Is it coherent to favor the Death Penalty but not abortion?

[Flail]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

[dianaiad]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

It comes down to this: and, by the way, thank you for admitting that both are the end of human lives; if they were not, you couldn't compare them, could you?

OK, now that we have (and thank you again for doing that, btw) established that both the death penalty and abortion represent the ending of human life, let us look at the differences:

death penalty: the death of someone as a punishment for what he or she did--usually involving killing an innocent.

abortion: killing an innocent as punishment for something his parents did--so that his parents don't have to take responsibility for their choices and actually be parents.

How strange of us to see an actual difference between the two concepts.

See Vanguard's post. I do not expect you to remember either me or my views, but I do not think a fetus is a human being...a fetus is a fetus. But this is not about me. My challenge is to those who, for whatever reason favor killing humans beings as criminals while being against terminating pregnancies because 'they think' a fetus is a human life. How is that consistent or coherent?....that's the OP challenge. If you think a fetus is a sacred human life, do you not think as well that a criminal is a sacred human life? Or, in your book, does one forfeit his standing as human being or sacred by committing certain 'sins'?
But your efforts to craft a straw man were excellent nevertheless.

Not strawmen arguments, Flail.

Your question is EXACTLY like asking why someone who thinks the death penalty as punishment for murder is fine, but killing a two year old (perhaps she learned how to say 'why?") isn't.

But turn this around; the question is far more applicable the other way: why is someone who is against the death penalty, because we don't have the right to end the life even of a murderer, but abortion is just fine and dandy?

[Flail]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

It comes down to this: and, by the way, thank you for admitting that both are the end of human lives; if they were not, you couldn't compare them, could you?

OK, now that we have (and thank you again for doing that, btw) established that both the death penalty and abortion represent the ending of human life, let us look at the differences:

death penalty: the death of someone as a punishment for what he or she did--usually involving killing an innocent.

abortion: killing an innocent as punishment for something his parents did--so that his parents don't have to take responsibility for their choices and actually be parents.

How strange of us to see an actual difference between the two concepts.

See Vanguard's post. I do not expect you to remember either me or my views, but I do not think a fetus is a human being...a fetus is a fetus. But this is not about me. My challenge is to those who, for whatever reason favor killing humans beings as criminals while being against terminating pregnancies because 'they think' a fetus is a human life. How is that consistent or coherent?....that's the OP challenge. If you think a fetus is a sacred human life, do you not think as well that a criminal is a sacred human life? Or, in your book, does one forfeit his standing as human being or sacred by committing certain 'sins'?
But your efforts to craft a straw man were excellent nevertheless.

Not strawmen arguments, Flail.

Your question is EXACTLY like asking why someone who thinks the death penalty as punishment for murder is fine, but killing a two year old (perhaps she learned how to say 'why?") isn't.

But turn this around; the question is far more applicable the other way: why is someone who is against the death penalty, because we don't have the right to end the life even of a murderer, but abortion is just fine and dandy?

Not even close to the same thing. If you can't defend your position by answering the OP, please refrain from redrafting the OP question in an attempt to justify an otherwise untenable position on your part.

Abortion deals exclusively with the fetus, and a fetus is a fetus, an embryo; and a two year old child is not a fetus, not an embryo. I am against the death penalty because I am against killing human beings except in self defense. I am pro-choice because I believe that a mother, rather than the government, should control her own pregnancy and deal with the fetus/embryo inside her the same as she deals with the eggs inside her or as I might deal with my sperm.

[WinePusher]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

I think it's inconsistent and incoherent. I personally subscribe to the consistent life ethnic and oppose the death penalty. However, I stand against people like you Flail, who support abortion and oppose the death penalty. If anyone is being inconsistent it's you. At least people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion are able to see the world realistically. A person on death row has committed a reprehensible act and it's understandable why people would want him to recieve the death penalty. On the other hand, a fetus has done nothing to warrant its termination. Yet, people like you support the right to life of horrible criminals and don't support it for innocent fetuses. That's incoherent, illogical and inconsistent but it's the typical liberal approach to criminal justice.

[dianaiad]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

It comes down to this: and, by the way, thank you for admitting that both are the end of human lives; if they were not, you couldn't compare them, could you?

OK, now that we have (and thank you again for doing that, btw) established that both the death penalty and abortion represent the ending of human life, let us look at the differences:

death penalty: the death of someone as a punishment for what he or she did--usually involving killing an innocent.

abortion: killing an innocent as punishment for something his parents did--so that his parents don't have to take responsibility for their choices and actually be parents.

