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?

[Flail]

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.

Eggs and sperm within humans are human eggs and sperm and as such are part and parcel of the formation of human beings, but that doesn't keep most any of us from 'flushing them away' does it? Regardless of how you view it, we are in agreement that laws prohibiting abortion are not efficient and that we must preach either abstinence or responsibility and the use of contraceptives.

Again the OP simply asks a question and encourages debaters to ARGUE the seemingly incompatible position of being anti-abortion and pro death penalty FOR THOSE PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO INSIST THAT FETUSES ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

Obviously the intent was to open the door to arguments like your's (equating fetuses and human beings) and like mine (claiming fetuses are not human beings) and to air those differences and explore their consistency and coherency. Which, I think, we are doing. Why do you find it compelling to insist that my OP question argues to fit your bias? Does it not simply ask a question for debate which recognizes that some people equate fetuses and human beings while others do not; and that those who hold to killing human beings when criminals, but do not favor terminating pregnancies might demonstrate inconsistency? Particularly if THEY EQUATE fetuses as human beings; and use that as their primary reason to not terminate pregnancies?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Yes.

When comparing apples and oranges, differences may be exposed.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make one liner posts unless they substantively contribute to the debate. This sounds like a good intro to a longer discussion but instead goes nowhere. Thank you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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?

Yes

Moderator Comment

One liners (one worders!) are against the rules unless they advance the debate. This did not. An explanation of your views would have been welcome here.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[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?

Christian: "All abortion is the killing of a human being; all human life is sacred and must never be sacrificed; a fetus developing in the womb of a mother is a human being and therefore sacred and must never be sacrificed. Sayeth the Lord : "Thou shalt not kill"...unless of course some SOB commits an act which I find particularly reprehensible....then I am all in favor of juicing that human being full of so much electricity that he literally writhes until his brain is fried."

[dianaiad]

Eggs and sperm within humans are human eggs and sperm and as such are part and parcel of the formation of human beings, but that doesn't keep most any of us from 'flushing them away' does it?

Indeed...but unless one does what is required to get them together, they will never become unique, individual human beings. On their own, separate, they are LESS than bits of the bodies that made them; unlike a fingernail, or a toenail, or a bit of skin, sperm cells and egg cells contain only half the DNA required to develop and grow into an individual. Only when they combine (and at the moment they DO combine) does one individual begin. Only then do we stop talking about 'pieces' and 'potentials' and settle into an actual....there s/he is...human being.

Regardless of how you view it, we are in agreement that laws prohibiting abortion are not efficient and that we must preach either abstinence or responsibility and the use of contraceptives.

Or both, yes. We agree on this.

Again the OP simply asks a question and encourages debaters to ARGUE the seemingly incompatible position of being anti-abortion and pro death penalty FOR THOSE PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO INSIST THAT FETUSES ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

Of course they are human beings. What else are they, elm trees?

They may not be 'persons' yet, but that's an arbitrary assignment of rights and responsibilities, not a scientific classification of species.

As to the OP....I simply read the words. I'm not the one who equated fetuses and convicted criminals headed for the 'dead man walking' march. It did.

Obviously the intent was to open the door to arguments like yours (equating fetuses and human beings)

They are not 'equal to.' they ARE. Unless you figure you can assign human fetuses to another species, and have them somehow miraculously become humans upon exiting the mother's body? Honestly, Flail, that would be a bigger magical event than anything listed in any religious scriptural tradition. What fantastic, metaphysical...or PHYSICAL...change happens when this specific human changes position from womb to room, that so fundamentally changes its very nature, makeup and being?

and like mine (claiming fetuses are not human beings) and to air those differences and explore their consistency and coherency. Which, I think, we are doing. Why do you find it compelling to insist that my OP question argues to fit your bias?

Because of the way it is worded?

Does it not simply ask a question for debate which recognizes that some people equate fetuses and human beings while others do not;

.......except that it doesn't actually do that, Flail. there is no 'if' included in the wording, after all. The only assumption possible is that there is a similarity between the victims of abortion and criminals sentenced to death. That's the only way that the position you are saying is incoherent could BE incoherent...if the fetus and the criminal shared something.

Well, the fetus certainly hasn't committed any act that would warrant such a punishment, after all, so it isn't behavior. (though that IS the reason pro-life folks can be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion; wanting to protect the innocent does not mean you cannot punish the guilty, after all)

it would not make any sense to ask someone why they would be vegetarians, for instance, and still be pro-death penalty...even though that makes more sense than the anti-abortion/pro-death penalty question. So...there is only one assumption one CAN make, as the reader of the OP: that it equates fundamental humanity to both. You are, literally, asking how a pro-life person can advocated for ending one human life, while attempting to protect another.

