# Both Death Penalty and Abortion or Neither **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270 "2009-10-10T03:03:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/61 "2009-10-12T09:40:23Z")
> [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > The whole abortion/pro-life argument is a huge straw dog to me. I am interested in protecting innocence. This includes the innocent helpless viable unborn. It also includes potential innocent victims of already established murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Medium to late term abortionists, unless it actually, really, truly affects the life of the mother, should be jailed. But you are notably uninterested in protecting innocent _ **women** _. I’m sure the woman who is raped and gets an abortion won’t mind at all when she’s jailed aloing with her rapist. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Enuma\_Elish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5e9695/32.png) [@Enuma\_Elish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enuma_Elish)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/62 "2009-10-12T09:42:45Z")
A raped woman has every chance to get an abortion in the first trimester. I said viable unborn. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/63 "2009-10-12T09:46:36Z")
> [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > A raped woman has every chance to get an abortion in the first trimester. I said viable unborn. “Viable” is just a technological definition. Eventually that amounts to outlawing abortion altogether as the technology to keep a fetus alive improves. And I find the idea of forcing some woman who was kept in a basement for six months and repeatedly raped to bear the child of her rapist utterly evil. ---
**Author:** ![Enuma\_Elish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5e9695/32.png) [@Enuma\_Elish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enuma_Elish)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/64 "2009-10-12T10:26:55Z")
A first trimester unborn is not viable. I third trimester child is viable. Science is continuing to determine the viability of the middle trimester. I find your grasping for the most egregious example to try and prove a point to be utterly evil. A woman who has been made physically incapable (not of her own volition) of not making a first trimester choice should be given that choice. Ugly inflexible attitudes like yours as well as those of staunch Pro-lifers are a HUGE part of the problem. Also, as science advances, abortions will be made less and less necessary by the advent of day after pills and things we haven’t even thought of yet. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/65 "2009-10-12T11:47:08Z")
> [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > A first trimester unborn is not viable. I third trimester child is viable. Science is continuing to determine the viability of the middle trimester. Once again; viability is a technological definition. It has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with how good the technology for sustaining a fetus is. > [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > I find your grasping for the most egregious example to try and prove a point to be utterly evil. A woman who has been made physically incapable (not of her own volition) of not making a first trimester choice should be given that choice. But she won’t be under your rules. > [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > Ugly inflexible attitudes like yours as well as those of staunch Pro-lifers are a HUGE part of the problem. Yes, curse me and my unreasonable determination to value women over a lump of tissue. :rolleyes: > [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > Also, as science advances, abortions will be made less and less necessary by the advent of day after pills and things we haven’t even thought of yet. All of which will be outlawed under a system that looks at women as inferior to a fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/66 "2009-10-12T12:20:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Once again; viability is a technological definition. It has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with how good the technology for sustaining a fetus is. Why _wouldn’t_ the progress of technology have consequences for morality? If you feel that abortions are justified by the mother’s right to opt out of the effects of pregnancy, shouldn’t the fetus’s ability to survive if the pregnancy ended be taken into consideration? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/67 "2009-10-12T12:25:29Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Why _wouldn’t_ the progress of technology have consequences for morality? In this case, why would it? Why should the moral value of a mindless lump of cells change just because they can be kept alive? Why should that justify abusing a woman? > [@Grumman](#): > > If you feel that abortions are justified by the mother’s right to opt out of the effects of pregnancy, shouldn’t the fetus’s ability to survive if the pregnancy ended be taken into consideration? No, because a fetus is just a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/68 "2009-10-12T13:46:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Then again, I doubt those would be the only ones to die. Killing a million people a year is hardly going to help social stability. Especially as it’s guaranteed they’ll overwhelmingly be people who are poorer and with darker skins. What happens to the black population when you kill, say, half a million a year? Who cares what color the people are, committing the crimes that are deserving of the death penalty? Are YOU advocating the fact that due to the color of their skin, they are more deserving of life? It sure sounds that way. ---
**Author:** ![Chopper9760](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Chopper9760](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chopper9760)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/69 "2009-10-12T14:07:18Z")
I see no problem with choice number one. As many have pointed out, there isn’t a logical or moral link between abortion and the death penalty. That’s like asking me if I can reconcile my beliefs about Golden Retrievers and salad. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/70 "2009-10-12T14:10:12Z")
I never understood why some people cry foul at a “pro-life/pro capital punishment” outlook. To me it seems as if the thought is two-fold: 1. A person believes that an (unborn child/fetus/mass of tissue) is a person deserving of legal protection. 2. That same person believes that a forfeiture of life is a legitimate punishment for a serious crime like murder. So, it would make sense that such a person would be against the killing of an innocent unborn child, yet support the judicial execution of a convicted murder. Not to argue abortion or capital punishment because it has been done to death, but I don’t see how such a position is off the charts… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/71 "2009-10-12T23:09:50Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Who cares what color the people are, committing the crimes that are deserving of the death penalty? > > Are YOU advocating the fact that due to the color of their skin, they are more deserving of life? > > It sure sounds that way. No, I’m pointing out that the system is racist, classist and sexist, and that the death penalty being “common” would mainly result in the death of poor, dark skinned males. ---
