Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

With the all the attention given recently to the execution in California, I am finding myself wondering something. Many of the same people who are strongly against the death penalty are also fiercely pro-choice. That seems rather hypocritical to me - how do you rationalize one but not the other? By convincing yourself a baby isn't a human life until it is born? Or does it magically become human life at 9 weeks, 12 weeks, 14 1/2 weeks? 42 days? What is the line that makes it alright to put one human life to death, but not another?

I am asking this because I genuinely do not understand. I don't believe in the death penalty, and I also do not believe in abortion. I find both abhorrent - abortion even more so than the death penalty.

I am sure I will be flamed for asking this, but I don't care - I'm not afraid to ask it. Hell, convince me I'm wrong, but make it good because I can't for the life of me see how there can be any justification for one and not the other.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, because frankly, I don't believe in the same things the Christian fundies do.

But I think it's construed thusly:



With an infant, a new life should be preserved to the utmost, as they "should have their due chance in this world."

Counterpoint, someone on death row "is going to the bad place where people suffer" anyway, so let's send them to meet their maker quicker so they can suffer more.



In a nutshell, they see people on death row as worthless human beings. Not so with the clean slate that is fetus. Which is quite nice for a religion that prea... okay. Do NOT get me started.

i believe an abortion is a sin of 2 people

i believe the sin of execution to be a sin of society

everyone evades "blame" and "responsibility" for the killing

with abortion, it is generally between no more than 3 people, and they bear the weight of that choice

I oppose state-ordered executions of any kind (you must die). I also oppose state-ordered requirements on individual reproductive freedom (you must birth).

So for myself, what was phrased as contradictory is quite the opposite, where the issues are instead united by the common cause of minimizing state control over the individual.

~Ulrika~

For once, it'd be nice to hear an anti-abortionist refer to abortion as a sin in a qualified manner, rather than unqualified.

I would hate to hear that aborting a baby as a way to save the mother, where both are going to die due to medical complications, is a "sin".

While it may seem like splitting hairs, the language is extremely loaded.

sorry, my personal view of it

it should be a choice

but it is what it is

but I don't think it qualifies as murder, so i have no problem saving the life of the mother or that decision

Especially relevant here. Perhaps it deserves a place in the thread devoted to the subject, but:

http://boingboing.net/images/tookie.htm

Sin is a construct created by organized religion to control behavior using shame. To me there is no "sin" involved in making a personal reproductive choice, whether it be birth control, contraception, abortion, or adoption.

~Ulrika~

I think adopting Hitler clones would definitely be considered a sin.

Only if they had those little mustaches.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, I truly, truly hope your child was born sans-mustache

One thing I will point out is my feelings about this have no religious basis. I am not describing it as a sin. I am asking from a non-religious point of view.

you mean you don't believe in God?

That's what I don't understand about god fearing republicans. Abortion boo, executions yay!

I believe a fetus becomes a human life when it is able to live without the assistance of the mother. Women will and have and continue to give themselves abortions. Are the evil? maybe so in your opionion. But you are lucky enough to not have to be faced with this sort of decision.

The justice system is flawed. Do we know 100% all of the time that these people commited the crime? Not usually. I personally believe it is cruel and inhuman punishment.

Last time I heard, there was still a seperation of church and state. Where your beliefs are not forced upon me.

Lucily I live in a country where your religious views are forced upon me.

which republican was she referring to?

Ulrika?

Hiro?

Let us imagine some parents that only aborted females, due to the parent's desire for a male. Repeatedly.

How long, how prevalent a practise must this be before the state should rightfully intervene?




Many times, discussions of such abortion invoke high-minded principles, extremely complicated situations and deathbed emergencies.

Yet I suspect that many, or perhaps even most, choose abortion rather than risk the loss of their cable television budget and irresponsible lifestyle.

Under such circumstances I think abortion should be considered premeditated murder, and both would-be parents should do hard time to think about their disregard for life.

That was directed at Ulrika, but -


Let me be brutally honest here. It's no accident government and religion go hand in hand. No matter what you believe in, the entire point of "sin," "threat of consequences," and books like the Bible are to place limits (read: control) on the actions of human beings.


Apply this right back to the topic. Cristiano here seems to come from the camp that believes in the right to life, period. Which is absolutely fine. Ulrika believes the right to choice for fear of government-approved control, as "justified" by religious views. Also fine.


The whole point of "sin" is as impetus of control. Same with "blessing," or whatever the prefered buzzword for the reward is. And it's really that simple, no matter who you argue mandates these things.

So like ... 14 years old? 18? 35? (heheh *snicker*)

I know it sounds silly, but a baby is sort of just as reliant on a mother whether it's fed via tube physically grafted to the mother, or whether it's a spoon.

I personally see no difference between a 3rd trimester fetus and a newborn baby other than physical location. (And actually, the Roe v. Wade ruling didn't allow 3rd trimester, either. I think it's ironic how heavily pro-choicers lean on Roe v. Wade even though it's more restictive than current abortion laws.)

But that's my personal opinion. Maybe one day science will be able to provide a more concrete measure of the beginning of human life.

I understand the "religion is an opiate to the masses" debate and trust me I have wrestled with that one myself, especially since humans fuck everything (including written records) up

I have seen too many coincidences to believe we are random

and my morality is that my taking part in any way in the destruction of life is wrong, meat eating, supporting execution, or participating in an abortion, among many others

but it is not my role to judge (which is why I couldn't make those choices)

I also strongly agree with Ulrikas motives for her pro choice, anti death stance as well on my secular side

Abortion is not purely a religious issue by any means. Actually, neither is capital punishment. Both topics are latched onto by the religious, but it is more about considering what is or is not murder (ie..the destruction of human life).

That about sums my stance on the issue, and where the government would stand in a perfect world.

As we all know evil people have goatees and not hitler moustaches I predict durring the rebellious teen years, Ulrika's offspring they will attend GOP rallies

I dunno, Ferran ... I think it's more likely that Ulrika's children will grow up apathetic to political issues, which would be a far more contemptual rebellion to Ulrika

I find it interesting that those in the minority who are for the death penality are against abortion.

I agree