How do people rationalize being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty? And vise versa?

Great Debates
1

[sub]I’d like to note that I’m using the term “pro-abortion” for accuracy’s sake. There are pro-choice people who have picked the position because they don’t feel that they should say anything about other people’s bodies, not because they think it’s morally ok to have an abortion. These aren’t the people whose positions I wish to discuss; I want to restrict this to only people who are not morally-squeamish about abortion. [/sub]

There seem to be *four basic juxtapositions of opinions that one can have on the issues of the death penalty and abortion:

  1. Abortion is morally wrong and the death penalty is morally wrong
  2. Abortion is morally right and the death penalty is morally right
  3. Abortion is morally wrong and the death penalty is morally right
  4. Abortion is morally right and the death penalty is morally wrong
  • “netural” can probably be subsituted for “right” and have the same basic feel to it- at least to those holding oposing views.

As I see it only two of these possible views require rationalization and justification on the belief-holder’s part, and those would be the third and the fourth. The other two are absolutes, and seeing things as black or white doesn’t seem to require rationalizing things since they see things as always or never right. On the other hand, having views, that at least on the surface, are at odds with each other make the requirement for rationalization more likely.

My personal beliefs fall into category #3, and I do have to rationalize this. The way I do is that I know that I don’t like the idea of innocent lives being lost. That’s the primary reason I’m pro-life. This extends to the death penalty as well, but on the side of the potential victims of those who would be executed. Some people are an extreme danger to society (terrorists and serial killers primarily,) and must, at all costs, be prevented from hurting others once they’ve proven a willingness to kill. Unfortunately the only prevention that is sure is execution.

While I believe that it’s theoretically possible that the death penalty opponents are correct, and the rare innocent person could be executed, I’d like to think that in this day and age it’s an extremely unlikely possibility. (I may be putting too much faith in the justice system and juries, unfortunately). However, I’m fully certain that fewer people who have never committed murders are executed than fetuses that have never committed murder are aborted.

Coming from a point of view that I feel needs some justification and clarification, in order to be logical and rational (at least to me), I would really like to hear from those on the other side of the coin, so to speak. Since nearly all discussions on the death penalty and abortion end up in GD, I thought it would be best to put it here even if it doesn’t turn into a debate-debate.

So how do people who believe that abortion is right and the death penalty wrong justify and rationalize these tandem beliefs to themselves? To others? Do people who believe the same things as I do justify it the same way? And do people on either side not see the views as potentally contradictory?

Please keep in mind that this isn’t the pit, so hateful drive-by comments about people’s beliefs and rants about how wrong the other positions are not welcome. You know where the pit is, start your own there.

2

Well, you’ve pretty much said all that needs to be said. I belive that abortion is wrong and the death penalty is OK, because I make a distinction between innocent and guilty life. And by guilty, I mean someone who takes the life of another for reasons other than it being an accident or to protect ones own life, or the life of another.

3

I belive that abortion is acceptable, and the death penalty is unacceptable (few people are actually pro-abortion). First off, I believe that the right of a woman not to be pregnant (and thus to not have the possibity of her body belonging to some other entitity even temporarily) is more important than the right of anything to live off of that body. Additionally, I do not believe that a fetus is a sentient being (with a sense of self), nor has it ever been a sentient being. Thus I don’t see too much wrong with killing one.

Prisoners are a different story. They are sentient beings. They are capable of thinking about and feeling sadness about their own death. It is wrong to kill a sentient being and destroy their memories and experiences. It is especially wrong when this is done by an institution. A government should not be in the business of perpetrating death on a person who does not have to die.

4

Well, place me in cathegory (4). On to your questions:

People that believe (1), may agree to:

(a) It is always wrong to take a human life. And
(b) An embryo is a human life.

People that believe (2), may think that:

(a) It is permitable to take a criminals life for certain crimes. And
(b) It is permitable to take a human life if that life is an embryo. Or
© An embryo is not a human life.

People that believe (3), may say that:

(a) It is permitable to take a criminals life for certain crimes. But
(b) It is not permitable to take a human life under other circumstances. And
© An embryo is a human life.

People that believe (4), could argue that:

(a) It is always wrong to take a human life. But
(b) An embryo is not a human life.

So. You really got these two questions:

  1. When is it permitable to take a human life?
  2. What constitutes a human life?

There is no absolute concensus on these issues. But I don’t see a need to resort to rationalizations in order to maintain any of those four views.