(shrug) Perhaps it's a matter of this being so ingrained an argument or debate topic that everybody is simply supposed to accept the 'right' assumptions....

but I didn't. I went with what was actually written. Well, I'll back off of that one.

and that those who hold to killing human beings when criminals, but do not favor terminating pregnancies might demonstrate inconsistency? Particularly if THEY EQUATE fetuses as human beings; and use that as their primary reason to not terminate pregnancies?

Actually, that's not a problem. It's about justice for the pro-life folks: you don't kill innocents because someone ELSE finds them inconvenient, but if someone commits crimes so heinous as to have forfeited their right to remain on the planet (like murder...) then the death penalty for them is not at all 'incoherent' with the idea of protecting innocents who cannot protect themselves.

The REAL question is this: how can pro-abortionists, who are willing to kill innocents just because they are inconvenient, NOT be willing to kill people who actually have committed such murderous acts?

Of course, I've already talked about that a bit; it actually makes sense that people who are willing to kill innocent humans are hesitant to kill people who kill innocents.

As for me, I am more and more against the death penalty; not because I reverence life and think that it is paramount, but for two reasons:

first, the death penalty isn't harsh enough. Those who commit first degree murder do not deserve to have their own lives end simply and cleanly--and have it over quickly. They should spend their entire lives in a cage, live long, be healthy, read whatever they want, get good health care--they should be physically well cared for. Full access to libraries. Let 'em get college degrees. Let 'em become double and triple docs.

but they should be entirely bereft of any level of personal choice other than what they read. No family visits. Minimum human contact.

Of course, there are times when people are convicted unjustly. Doesn't happen often, but if it DOES happen, at least my way there is a live, healthy, person to deal with when the injustice is redressed.

But that's just me. I"m---not very nice as far as this is concerned.

[Flail]

Eggs and sperm within humans are human eggs and sperm and as such are part and parcel of the formation of human beings, but that doesn't keep most any of us from 'flushing them away' does it?

Indeed...but unless one does what is required to get them together, they will never become unique, individual human beings. On their own, separate, they are LESS than bits of the bodies that made them; unlike a fingernail, or a toenail, or a bit of skin, sperm cells and egg cells contain only half the DNA required to develop and grow into an individual. Only when they combine (and at the moment they DO combine) does one individual begin. Only then do we stop talking about 'pieces' and 'potentials' and settle into an actual....there s/he is...human being.

Regardless of how you view it, we are in agreement that laws prohibiting abortion are not efficient and that we must preach either abstinence or responsibility and the use of contraceptives.

Or both, yes. We agree on this.

Again the OP simply asks a question and encourages debaters to ARGUE the seemingly incompatible position of being anti-abortion and pro death penalty FOR THOSE PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO INSIST THAT FETUSES ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

Of course they are human beings. What else are they, elm trees?

They may not be 'persons' yet, but that's an arbitrary assignment of rights and responsibilities, not a scientific classification of species.

As to the OP....I simply read the words. I'm not the one who equated fetuses and convicted criminals headed for the 'dead man walking' march. It did.

Obviously the intent was to open the door to arguments like yours (equating fetuses and human beings)

They are not 'equal to.' they ARE. Unless you figure you can assign human fetuses to another species, and have them somehow miraculously become humans upon exiting the mother's body? Honestly, Flail, that would be a bigger magical event than anything listed in any religious scriptural tradition. What fantastic, metaphysical...or PHYSICAL...change happens when this specific human changes position from womb to room, that so fundamentally changes its very nature, makeup and being?

and like mine (claiming fetuses are not human beings) and to air those differences and explore their consistency and coherency. Which, I think, we are doing. Why do you find it compelling to insist that my OP question argues to fit your bias?

Because of the way it is worded?

Does it not simply ask a question for debate which recognizes that some people equate fetuses and human beings while others do not;

.......except that it doesn't actually do that, Flail. there is no 'if' included in the wording, after all. The only assumption possible is that there is a similarity between the victims of abortion and criminals sentenced to death. That's the only way that the position you are saying is incoherent could BE incoherent...if the fetus and the criminal shared something.

Well, the fetus certainly hasn't committed any act that would warrant such a punishment, after all, so it isn't behavior. (though that IS the reason pro-life folks can be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion; wanting to protect the innocent does not mean you cannot punish the guilty, after all)

it would not make any sense to ask someone why they would be vegetarians, for instance, and still be pro-death penalty...even though that makes more sense than the anti-abortion/pro-death penalty question. So...there is only one assumption one CAN make, as the reader of the OP: that it equates fundamental humanity to both. You are, literally, asking how a pro-life person can advocated for ending one human life, while attempting to protect another.

(shrug) Perhaps it's a matter of this being so ingrained an argument or debate topic that everybody is simply supposed to accept the 'right' assumptions....

but I didn't. I went with what was actually written. Well, I'll back off of that one.

and that those who hold to killing human beings when criminals, but do not favor terminating pregnancies might demonstrate inconsistency? Particularly if THEY EQUATE fetuses as human beings; and use that as their primary reason to not terminate pregnancies?