How strange of us to see an actual difference between the two concepts.

See Vanguard's post. I do not expect you to remember either me or my views, but I do not think a fetus is a human being...a fetus is a fetus. But this is not about me. My challenge is to those who, for whatever reason favor killing humans beings as criminals while being against terminating pregnancies because 'they think' a fetus is a human life. How is that consistent or coherent?....that's the OP challenge. If you think a fetus is a sacred human life, do you not think as well that a criminal is a sacred human life? Or, in your book, does one forfeit his standing as human being or sacred by committing certain 'sins'?
But your efforts to craft a straw man were excellent nevertheless.

Not strawmen arguments, Flail.

Your question is EXACTLY like asking why someone who thinks the death penalty as punishment for murder is fine, but killing a two year old (perhaps she learned how to say 'why?") isn't.

But turn this around; the question is far more applicable the other way: why is someone who is against the death penalty, because we don't have the right to end the life even of a murderer, but abortion is just fine and dandy?

Not even close to the same thing.{/quote]

It is EXACTLY the same thing in the minds of the pro-life folks. In fact, claiming that it is not is begging the real question being asked; are unborn humans actually human beings, worthy of the right NOT to be killed for the sake of convenience?

To pretty much everybody, the two year old is a human being; innocent and not to be killed; indeed, doing so makes one eligible FOR that death penalty. For pro-life advocates, SO IS THE UNBORN HUMAN....yes, it's a 'fetus,' but being a fetus does not mean you are NOT a human being any more than being a baby does or being a toddler does, or being a teenager does. Each stage of life comes with inherent risks, and there is no more dangerous time of life than that which one goes through during the nine months or so before birth....but that does NOT mean that one is not human, not alive, and not worthy of that most basic of human rights; the right not to be killed 'just because.'

So you are begging the question. IF a fetus is not a human being, and (for instance) might turn out to be a frog, instead of a human baby upon birth, then you might have a point. As a pro-abortion/pro-choice advocate, you obviously do not agree that there is a human being worthy of a chance at life. Pro-life folks think there is.

It is not logical to expect someone who disagrees with your basic assumptions to agree with you about anything that depends upon that assumption being true.

If you can't defend your position by answering the OP, please refrain from redrafting the OP question in an attempt to justify an otherwise untenable position on your part.

I did answer the OP. Quite clearly, I thought. However, you, my friend, are begging the question.

If it is 'coherent' to favor imprisoning convicted felons, but not infants who haven't stolen anything, then it is coherent to favor the death penalty but not abortion; if the assumption is that both represent life (and that's what the OP did, equating life and life), then it is perfectly coherent to advocate punishing the guilty for the wrongful acts they commit, but not for visiting the same punishment upon the innocent who have committed NO wrongful act.

If we take the assumption allowed by the OP, that both the unborn and convicted murderers are human lives, then it is quite logical to turn the question around; how coherent IS it to advocate saving the life of a convicted killer of innocents, but advocate the killing of innocents?

Oh. wait.

On second thought, never mind. Here's the thing; it is quite coherent to punish those who kill innocents while attempting to save the lives of others.

It's also coherent, on the OTHER side of the scale, to advocated the killing of innocents and to save the lives of killers. Why not? What's the difference between the guy who murders a two year old and someone who gets an abortion because she was too irresponsible to use birth control correctly...and then finds herself saddled with the human life she started?

I see no difference, not in result; both are people who deliberately chose to end a human life because that life was inconvenient, or bothersome, or seen as disposable. So (shrug) I can see, after all, why pro-abortionists would be against the death penalty.

Abortion deals exclusively with the fetus, and a fetus is a fetus, an embryo; and a two year old child is not a fetus, not an embryo.

No.

And a baby is not an adult. However, if you kill a baby, you are just as guilty of murder as if your victim were an adult. To pro-life advocates, the assumption is that the fetus IS A HUMAN BEING, a human life...'fetus' is simply the name of the growth category that human individual is in right now; one that WILL change, and WILL become: baby, toddler, child, pre-pubescent, teenager, adult....unless it dies first. Pro-life folks simply think that, just as it is not considered acceptable to kill a baby SO that it won't become a child, it is just as wrong to kill a fetus SO that it won't become a baby.

We sure as heck don't buy into your assumption that a fetus is some alien life form that has nothing to do with the baby it will become.

I am against the death penalty because I am against killing human beings except in self defense. I am pro-choice because I believe that a mother, rather than the government, should control her own pregnancy and deal with the fetus/embryo inside her the same as she deals with the eggs inside her or as I might deal with my sperm.

