VANITY: Life vs. Death

9/11/12 | WileyC

[WileyC]

I've pondered for awhile my stances on the death penalty and abortion. I admit that my opinions on them have changed over the years, mostly in details but all due to my consideration of the ethics and practical details involved. But my topic today is how opinions on the two interrelate. There are four possible combinations (excluding subtleties like the rape/incest/health of mother):

* Anti-abortion/Anti-death penalty: A consistent stance... someone is simply opposed to all killing, no matter the reason.

* Pro-abortion/pro-death penalty: Also consistent (no matter what your thoughts on the morality of it all). Troublesome lives are an impediment and should be removed as necessary. I expect those in this camp also very much pro-assisted suicide.

* Anti-abortion/Pro-death penalty: Another rational stance. The unborn are full of untapped potential and are truly innocent. Those on death row have used up a lot of their potential (if not all of it), have harmed society in general and other lives in particular. They are, by definition, not innocent.

* Pro-abortion/Anti-death penalty: Here's the only quadrant that makes no sense whatsoever in any normal moral code. It's a twisted world where killing an innocent baby is acceptable, but not returning justice to a monster is unacceptable.

I've tried to wrap my head around the last one and haven't come up with an answer yet. In some cases, I suspect it's simple group identity and selfishness. Pregnancies are inconvenient and my pals (or me) might be on death row someday! But that can't explain ALL the people who hold these conflicting ideas. Any thoughts out there?

[StonyBurk]

The Sacred texts record “thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live.” According to the Bible a murderer-any who shed innocent blood is to be put to death-on conviction by the Court upon hearing the testimony of two or more witnesses. And life in the womb is a gift of God any who read the Gospels -how Mary
visited Elizabeth (who was six months pregnant with John the forerunner) And the babe leaped in her womb upon hearing the
annunciation of Mary.As man cannot create LIFE IMO he ought not take life—unless/except as capitol punishment, as agent of the State— or in defense of life-as a soldier or law enforcer. Such is what I have come to believe-and can justify no other truth.

[joe fonebone]

yeah... stupid is as stupid does...

I am currently in the middle of writing an essay on the clueless and their effect on society...

sounds like I could dedicate an entire paragraph to this particular subject..

[detective]

“Anti-abortion/Anti-death penalty: A consistent stance... someone is simply opposed to all killing, no matter the reason.”

Killing your own innocent unborn baby is not in any way consistent with protecting the innocent members of society from the the most violent and vicious predators.

There have been over 100 million abortions in the U.S. since the 1970’s. There have been only a small number of executions.

Stop comparing these two things. It is a Democrat Party trick to say you must be consistent between the two.

[bboop]

‘Essay on the clueless and their effect on society’ - you are writing an 18 volume set, right? hahah. Cannot cover that topic in less.

[bboop]

‘Essay on the clueless and their effect on society’ - you are writing an 18 volume set, right? hahah. Cannot cover that topic in less.

[Yosemitest]

Study " put the evil away from the "

[Washi]

I've tried to wrap my head around the last one and haven't come up with an answer yet.

As with most things "progressive", it is all about avoidance of personal responsibility.

The pregnant woman shouldn't be held responsible for her unwanted pregnancy, and the death-row inmate shouldn't be held responsible for his crimes.

After all, if you expect personal responsibility from others, they may expect it of you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty --- instant disclaimer, this is wrong all the way --- but it does make "consistent" sense in several ways, if you grant certain premises:

• Quasi-Pacifist: "I'm against killing any person, but you're not a person until you're born."

• Quasi-anarchist: "I'm in favor of the right of individuals to do what seems best to them at the time. Abortion can seem best at the time. But in no way does the State have the right to take a life, because the State has less right than any individual: it has no moral right to exist at all."

• Sadist? The Marquis de Sade supported abortion, though he opposed capital punishment. I think his rationale was, the most important thing in the world is pleasure. If the pursuit of pleasure leads to having an abortion, fine. If the pursuit of pleasure leads to a murder, fine. But capital punishment is deliberately legalistic, bureaucratic, somber. It's not justified because there's no pleasure in it, and in his view, pleasure is the only justification of anything.

Oh!

A fourth argument just occurred to me:

• "Who are we to judge?" Who are to judge a woman who wants an abortion? Who are we to judge an abortion "provider"? Who are to judge a murderer? Who's to say what's right or wrong for somebody else? Do not judge! And therefore, no to capital punishment.

[MS from the OC]

I have also spent some time pondering the death penalty and abortion. But Detective is right, the answer is not to take the two issues into the same analysis...

The two issues to put together are abortion and gay marriage. I come down on the pro-child side. Anti-abortion, and anti gay marriage.

Gay Marriages cannot produce children (without a lot of intervention) so gay marriage is all about what the adults want. That’s not marriage. Call it whatever you want, it’s not marriage.

Abortion kills a nacent life. There is no other way to look at it. I don’t take it to the extreme, so I would make an exception for rape/incest/life of the mother. But that’s it.

As to the death penalty, I’m not sure it works as a deterrent. It is certainly more expensive than life without parole, but individuals have to take responsibility for their actions.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What justified an abortion in the case of the rape/incest exception: is it the woman’s strong feelings?

[Boogieman]

The pro-abort/anti-death penalty one is very simple. They don’t recognize the unborn babies as human, but the criminals on death row are undeniably human.

[Terry L Smith]

Babies are incapable of committing any kind of crimes.
Once the idea of “reason”, and the words, “I think” have been taught, all bets are off.

[WileyC]

The pro-abort/anti-death penalty one is very simple. They don’t recognize the unborn babies as human, but the criminals on death row are undeniably human.

I think this might be close to the mark...on the surface. It provides cover for people who want to seem reasonable. I think the act of abortion is actually more pernicious than that. I think people do know they are ending a life and making their choice out of convenience.

From a very practical standpoint, even if one did not believe that life began at conception, one might be against abortion simply because it creates a philosophy where anyone who's inconvenient can be killed. Elder euthanasia (to put it at its kindest) is the next big step after abortion.