than necessary. Most people, afik, don't have absolute opinions on either subject, and are troubled by any form of death.

Although I'm not Catholic, and don't entirely buy into Seamless Garment, I've long been an admirer of of the dearly departed Bernardin, and once thought he'd make a great Pope. Alas, that's not to be. From his perspective of the soul being present at conception, however, his reasoning is faultless.

And, that is the key. Is a fetus a person? I don't think so, but I don't know any more than anyone who says it is. Neither science nor religion have given us a proper answer. I am uncomfortable with the concept of abortion, but I can't see any reason to prohibit it. I can see reducing the need for abortion as other countries have done by better access to birth control and more assistance in parenting.

If indeed a fetus is a person, it is being murdered by abortion. But, we don't know that. Some may believe it, but they can't prove it. Until we all agree that it is a person, the state has no right to interfere, and it is a decision entirely of the parties involved.

With capital punishment, though, we are dealing with a real person. Those who are against abortion but pro-DP will say that a criminal made a conscious choice to commit the crime, and therefore must accept whatever punishment is decreed.

Without going into most of the usual pro- or con- arguments, I have a fundamental problem with the state ordering someone to be killed. The state has set up a class of people that it wants extinguished. I don't believe the state has that right.

I also believe that everyone has the right to live to "repent." I don't mean "repent" in necessarily a religious sense, but we all have the ability to change. Although we are well aware that many craven criminals will never change, there are those who do. And we should spare the lives of all that those few may. Keep 'em locked up, if necessary, but don't kill them.

“If indeed a fetus is a person, it is being murdered by abortion. But, we don't know that. Some may believe it, but they can't prove it. Until we all agree that it is a person, the state has no right to interfere, and it is a decision entirely of the parties involved.”

That exactly sums up my quandary on the issue. But, instead of looking at it as saying “the state has no right to interfere”, I wind up on the other side. The reason for this is as follows – let’s agree that a baby is a person upon delivery. But, is that same baby a fetus (i.e. abort-able) 10 minutes before that? A day? A week? Where is the threshold where one can say that the baby is not a person and can be aborted?

If it’s determined by viability, then my same question holds. Is it OK to abort that fetus 10 minutes before viability, but not after? How do you ever make that call?

I don’t know. To me it’s just such a slippery slope that I can’t come to terms with it. So, I guess my answer is the exact reverse of yours. That is, until we all agree that it is not a person, the state has no right to condone the practice.

although one could argue the point, albeit fruitlessly. It is a reasonable conclusion, and one that probably depends more on a personal sense of morality than on logic. As does mine.

But this entire debate is about personal morality and not logic or science or law.

Can we, through the state, force our own morality and ethics on others?

The debate goes on, and some day we might find an answer we all can agree on.

(don't hold your breath)

The government can mediate your relationship with society, but they can't go inside your head and tell you what to think, and they can't go under your skin and change your body.

Abortion is basically a question about what you believe and what you do with your body. The government's authority over you doesn't reach into either.

Criminal justice is a question about mediating relationships with society. If a I do something that interferes with society, the government can take me out of society. But the government's domain stops there. It can't go inside my head and brainwash me, and it can't go inside my body and change it or kill it.

Know what I mean?

Mind and body -- I'm master of that domain.

Societal relationships -- that's the governments domain. That's part of the social contract.

"The government can mediate your relationship with society, but they can't go inside your head and tell you what to think"

No, the government can't tell you what to think. But it can (and will) punish you if you don't think correct thoughts.

For instance, if you decide to beat me up because you and I disagree about something, the law will punish you for beating me up.

But if, in the course of beating me up, you happen to utter something like, "stupid fag", or "damned queer", then, in some jurisdictions, you will be punished even more severely -- even though your actual action against me (beating me up) is the same.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this is a proper thing for government to do -- I have some serious issues with "hate crime" bills. I happen to think that all violent crime is, to one degree or another, based on hatred.

"Abortion is basically a question about what you believe and what you do with your body"

At some point during a pregnancy, though, aren't there really two bodies involved? I would suggest that abortion is basically a question about what you believe and what you do with regard to your own body and how you decide to treat another living body.

Respect for life is something we still haven't quite gotten the hang of.

Some will stand up and fight hard over gay rights or the 10 commandments in front of a courtroom, while hundreds of children (edit for clarity: not fetuses, not unborn, but CHILDREN) are murdered by their parents or foster parents in this country alone, and millions more innocents die of diarrhea or other preventable diseases in third world countries. Figure that one out.

IF I had to guess I'd say it's because we want to be distracted from the really tough problems, so we pick out the easy parts. We decide which issue we want to be concerned with and ignore the rest -- leave that for others to wrestle with.

Even worse, it seems some actively try to avoid thinking about the things which might create any cognitive dissonance.

Such as the fact that sentience starts BEFORE an infant is born. Someday it will have to be dealt with. Sadly, that day doesn't seem to be upon us yet.

The sooner we can drop the hardline fight for the right to abortion as a plank from the Democratic party platform the better, IMO.

as well as Pro-Choice. I hate the idea of abortion but cannot see limiting another persons control over their own body. If it were up to me I would decrease the number of abortions through providing more contraceptives and providing better sex education.

I am against the Death Penalty because the state has no right to decide matters of life or death, because I feel as a citizen the blood of murderers is on my hands, because I think life imprisonment is a worse punishment, because it is racist and classist.

I'd like to see there not be a need for abortions anymore, and for the DP to be made illegal.