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]

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.

[davespb]

As much as we want clear-cut answers to complicated questions, we just can't have them.

I am both pro-abortion and pro-death-penalty, though with huge reservations on both (more on that later). However, I understand pro-life people (more than anti-death-penalty ones), and see no logical contradiction here.

Death penalty is the ultimate self-defense response of the society, and everyone has the right for self-defense, society and individuals alike. When attacked at the knife point, you can perfectly defend yourself with the gun and kill the guy - no one has the right to expect you to value his life above yours and delay with your response to find out "just how far he is willing to go" or if "he really meant it" or even "is there anything in his childhood that can excuse him".

Humans, even criminals, make their decisions based on assessment of reward vs. risk of being caught and severity of punishment. Death penalty is a very strong deterrent, as many studies show in spite of numerous claims on contrary of death penalty opponents.

As far as "leaving the ultimate punishment up to God", this argument makes no logical sense for non-believers, to begin with; but even for believers it is questionable - in the spirit and letter of Old Testament, for example, crimes against humans are to be handled by humans; there is no justification for outsourcing this matter to God.

Now, abortions are entirely different matter. For those, who believe that a fetus is a human, he is punished for crimes not committed so parallels to the death penalty are totally bogus.

For those not believing that fetus is a human - yes, it is not known for sure when, but it certainly becomes human at some point. So, we need to have restrictions on late-term abortions, even though we understand that the exact time frame is merely our best guess that can be improved later by science. Educated guess is always morally superior to ignorance.

Similarly, in any criminal case there is a remote possibility of false indictment; that's why the judicial process should be constantly improved and the death penalty is to be applied with extreme caution. However, its total elimination would lead to more real deaths by the criminals who'd be willing to go much farther without the fear of ultimate punishment.

Both abortions and death penalty are practical matters where extreme caution, the best educated guess, and consulting the science on the latest data are the best guides. We may never the perfect knowledge on either matter, so we must work with the best set of working assumptions we have.

[katiesevenfour]

The problem with the death penalty is...well I will provide you a link to the BBC news website for an article which they published a few days ago. Where is the justice for this man? If the death penalty didn't exist, he would still be alive and happy. This is why I am against the death penalty.

In addition, from a financial point of view, it's more expensive to execute than to imprison for life. It costs millions to achieve a single death sentence. If an offender is locked up for life with no chance of ever getting released, then the public are safe and that's good enough. They won't harm anyone again, they can spend the rest of their lives regretting (hopefully) and they can die naturally. Why the need for the death penalty? There is none. So why do it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18202396

[Flail]

The problem with the death penalty is...well I will provide you a link to the BBC news website for an article which they published a few days ago. Where is the justice for this man? If the death penalty didn't exist, he would still be alive and happy. This is why I am against the death penalty.

In addition, from a financial point of view, it's more expensive to execute than to imprison for life. It costs millions to achieve a single death sentence. If an offender is locked up for life with no chance of ever getting released, then the public are safe and that's good enough. They won't harm anyone again, they can spend the rest of their lives regretting (hopefully) and they can die naturally. Why the need for the death penalty? There is none. So why do it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18202396

Agreed. The legal appellate system is so flawed and without time constraints that by the time we end up killing the defendant he or she is no longer the same person who committed the crime some 20 years previous. Believe me when I tell you that the primary problem with the legal and appellate systems are with incompetent and lazy judges. Typically the worst lawyers become judges who are more than willing to take the pay cut from being a real lawyer to sitting on their fat asses doing nothing but getting in the way of justice.

[Dantalion]

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.

Agreed.

From a secular point of view however, I would argue that society pays for life imprisonment. The facilities and commodities of the prison system and prisoner are being paid for by us, the citizens.

In my country, the prison cells are not the worst places in the world, with internet, cable tv, etc. I would not want to keep vile criminals alive and comfortable with the taxes I pay.

So yeah, the whole theistic 'thou shalt not kill (but we'll kill you)' is a load of crap. However, we as a society should not have to pay so that our most violent murderers can spend the rest of their days more of less comfortable.

So what I'm advocating is, reduce the level of comfort in our prison cells for the hardest of criminals.
Make them actually fear punishment.

[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.

Agreed.

From a secular point of view however, I would argue that society pays for life imprisonment. The facilities and commodities of the prison system and prisoner are being paid for by us, the citizens.

In my country, the prison cells are not the worst places in the world, with internet, cable tv, etc. I would not want to keep vile criminals alive and comfortable with the taxes I pay.

So yeah, the whole theistic 'thou shalt not kill (but we'll kill you)' is a load of crap. However, we as a society should not have to pay so that our most violent murderers can spend the rest of their days more of less comfortable.

So what I'm advocating is, reduce the level of comfort in our prison cells for the hardest of criminals.
Make them actually fear punishment.

I agree that we should make prison unpleasant and difficult for those who are subject to parole so they will be deterred from returning, but for those who are in for life without possibility of parole, give them a more pleasant life so they won't be motivated to cause even more trouble.

It actually costs more for the government to kill a man, what with the inefficient legal system causing delays, than it is for the government to keep him alive in prison for life.

[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.

[Vanguard]

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.

In fairness, I don't see Flail's comment as an admission but rather a challenge to your position (and mine) that if one form of human life is worth saving even from the womb then how can we justify the taking of another form as it relates to capital punishment?

Your answer to his challenge and the distinction you draw between the two scenarios suits me just fine.

[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.

In fairness, I don't see Flail's comment as an admission but rather a challenge to your position (and mine) that if one form of human life is worth saving even from the womb then how can we justify the taking of another form as it relates to capital punishment?

Your answer to his challenge and the distinction you draw between the two scenarios suits me just fine.

Ah, as to that....I will admit that I'm not all that much for the death penalty. However, I'm afraid that it's for an unworthy reason. You kill someone...and it's over. It's quick; they are done, and they have paid--and go on to whatever judgment they get. However, if you DON'T kill 'em, and let them live out their lives imprisoned, without freedom or dignity or hope of ever seeing any sort of liberty, love, family....????

I"m afraid....my opposition to the death penalty is not about respect for life. Wish it were.

[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.