Actually, that's not a problem. It's about justice for the pro-life folks: you don't kill innocents because someone ELSE finds them inconvenient, but if someone commits crimes so heinous as to have forfeited their right to remain on the planet (like murder...) then the death penalty for them is not at all 'incoherent' with the idea of protecting innocents who cannot protect themselves.

The REAL question is this: how can pro-abortionists, who are willing to kill innocents just because they are inconvenient, NOT be willing to kill people who actually have committed such murderous acts?

Of course, I've already talked about that a bit; it actually makes sense that people who are willing to kill innocent humans are hesitant to kill people who kill innocents.

As for me, I am more and more against the death penalty; not because I reverence life and think that it is paramount, but for two reasons:

first, the death penalty isn't harsh enough. Those who commit first degree murder do not deserve to have their own lives end simply and cleanly--and have it over quickly. They should spend their entire lives in a cage, live long, be healthy, read whatever they want, get good health care--they should be physically well cared for. Full access to libraries. Let 'em get college degrees. Let 'em become double and triple docs.

but they should be entirely bereft of any level of personal choice other than what they read. No family visits. Minimum human contact.

Of course, there are times when people are convicted unjustly. Doesn't happen often, but if it DOES happen, at least my way there is a live, healthy, person to deal with when the injustice is redressed.

But that's just me. I"m---not very nice as far as this is concerned.

You make good points as usual. All I can say without repeating myself is that it goes without saying that all criminals were formerly fetuses; and that all fetuses left to full term will commit transgressions against their fellow human beings. If you refuse to terminate pregnancies against the will of the mother because all life is sacred, you risk incoherency when you favor killing any human being despite or regardless of your notion of justice.

[Mr. LongView]

Yes.

When comparing apples and oranges, differences may be exposed.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make one liner posts unless they substantively contribute to the debate. This sounds like a good intro to a longer discussion but instead goes nowhere. Thank you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

When making a false comparison differences may be noticed.

Or...

Is it coherent to prefer Nikes, but use Goodyears for your car? (Both have rubber?)

The two ideas being discussed are so dissimilar why say much more than "apples and oranges"?

Not responding to a moderator comment, just following up with the obvious as suggested.

[dianaiad]

You make good points as usual. All I can say without repeating myself is that it goes without saying that all criminals were formerly fetuses; and that all fetuses left to full term will commit transgressions against their fellow human beings. If you refuse to terminate pregnancies against the will of the mother because all life is sacred, you risk incoherency when you favor killing any human being despite or regardless of your notion of justice.

Yes, all criminals were fetuses at one time...and when they WERE fetuses (or babies, a bit later) they were utterly innocent of committing any offense against their fellow humans.

But as they grow up, they may indeed choose to do things--like commit murder. When they do, they have also chosen the consequences of their actions.

You know, like people do when they have sex, in full knowledge that sex is what creates human life.

[Flail]

Yes.

When comparing apples and oranges, differences may be exposed.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make one liner posts unless they substantively contribute to the debate. This sounds like a good intro to a longer discussion but instead goes nowhere. Thank you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

When making a false comparison differences may be noticed.

Or...

Is it coherent to prefer Nikes, but use Goodyears for your car? (Both have rubber?)

The two ideas being discussed are so dissimilar why say much more than "apples and oranges"?

Not responding to a moderator comment, just following up with the obvious as suggested.

If the existence of a fetus is sacred; how is it that such sacredness is forfeited by misconduct? Haven't you transgressed? But if the right to existence is indeed contingent, who is to say that fetuses are more entitled to existence than those of us who transgress? Mothers of developing fetuses perhaps? Or do you favor government?

[Mr. LongView]

Yes.

When comparing apples and oranges, differences may be exposed.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make one liner posts unless they substantively contribute to the debate. This sounds like a good intro to a longer discussion but instead goes nowhere. Thank you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

When making a false comparison differences may be noticed.

Or...

Is it coherent to prefer Nikes, but use Goodyears for your car? (Both have rubber?)

The two ideas being discussed are so dissimilar why say much more than "apples and oranges"?

Not responding to a moderator comment, just following up with the obvious as suggested.

If the existence of a fetus is sacred; how is it that such sacredness is forfeited by misconduct? Haven't you transgressed? But if the right to existence is indeed contingent, who is to say that fetuses are more entitled to existence than those of us who transgress? Mothers of developing fetuses perhaps? Or do you favor government?

In the OP question I noticed no reference to sacredness?

Coherency, IMO, seems to deal with details.

Is it coherent to eat chicken and be a vegetarian?
You got some thing.

Otherwise...

Not so much.

I am fully willing to think that an atheist can be pro death penalty, but against killing fetuses, without a coherency issue.

I allow for theistic nuance.