You have, of course, the right to believe as you wish. I am simply pointing out that it is neither logical nor fair to expect someone who disagrees with your basic assumptions (that a fetus is somehow not human/alive/a person/whatever) to use YOUR assumptions when arguing a position.

If you are right, and the fetus is nothing more than a disposable bit of extraneous and inconvenient flotsam, then the question might have merit. However, the OP itself, by asking the question in the way it was asked, threw your assumption out and EQUATED THE FETUS AND THE CRIMINAL as both equally valid human lives.

Since it did, well....yeah, it is coherent to advocate ending the life of a killer of innocents AND to protect innocents in turn.

Just as it is coherent to advocate ending innocent lives (the unborn) and protecting killers of other sorts of innocents.

[Flail]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

I think it's inconsistent and incoherent. I personally subscribe to the consistent life ethnic and oppose the death penalty. However, I stand against people like you Flail, who support abortion and oppose the death penalty. If anyone is being inconsistent it's you. At least people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion are able to see the world realistically. A person on death row has committed a reprehensible act and it's understandable why people would want him to recieve the death penalty. On the other hand, a fetus has done nothing to warrant its termination. Yet, people like you support the right to life of horrible criminals and don't support it for innocent fetuses. That's incoherent, illogical and inconsistent but it's the typical liberal approach to criminal justice.

Good points. Finally someone makes a strong argument on your side. I disagree, but nevertheless, good stuff. However I don't see consistency or coherency in claiming that a fetus is a person like a criminal or a child is a a person.

If someone supports the sanctioned killing of people by government because they have committed a crime, it doesn't appear as if they are holding to their abortion view that all existence is sacred nor are they following the Commandment 'thou shalt not kill.'

[Flail]

Question for debate:

Is it coherent (logical and consistent) to be supportive of the Death Penalty for some criminals, while at the same time being against all manner of abortion?

It comes down to this: and, by the way, thank you for admitting that both are the end of human lives; if they were not, you couldn't compare them, could you?

OK, now that we have (and thank you again for doing that, btw) established that both the death penalty and abortion represent the ending of human life, let us look at the differences:

death penalty: the death of someone as a punishment for what he or she did--usually involving killing an innocent.

abortion: killing an innocent as punishment for something his parents did--so that his parents don't have to take responsibility for their choices and actually be parents.

How strange of us to see an actual difference between the two concepts.

See Vanguard's post. I do not expect you to remember either me or my views, but I do not think a fetus is a human being...a fetus is a fetus. But this is not about me. My challenge is to those who, for whatever reason favor killing humans beings as criminals while being against terminating pregnancies because 'they think' a fetus is a human life. How is that consistent or coherent?....that's the OP challenge. If you think a fetus is a sacred human life, do you not think as well that a criminal is a sacred human life? Or, in your book, does one forfeit his standing as human being or sacred by committing certain 'sins'?
But your efforts to craft a straw man were excellent nevertheless.

Not strawmen arguments, Flail.

Your question is EXACTLY like asking why someone who thinks the death penalty as punishment for murder is fine, but killing a two year old (perhaps she learned how to say 'why?") isn't.

But turn this around; the question is far more applicable the other way: why is someone who is against the death penalty, because we don't have the right to end the life even of a murderer, but abortion is just fine and dandy?

Not even close to the same thing.{/quote]

It is EXACTLY the same thing in the minds of the pro-life folks. In fact, claiming that it is not is begging the real question being asked; are unborn humans actually human beings, worthy of the right NOT to be killed for the sake of convenience?

To pretty much everybody, the two year old is a human being; innocent and not to be killed; indeed, doing so makes one eligible FOR that death penalty. For pro-life advocates, SO IS THE UNBORN HUMAN....yes, it's a 'fetus,' but being a fetus does not mean you are NOT a human being any more than being a baby does or being a toddler does, or being a teenager does. Each stage of life comes with inherent risks, and there is no more dangerous time of life than that which one goes through during the nine months or so before birth....but that does NOT mean that one is not human, not alive, and not worthy of that most basic of human rights; the right not to be killed 'just because.'

So you are begging the question. IF a fetus is not a human being, and (for instance) might turn out to be a frog, instead of a human baby upon birth, then you might have a point. As a pro-abortion/pro-choice advocate, you obviously do not agree that there is a human being worthy of a chance at life. Pro-life folks think there is.

