tdn: “If you believe in a woman’s right to choose, but oppose state-sanctioned murder, how do you morally reconcile these two seeming contradictory views?”
The usual defense is that life does not begin at conception, that at some point an egg is an object, but at some point becomes a person, and that the woman has legal rights over an object in her uterus.
Rashak Mani: “I want to see ProLifers who are Pro Death Penalty explain their contradictions.”
The usual defense is that the fetus is innocent of wrongdoing while the criminals are guilty and deserve to die.
P.S. a heads-up: it is increasingly popular to use the term “pro-life” only for those who oppose both abortion and the death penalty, although many “anti-abortion” activists will use it regardless of their stance on the death penalty.
I am technically cheating by replying in this thread even though I hold neither set of philosophies … but being a Christian in the San Francisco Bay area, I can say that I have plenty of contact with both sides! =) Hope nobody minds me tossing in my two cents.
I fall into the camp that says a fetus (or more commonly, a zygote) is not a person, that pregnant woman is a person and the rights of such women to control their own reproduction trumps the theoretical, frankly faith-based belief that a zygote is the same a s a person.
The Tolkien quote perfectly sums up my main reason for opposing the death penalty. I would also say that I find the death penalty inherently unsatisfying. I don’t like the idea that someone like Tim McVeigh should be able to escape justice by getting a shot in the arm and going to sleep.
I am also somewhat uncomfortable, from a human rights perspective, with the idea of the state having the right to kill people but that’s purely a subjective ethical stance and it is secondary to my concerns about the ability of the state to be perfect in its judgement.
Pro-abortion? Show me one person who is actually pro-abortion. Seriously. Pro-choicers are not advocating gratuitous abortion. Many pro-choicers are anti-abortionists, like myself. I’m not sure when life starts, so I think that abortion could be murder, so I personally wouldn’t do it. But I also think it’s a personal matter, so I support the legal right for it.
Shoot! One of my friends wants us to be able to abort into the 50th trimester! I’m sure he’s not really serious though. But he definately doesn’t want kids, ever. I think he might be on the borderline about pro-choice vs. pro-abortion. He’s odd like that.
When someone is convicted of kidnapping, do you also find the idea that imprisoning someone to drive home the point that imprisoning someone is wrong to be laughable?
Terminating pregnancy is, to me, an amoral choice. If a woman doesn’t want to carry a child to term, who am I to tell her otherwise?
The death penalty is, to me, a moral choice. I do not believe the justice system is capable of enough fairness that it should have that power. I might even be skeptical about any justice system having that power, actually. This doesn’t mean I am actually against death as punishment, I simply feel that the limits of human understanding do not enable us to have the certainty I feel would be necessary to enact such an irrevokable punishment.
After the last debate that I know of on this subject, I sort of understand the anti-death penalty, pro-choice beliefs. After all, I believe the exact opposite- an unborn baby is a human, and a murderer is a monster devoid of humanity- and don’t feel guilty about holding “conflicting” views.
You would think, however there would be more pro-life/anti-death penalty or pro-choice/pro-death penalty people, though. I think that there aren’t is fairly decent evidence that people don’t consider them to be closely related issues.
Your use of the word ‘seemingly’ is crucial. If you look at it more closely, I think the two topics have nothing in common. I oppose the death penalty because I think people shouldn’t kill other people, period. I support abortion rights because I think the right to choose is necessary and the government shouldn’t be involved in that decision.
The only time these views are seemingly contradictory is if you start from the notion that a fetus or embryo is a person, making an abortion the killing of a person. Someone who supports abortion is not starting from the same perspective.
That’s nice. Perhaps the fetus has no interest in whether you are a person.
I suppose then, that you would disagree with the state using prisoners to perform work, correct?
If you choose to use that terminology, the fetus did not “enslave” the mother – she “enslaved” herself by perfoming an action that had the possibility of the known consequence of making her pregnant.
Because you perfomed an action that resulted in the creation of the fetus. Thus, you are responsible for your own actions. The fetus certainly isn’t.
I like to call this the “pregnancy as punishment” argument. ‘It’s your fault you’re pregnant, and you have no right to take it out on the fetus by terminating the pregnancy.’ As if punishment was the issue (which sort of brings us back to the death penalty again). Who benefits if women who do not wish to be pregnant are forced to have children?
There have been a few folks on these very boards who have self identified themselves as “pro abortion”…even clarifying that it was not (for lack of a better term) “just” a pro choice position.
MAV’s response does answer your question, at least by implication. Adoption benefits the kid because he or she is born (I think most people prefer life to not-life, given our fear of dying and all) and it benifits the people adopting the child by allowing them to experience parenthood, to say nothing of their extended family etc.
Who benefits when a woman terminates her pregnancy? At least one person less in the baby’s case, and it’s no picnic for the would-be mother either.
I think if the foster system was perfectly run, this would carry a lot more weight. It’s not. I’m not sure I buy that a fetus or embryo ‘benefits’ from birth, as never living isn’t the same as dying.
Possibly the same people you listed above. Parents who choose to have a kid are in a better position to take care of it, which benefits the parents, the kids, and (I think) society in general. Mothers who didn’t choose to get pregnant often don’t give up their children for adoption because that’s no picnic either.
Similarly, if people would perfectly run their lives, there would be no debate about abortion. They don’t. There is.
Thus, we have methods of contraception that keep someone from “becoming”. Once the “someone” has “become”, it’s too late.
But these mothers chose to participate in an activity of which a possible consequence was the creation of another life. Thus, the argument that they didn’t choose to become pregnant is moot.
You acknowledged a moment earlier (when you said people don’t run their lives perfectly) that sometimes people don’t plan, and accidents happen even when they do.
That’s ludicrous. They chose to have SEX, not get pregnant. Your jump in logic that because they wanted to have sex, they wanted to get pregnant might make sense to you, but it doesn’t mean the woman wants to have a kid. Like I said, pregnancy as punishment. If I choose to engage in a dangerous activity like skydiving, I accept the risks involved and do everything possible to prevent the negatives. But if I die skydiving, that doesn’t mean I chose to die. I clearly didn’t want to die, that’s why I took the precautions in the first place.
So, becoming pregnant is not a possible consequence of havnig sex?
Your jump to the conclusion that this is what I meant doesn’t make sense to anybody. I never said, nor even alluded to the notion that someone that wants to have sex also wants to become pregnant. THAT is ludicrous.
A punishment for what? If you have sex and contract an disease, is the disease “punishment” for having sex? Of course not. It is simply a consequence of making the salient decision to engage in an activity in which one of the possible consequences is contracting a disease. Similarly, since becoming pregnant is a possible consequence of making the salient decision to engage in sexual intercourse, then the one who makes the choice must live with the consequences of making that choice. It’s called “personal responsibility”.
Yet, taking these precautions do not guarantee that you will not die. If you die while skydiving, it might not be what you wanted, but you must face the consequences because you chose to participate in the activity that carried with it, as a possible consequence, your own demise.
Please forgive me if my ignorance is showing through, but I was under the impression that most infant babies put up for adoption do not really make it to the foster system, not for long anyway. There are long lists to adopt a newborn. I thought that foster kids become foster kids because they lost their parents or they were taken away from their parents at an older age.
So I have to agree. Adoption as an alternative to abortion is a win-win for everybody, especially the baby.
I’m sure he’s not really serious though. But he definately doesn’t want kids, ever. I think he might be on the borderline about pro-choice vs. pro-abortion. He’s odd like that.
Talk about your irrelevant comments.