**Author:** ![Enuma\_Elish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5e9695/32.png) [@Enuma\_Elish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enuma_Elish)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/72 "2009-10-12T23:40:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Once again; viability is a technological definition. It has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with how good the technology for sustaining a fetus is. > > But she won’t be under your rules. > > Yes, curse me and my unreasonable determination to value women over a lump of tissue. :rolleyes: > > All of which will be outlawed under a system that looks at women as inferior to a fetus. Can you read? I did not make any claim that my guidelines were inviolate. When you made a particularly outrageous example of a woman being raped and held against her will, I replied with a reasonable solution that she be allowed the choice she could have made if not enslaved. Loud unreasonable people on both the right and the left are a HUGE part of the problem. If the reasonable practical middle were allowed to deal with this issue without the influence of the loudmouth inflexable asses on both ends, we could come up with a plan that protects both the health and rights of women and the helpless innocent unborn. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/73 "2009-10-12T23:55:27Z")
> [@Enuma\_Elish](#): > > Loud unreasonable people on both the right and the left are a HUGE part of the problem. If the reasonable practical middle were allowed to deal with this issue without the influence of the loudmouth inflexable asses on both ends, we could come up with a plan that protects both the health and rights of women and the helpless innocent unborn. Just because a position is in the middle doesn’t make it right. Compromise with evil is wrong, and the anti-abortionists are evil. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/74 "2009-10-13T00:05:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > In this case, why would it? Why should the moral value of a mindless lump of cells change just because they can be kept alive? Why should that justify abusing a woman? > > No, because a fetus is just a thing. A fetus isn’t a “clump of cells”. You’re thinking of an embryo. At some point a fetus isn’t mindless either. I find the insistence that a gestating baby is just a thing with no moral status to be bizarre. A brainless clump of cells, sure, I agree with the argument that we need not treat a brainless clump of cells as a human being. But a gestating baby is eventually more than a brainless clump of cells. And the technological answer is: what if keeping that gestating baby alive didn’t require “abusing a woman”, as you put it? Suppose we state that while women aren’t obligated to carry a baby to term, they don’t have the right to kill that baby, only to have the baby removed from their body? Then the woman is in the exact same position as the father. A father isn’t allowed to insist that a baby be aborted, even if he doesn’t want the baby, because the baby isn’t gestating in his body. If the baby doesn’t have to gestate in a woman’s body, then why would the mother’s rights be any different? And of course, technology can provide much more effective birth control. Right now even the best methods of birth control are only 98% effective, except surgical sterilization. And of course in real life “typical” use of birth control is much less effective. But what if we develop methods that are easy, safe and reversible and 99.999% effective? It seems to me that if birth control really were that effective the argument that abortion has to remain an option seems a lot weaker. Abortion for birth control, anyway. We’d still have the issue of abortion for birth defects. But it seems to me that if we can identify birth defects earlier–when we’re still really in the “mindless clump of cells” stage–then we’ve removed much of the moral objection to abortion. So technology does bear on the morality of abortion. If we have to choose between one life and another life, then we have to choose. But if we didn’t have to choose, what then? And the death penalty is an example of this. In ancient times, prison wasn’t an option. And so crimes would be punished with death, or with banishment/outlawry, or by fines. And very dangerous people would be put to death, because there was no other way to keep everyone else safe. But nowadays we are rich enough that putting killers and rapists in prison for life is technologically feasible. And so the moral case for the necessity of the death penalty is weakened severely, simply because we have other options. And that changes the moral balance. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/75 "2009-10-13T02:36:26Z")
> [@Chopper9760](#): > > I see no problem with choice number one. > > As many have pointed out, there isn’t a logical or moral link between abortion and the death penalty. That’s like asking me if I can reconcile my beliefs about Golden Retrievers and salad. Pffft, _all_ retrieverites say that. They’re such cowards. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/76 "2009-10-15T17:06:38Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I can’t believe that – I would imagine if _Roe_ were to be overturned, you’d have some MAJOR riots throughout the nation. SOMEDAY, we might find a way to make abortion unnecessary, but until then, there’s no way I see it being outlawed. > > What disturbs me more is the lack of birth control and sex education in our society - THAT is a “moral aberration”. If we want reduce the number of abortions in our society, we need to get over the so-called “abstinence education”, and how actually EDUCATING kids about sex will make them go out and do it. Because they already are – only without knowing anything about birth control or diseases. Roe doesn’t have to be overturned. Roe has been reiterated (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to say that the State does not have a compelling interest to prohibit abortion at a point when the fetus is not viable outside of the mother. Once the fetus _is_ viable outside of the mother’s body, the state _does_ have an interest and _can_ prohibit abortion. The SCOTUS upheld in Casey: > [@](#): > > a recognition of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure; Once viability is essentially from “conception on” there won’t be any major conflict with Roe. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/77 "2009-10-15T19:20:18Z")
I’m against both so this is an easy answer. > [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > 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? We do, however, tell people that they can’t kill elephants for their tusks or Bald Eagles for their feathers. You’re also not allowed to engage your dogs into pit fights. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/78 "2009-10-16T00:55:11Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I’m against both so this is an easy answer. > We do, however, tell people that they can’t kill elephants for their tusks or Bald Eagles for their feathers. You’re also not allowed to engage your dogs into pit fights. Excellent answer, Deeg, are not these people implying that animals are morally superior to human beings? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/79 "2009-10-16T00:59:35Z")
How do “these people” who oppose animal cruelty weigh in on abortion or capital punishment? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270/80 "2009-10-16T01:17:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How do “these people” who oppose animal cruelty weigh in on abortion or capital punishment? Why do anti-animal cruelty folks have the right to stop dogfighting or hunting eagles if as pro-choicers say pro-lifers have no right over determining abortion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-death-penalty-and-abortion-or-neither/513270.md?page=5)