5

My belief is that the death penalty is only acceptable when a prisoner who would otherwise be incarcerated for life chooses the death penalty for themselves as an alternative to incarceration.

Abortion is only acceptable when the mothers life is at significant risk, or when the embryo has not yet developed into a human life. In my opinion an embryo becomes a human life as soon as it develops higher brain functionality. Though higher brain functionality exists in many animals, I don’t think we can assume an embryo is not thinking as a human being after the higher brain functionality starts in the embryo. Higher brain functionality is not well defined, but would require looking for brain wave patterns, and stimulus reaction within the cerebral cortex.

6

For me, and I think this will be true for most people who are pro-choice and anti-capital punishment, there’s nothing to rationalize. People have all sorts of reasons for their views, but to boil it down:
There’s no conflict. Capital punishment - even if you could fix all the errors (which is, I think impossible) like bias, abuse, wrongful convictions - is wrong because it’s taking human life. Abortion isn’t, and I’d add further that the government shouldn’t be involved in legislating that kind of personal decision.

7

I opened this thread long before there were any other replies. :wink:
So-

I would say that’s very nicely put, Randy. Likewise, I don’t know anybody who would characterize him or herself as ‘pro-abortion.’ Everyone I’ve ever met agrees that abortion is a regrettable choice that is not to be made lightly. That’s why pro-choice is the preferred term; many pro-choice people would never have one themselves but think for various reasons that it is the choice of an individual to make.

8

Well personally I think abortion is unfortunate only to the extent it causes suffering to the persons involved. I might say it is unfortunate as a courtecy when speaking to people who feel strongly on the subject. But since you ask.

9

But I’ll also try to argue the position that it is unfortunate in itself. I believe that argument could look like this:

An embryo is not a human life. But it is a life that could have been. It is unfortunate, but acceptable to stop a life that could have been.

But really, I’d say this really lies within the domain of psychology. A pregnancy naturally leads to thoughts, dreams and speculations about what this potential person would become. Losing those dreams is a real loss, one that would feel unfortunate to most people.

10

I agree, and saying it’s unfortunate isn’t something I feel obligated to mention to pro-choice people either: they know that. It’s about as difficult a decision as anyone can ever make, and not one anybody would relish; that’s what I mean when I say it’s unfortunate (not very different from what you say). But it’s sometimes worth mentioning, since some seem to think pro-choicers aren’t aware of it.

11

Elfkin -

I’m struggling with this one because I think that you are going to have a very hard time finding anyone who identifies themself as “pro-abortion”. Pro-abortion implies that one thinks abortion is a good idea, or that one thinks others should have abortions, and I’ve certainly never met anyone like that - it’s simply too broad a brushstroke.

And I know that you were looking to leave out folks who call themselves “pro-choice” but that’s what the vast majority of people who aren’t “pro-life” identify as.

Most “pro-choice” people simply don’t think that abortion is a good idea under any and all circumstances, or that the act of having an abortion is really wonderful, but that it is sadly the better choice in some cases, and that it is morally worse for one person to make this choice for another.

To use an example, if I kill someone while defending myself it does not mean that I am “pro-killing” or that I think that killing is morally good as a rule. I’d probably feel awful and have nightmares about the situation for a long time. But in this case my choices aren’t “good” versus “bad” but more like “bad” versus “even worse”, and I choose the lesser of two evils. And no I’m not drawing an exact analogy between having an abortion and defending yourself, just an example of the kind of moral quandrary.

In the case of the death penalty, I don’t have a moral problem with executing a truly vicious & guilty person, however I think that the overall track record of implementation (not just in the US) is bad enough that we shouldn’t be doing it - just too much evidence of wrongfully convicted people being freed, biases in the system, etc.

For me this choice isn’t based on “The death penalty is morally wrong” but “The way that the death penalty is implemented is bad, and the possibility of executing innocent people is morally wrong, so I’m opposed to capital punishment in this form.” Give me a system where we have 100% assurance of only the guilty get executed and I’m much more likely to be in favor of it.

Hope that helps even if it’s not the exact view you were looking for.

12

I belong to Category 4. I do believe that abortion is morally acceptable and I do believe that the death penalty is not.

On the abortion issue, I draw my line at the medical limit for a premature foetus to live successfully outside the womb. Currently, it is roughly the second trimester. After this, I find myself unable to support an elective abortion. The case of a third trimester mother whose life is at risk becomes an extreme one, and should be treated as such; the foetus at this stage is still just a potential life and its sacrifice is justifiable, so far as I am concerned.