It is not logical to expect someone who disagrees with your basic assumptions to agree with you about anything that depends upon that assumption being true.

If you can't defend your position by answering the OP, please refrain from redrafting the OP question in an attempt to justify an otherwise untenable position on your part.

I did answer the OP. Quite clearly, I thought. However, you, my friend, are begging the question.

If it is 'coherent' to favor imprisoning convicted felons, but not infants who haven't stolen anything, then it is coherent to favor the death penalty but not abortion; if the assumption is that both represent life (and that's what the OP did, equating life and life), then it is perfectly coherent to advocate punishing the guilty for the wrongful acts they commit, but not for visiting the same punishment upon the innocent who have committed NO wrongful act.

If we take the assumption allowed by the OP, that both the unborn and convicted murderers are human lives, then it is quite logical to turn the question around; how coherent IS it to advocate saving the life of a convicted killer of innocents, but advocate the killing of innocents?

Oh. wait.

On second thought, never mind. Here's the thing; it is quite coherent to punish those who kill innocents while attempting to save the lives of others.

It's also coherent, on the OTHER side of the scale, to advocated the killing of innocents and to save the lives of killers. Why not? What's the difference between the guy who murders a two year old and someone who gets an abortion because she was too irresponsible to use birth control correctly...and then finds herself saddled with the human life she started?

I see no difference, not in result; both are people who deliberately chose to end a human life because that life was inconvenient, or bothersome, or seen as disposable. So (shrug) I can see, after all, why pro-abortionists would be against the death penalty.

Abortion deals exclusively with the fetus, and a fetus is a fetus, an embryo; and a two year old child is not a fetus, not an embryo.

No.

And a baby is not an adult. However, if you kill a baby, you are just as guilty of murder as if your victim were an adult. To pro-life advocates, the assumption is that the fetus IS A HUMAN BEING, a human life...'fetus' is simply the name of the growth category that human individual is in right now; one that WILL change, and WILL become: baby, toddler, child, pre-pubescent, teenager, adult....unless it dies first. Pro-life folks simply think that, just as it is not considered acceptable to kill a baby SO that it won't become a child, it is just as wrong to kill a fetus SO that it won't become a baby.

We sure as heck don't buy into your assumption that a fetus is some alien life form that has nothing to do with the baby it will become.

I am against the death penalty because I am against killing human beings except in self defense. I am pro-choice because I believe that a mother, rather than the government, should control her own pregnancy and deal with the fetus/embryo inside her the same as she deals with the eggs inside her or as I might deal with my sperm.

You have, of course, the right to believe as you wish. I am simply pointing out that it is neither logical nor fair to expect someone who disagrees with your basic assumptions (that a fetus is somehow not human/alive/a person/whatever) to use YOUR assumptions when arguing a position.

If you are right, and the fetus is nothing more than a disposable bit of extraneous and inconvenient flotsam, then the question might have merit. However, the OP itself, by asking the question in the way it was asked, threw your assumption out and EQUATED THE FETUS AND THE CRIMINAL as both equally valid human lives.

Since it did, well....yeah, it is coherent to advocate ending the life of a killer of innocents AND to protect innocents in turn.

Just as it is coherent to advocate ending innocent lives (the unborn) and protecting killers of other sorts of innocents.

Good points. To be clear, I am not pro-abortion and if one of my family members or friends came to me I might well try to talk them into becoming parents depending on the circumstances. Parenthood is a wonderful thing IMO. But I am pro-choice as I see a fundamental privacy issue in government dictating the use of a woman's birth mechanisms and choices. I don't sanction government killing of criminals for several reasons, not the least of which is that I abhor unnecessary violence and I know something about the inefficiency of the legal system that ends up killing criminals 20-30 years after the fact and in a few cases kills innocent people. I don't favor terminating pregnancies but I can't support government intervention in such a private matter as fetus management. And again, by definition, a fetus is simply a fetus and nothing more.

As to the OP, it simply 'compared' the two positions and asked for debate on how those positions are compatible ie, consistent and coherent. The fact that you see that as 'equating the life of criminals and fetuses merely demonstrates your bias as to your particular point of view. We each have our view of course as to whether criminals are equatable with fetuses. But the OP is simply a question not an argument or a position. You've now answered the question, but you can't make the OP something it is not.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Not strawmen arguments, Flail.

Your question is EXACTLY like asking why someone who thinks the death penalty as punishment for murder is fine, but killing a two year old (perhaps she learned how to say 'why?") isn't.

