Both Death Penalty and Abortion or Neither

If you had to choose between the following two paths for your nation which would you choose? 1) Is abortion is available with almost no restrictions and the death penalty used commonly or 2)abortion is legal only for the life of the mother and death penalty isn’t used.

Abortions and death penalty. Which is the position I already hold. I really don’t get why people thing that’s a contradictory belief.

It is contradictory if you say you’re pro-life and support the death penalty. It’s not contradictory if you’re aaginst the death penalty and support abortion rights, because abortion doesn’t kll anybody.

If I had to choose (which I never would), I’d much rather have both abortion rights and the death penalty. I’m not opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, but on practical grounds.

I don’t have a problem with capital punishment or abortion-on-demand, though I think the latter is much more important and the former far more dispensable.

Fetuses haven’t done anything except inconvenience the mother but murderers and traitors have killed a whole bunch of people.

Anyways I would rather have neither of them legal rather then both legal.

Fetuses aren’t people, so who gives a shit.

“Death penalty used commonly”? I’m not sure I can really choose, since realistically either way we are talking about a brutal dictatorship. Either women as a class are being oppressed, or people are being indiscriminately slaughtered by what passes for the legal system in such a nation.

Forced to choose I’d probably go with “no death penalty and no abortions” despite being pro-choice, simply because the female victims in such a case are more likely to survive than and probably outnumbered by all the innocent* people who are being rounded up and slaughtered in the other hypothetical. But I’d consider either society evil.

  • And yes, in a system where the death penalty is common, many of those executed WILL be innocent. To make it common corners would have to be cut, safeguards lowered; and that’s assuming that such a society would even seriously be trying to avoid killing innocents.

This one trick pony is gonna collapse from exhaustion eventually.

Well, just for laughs, let’s say there are ~1 million executions in the U.S. per year, roughly on par with the number of abortions.

I figure the conflict will self-resolve as the U.S. rapidly depopulates itself.

By “common” death penalty I mean somewhat less regulated then the current death penalty in US like say it was in 1950 or '60 here.

That’s nowhere near “common”. “Common” would be more like killing people convicted of theft or trespassing.

Abortion is not equivalent to the death penalty, so I choose neither.

Both illegal. Since I want to stop abortion-on-demand anyway, I figure saving a few worthless lives is a fair trade.

I support abortion being available in the first 3-6 months or where the life of the mother is at risk, and support the death penalty being used not commonly but carefully.

There’s really no reason why I’d support either of the positions you propose, but saying no to both would be less bad than taking the current approach to the death penalty and kicking it up a notch.

Same here. I have a daily subscription to the Dallas Morning News, and I at least skim the first (local and national news) section. Lately, there have been a LOT of people aquitted for crimes that could have drawn the death penalty.

Since we’re playing a fantasy mind game here, I’m going to stipulate that all of the people who are given the death penalty are actually guilty of the crimes they’re being accused of. As long as that’s the case, I’d say to bring on the death penalty, and start culling our population.

In reality, fetuses aren’t people, and there are far too many people who have been convicted and later found to be innocent.

Sure, YOU believe that fetuses are people. However, I don’t believe this. You know, there are lots of people who believe that animals shouldn’t be killed so that people can eat them. Do these people have the right to tell you what you should and should not eat?

I’m with you. I’d allow abortions for more than to save the mothers life and I really think there are some predators who need killing, but I’d gladly have a death-penalty-free society if it would mean having a rare-and-restricted-abortion society.

Abortion is the womans decision. I can not stick my nose into her personal life and make an intelligent decision about whether she should carry to term. I have no way of knowing all the complications in her life nor do I have the right to. It is a huge presumption for me to force her to have a baby that she deems a mistake for her. I have no right or power or better information to over rule her. It is simply her decision.
The death penalty is a barbaric misuse of the powers of the state. It is a waste of money and a destruction of the honor of our country. To actually kill people like a backwards unsophisticated un-evolved nation puts us with the 3rd world countries. It is shameful. We have to aim higher than that.

^^^ what he said.

I think the death penalty is, in many cases, less cruel than long-term imprisonment.

Except another “civilized” country, Japan, too has the death penalty and who can’t say it’s the Europeans who are wrong not us. Perhaps the death penalty for those who are a threat to society is a mark of civilization. Some food for thought, think about it.

I think i’d probably have to plump for both allowed. I’m against the DP (which we don’t have here) and for abortion rights, for the record. In my eyes, the good done by allowing abortion would outweigh the bad of those innocents and undeserving who are killed (plus the bad of allowing abortion). It is a tricky question though.