Regarding the death penalty, “an eye for an eye” is just not how I see things. It is too violent and too complete a vengeance. We find the idea of man killing man abhorrent, and indeed, the act does tear the social fabric. So, justifying killing in a court of law is something I cannot accept. I also oppose the idea of letting criminals choose between life behind bars and death row. Jailing and death are meant as punishments, as retribution for harm caused. But ultimately, death is a release. The buildup to it may be very traumatic, but it is nevertheless a release. Taken into conjunction with my feelings that the it is unnecessarily violent, I find myself opposing the concept of the death penalty.

13

It’s rather easy for me to define my position.

It is wrong to kill people unless it is absolutely necessary.

Embryos aren’t people. Therefore, there is nothing wrong about `killing’ them.

Convicted men are people. And under normal circumstances, in a stable society, it’s not necessary to execute criminals. Therefore, it is wrong to kill them.

14

I realize I’m probably repeating what several other people have said, but here is my reason:

A conviced criminal has a functioning brain.

An embryo doesn’t.

Therefore, a criminal is a person. An embryo isn’t

15

I am pro choice, so yes, I find it morally OK to terminate the life of a foetus.

I am theoretically pro-death penalty, but against it practically. By this, I mean I have no moral problem with the death penalty - with ending the life of a dangerous, anti-social and un-rehabilitatable person. However, I do not believe there is really any society on earth that is equipped to carry the death penalty out fairly, properly or accurately, and without prejudice and corruption.

16

Also a category 4.

My reasoning being: when a fetus is aborted, especially when it happens early in the pregnancy, it cannot comprehend what is happening to it. Its brain isn’t developed enough to feel pain a way comparable to the manner in which an adult or even a newborn might. (obviously, this doesn’t apply to very late term abortions) And abortions can benefit the people who have them, at least by avoiding the worse consequences that might come from bringing it to term. (trading really bad for almost as bad, I admit…)

The death penalty, on the other hand… The justice system can never be perfect. Innocents get put on death row… and the ones we know about are just the ones that actually ARE proven innocent before their execution dates. What gets me the most is focusing on the idea of the rare innocent person who slips through. Adults can comprehend what’s happening to them. They feel pain and fear and anger. They’ve spent their lives forming relationships with other human beings who ARE going to feel a tremendous loss at their deaths. And I have yet to be convinced that executions are more societally beneficial than life imprisonment.

Both could be said to end innocent life. Ending innocent life before it can feel the effects… I can live with the idea that this is sometimes the best course. But ending innocent life when the person knows and feels exactly what is going on is different, for me.

(note: even if it could somehow be insured that we’d never execute an innocent person, ever, I’d still be anti-death penalty. I just see very few, if any, positives and a great deal of negatives in the whole concept.)

17

I’m another category 4 - i’ve got no problem with abortion, and i am totally against the death penalty. To slightly change what Randy said earlier - i think it is always wrong to kill an intelligent sentient being, and embryos are not intelligent sentient beings.

Most of the people posting here seem to have a similar opinion to me.

I’d be interested to hear from people who have different opinions though. If you are pro death penalty, can i ask why? Is it because you feel that people should pay for their crimes or some other reason? What do you think deserves the death penalty?

If you are anti abortion, i suppose it is because you consider the embryo a human life? Can i ask you what you consider the definition of human life is? Are you similarly against therapeutic cloning?

I am genuinely interested in others with different opinions. Coming from the background i do (english middle class) i don’t think i’ve ever met anyone who was anti abortion, and i’ve only met one person who was pro death penalty.

18

Yet I do know people who hold those positions(for example a friend and I finally agreed to stop talking about abortion altogether because we are at such odds; she thinks that abortion is a wonderful population control and should be highly encouraged in women who are poor) , so I’m sure that if in my limited sphere I’ve met such people, there must be others out there.

19

#4 here.

I believe a woman has the right to control the contents of her uterus. If the foetus needs her uterus to survive, it also needs her consent. The fact that removal of that consent also entails killing the foetus is an unfortunate side effect that I’m sure technology will remedy one day.

I do not understand telling someone that they can’t (illegally) kill another, and then killing them when they don’t obey. I don’t think that is consistent (IMO).

20

But to what age should abortion be legal? Two years? Five years?

Hey, why let a minor coincidental detail like “having been born” make a difference. They’re still just parasitical, after all. They don’t buy the latest and hottest ultrakewl liberal screedzines. So they’re not actually human beings.