But turn this around; the question is far more applicable the other way: why is someone who is against the death penalty, because we don't have the right to end the life even of a murderer, but abortion is just fine and dandy?

Not even close to the same thing.

To pretty much everybody, the two year old is a human being; innocent and not to be killed; indeed, doing so makes one eligible FOR that death penalty. For pro-life advocates, SO IS THE UNBORN HUMAN....yes, it's a 'fetus,' but being a fetus does not mean you are NOT a human being any more than being a baby does or being a toddler does, or being a teenager does.

The key distinction would be that one is alive and the other is not. terminating or aborting a fetus is not "killing", you cannot kill something that is not alive in the first place. The fetus is no more alive than the embryo it came from and the embryo is no more alive than the zygote it came from and the zygote is no more alive than the gametes it came from. Every single one of these have the potential for life but we don't call it murder or even killing when someone masturbates or menstruates.

Each stage of life comes with inherent risks, and there is no more dangerous time of life than that which one goes through during the nine months or so before birth....but that does NOT mean that one is not human, not alive, and not worthy of that most basic of human rights; the right not to be killed 'just because.'

"Just because". That's certainly not a reason I've ever come across for an abortion. Honest representation would be nice. As far as humans having the right not to be killed, humans do not have that right, there are many circumstances where the death of a human is no problem at all, most of those situations occur when one human infringes upon the rights of another.

If it is 'coherent' to favor imprisoning convicted felons, but not infants who haven't stolen anything, then it is coherent to favor the death penalty but not abortion; if the assumption is that both represent life (and that's what the OP did, equating life and life), then it is perfectly coherent to advocate punishing the guilty for the wrongful acts they commit, but not for visiting the same punishment upon the innocent who have committed NO wrongful act.

How is it punishment? How could a fetus be punished? A fetus can be physically effected by things but punishment is more of an emotional and intellectual concept and a fetus is incapable of conscious behavior due to it's incompletely formed brain.

It's also coherent, on the OTHER side of the scale, to advocated the killing of innocents and to save the lives of killers. Why not? What's the difference between the guy who murders a two year old and someone who gets an abortion because she was too irresponsible to use birth control correctly...and then finds herself saddled with the human life she started?

One murdered a living breathing child who is capable of feeling pain and emotional attachment, a child who was (presumably) in the care of this person who murdered them. There are many other options than killing the two year old, adoption is one. In the case of the abortion, the only option is abortion or giving birth, the fetus is not yet developed enough to have a consciousness, it is not alive (presuming that the abortion occurred prior to the second trimester).

[Moses Yoder]

I'm against both abortion and the death penalty (although I'm pro-choice in certain circumstances), but I can see how one could support the DP and not abortion. Such a person could say that they support protecting innocent life, but have no problem killing convicted murderers as murder forfeits one's right to live. I disagree with this line of reasoning, but I can see how one could coherently defend it.

As for me? I'll stick with the KJV 1611 version of the 6th commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

If you support that commandment then logically you would have to support punishment for those people who disobey it. What punishment should be meted out to those who break the law and kill someone? I heard in the news this morning of a man here who got out of prison and 2 months later shot someone. Intentionally, in cold blood, in full grip of his mind with an illegally possessed firearm. What should be done to him?

He should get life in prison without parole. Why should you or your government be permitted to violate the very Commandment you support? There isn't any addendum to it...it says what it says....do not kill.

If the commandment literally means "Thou shalt not Kill" I am in big trouble. Last fall we bought some apples that came into our house with fruit flies, and we have lots of animals so the house is kind of a fruit fly breeding ground. We never had problems with them before but now we do, and we have killed hundreds of the little buggers, if not thousands. Yes, "Thou shalt not Kill" now takes on a whole new meaning. If it actually means "Thou shalt not murder" then I guess that would be a whole different meaning, and would preclude punishment meted out by the government, whom God has given the authority of our lives.

Are you in favor of ending World War 2 by dropping the atomic bomb? Are you also opposed to all war? God uses the government as a tool to provide a safe environment for it's citizens.

[Flail]

I'm against both abortion and the death penalty (although I'm pro-choice in certain circumstances), but I can see how one could support the DP and not abortion. Such a person could say that they support protecting innocent life, but have no problem killing convicted murderers as murder forfeits one's right to live. I disagree with this line of reasoning, but I can see how one could coherently defend it.

As for me? I'll stick with the KJV 1611 version of the 6th commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

If you support that commandment then logically you would have to support punishment for those people who disobey it. What punishment should be meted out to those who break the law and kill someone? I heard in the news this morning of a man here who got out of prison and 2 months later shot someone. Intentionally, in cold blood, in full grip of his mind with an illegally possessed firearm. What should be done to him?

He should get life in prison without parole. Why should you or your government be permitted to violate the very Commandment you support? There isn't any addendum to it...it says what it says....do not kill.

If the commandment literally means "Thou shalt not Kill" I am in big trouble. Last fall we bought some apples that came into our house with fruit flies, and we have lots of animals so the house is kind of a fruit fly breeding ground. We never had problems with them before but now we do, and we have killed hundreds of the little buggers, if not thousands. Yes, "Thou shalt not Kill" now takes on a whole new meaning. If it actually means "Thou shalt not murder" then I guess that would be a whole different meaning, and would preclude punishment meted out by the government, whom God has given the authority of our lives.

Are you in favor of ending World War 2 by dropping the atomic bomb? Are you also opposed to all war? God uses the government as a tool to provide a safe environment for it's citizens.

I think the Commandment had to do with human beings killing human beings, but I could be wrong. I am not big on killing anything, even insects and I often think about that when I smash a spider. Might be the wrong thing to do...not sure. I am against war although I recognize the necessity sometimes when to so engage is a form of self defense or will save others from oppression. War is always a case by case basis and a tough call in most instances. I do not support the wholesale killing of innocent people and so I would not support the dropping of atomic bombs on innocent civilians. But I recognize the reasons for doing so in 1945.

[dianaiad]

Good points. To be clear, I am not pro-abortion and if one of my family members or friends came to me I might well try to talk them into becoming parents depending on the circumstances. Parenthood is a wonderful thing IMO. But I am pro-choice as I see a fundamental privacy issue in government dictating the use of a woman's birth mechanisms and choices. I don't sanction government killing of criminals for several reasons, not the least of which is that I abhor unnecessary violence and I know something about the inefficiency of the legal system that ends up killing criminals 20-30 years after the fact and in a few cases kills innocent people. I don't favor terminating pregnancies but I can't support government intervention in such a private matter as fetus management. And again, by definition, a fetus is simply a fetus and nothing more.

That depends. a 'fetus' is simply the classification of a certain stage of development in the life of any living being. In order to define a 'fetus' as being a 'fetus and nothing more,' you have to introduce the possibility of it being the fetus of...just about anything.

However, a human fetus? It's a HUMAN fetus. The 'fetus' stage of the development of a specific human being. So...a human fetus is indeed 'something more.'

As it happens, I'm sort of pro-choice here. Sort of. That is, I'm not advocating the passing of a law. However, I'm against that, not because of privacy rights. I'm against it because it wouldn't work and would be unenforcible..and because so many women would see it as just something to get around. No law against abortion is going to work until women begin to consider it unth nkable, not simply 'illegal.'

My objections aren't to the law; laws exist to control those who don't fit into the culture. My objections are to the culture that thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to kill humans---as long as you can't actually SEE 'em yet, and to the culture that puts the whims and desires of women to have sex and to be irresponsible about birth control above the lives of the children they create by having sex and being irresponsible about it. I'm not working for a change in the law, but a change in the CULTURE.

I would simply like women (and the men who object to birth control and want sex anyway, as well) to GROW UP and be responsible; to realize that some decisions have risks and consequences, and if you aren't ready to deal with the consequences (such as creating a new human being) then don't take the gamble.

As to the OP, it simply 'compared' the two positions and asked for debate on how those positions are compatible ie, consistent and coherent. The fact that you see that as 'equating the life of criminals and fetuses merely demonstrates your bias as to your particular point of view. We each have our view of course as to whether criminals are equatable with fetuses. But the OP is simply a question not an argument or a position. You've now answered the question, but you can't make the OP something it is not.

You can't compare positions if they are not similar in some way, Flail. If, as if you seem to be claiming, the OP does NOT equate the life of the fetus to the life of the convicted criminal in some way, how can one imply that a position on one being opposite to the position on the other is paradoxical, or 'not coherent?"

If the OP is not equating the life of the fetus to the life of the criminal, what IS it comparing, to make wanting to save the life of the fetus but to approve of the death penalty noncoherent? It's not even apples and oranges; after all, apples and oranges are both fruit, both come from trees, and are both, generally, sweet.

If the OP isn't acknowledging that both the fetus and the criminal share that common thing, 'human life,' then what DOES it share that makes taking different positions ...odd? The British version of 'apples and oranges' is 'chalk and cheese.'

Far more appropriate an analogy, I think.