Question about abortion.

[Jryan]

How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?

 

[Hierophant]

Because they have deluded themselves into believing that every single person who was ever executed was guilty, and that every single human being is innocent (despite what their own religion states).

 

[molten_dragon]

The argument is that a fetus was not granted due process of law before it was deprived of its life, therefore the killing was illegal. When the death penalty is carried out, that person was granted due process of law, so the killing is legal.

 

[Jryan]

Right, but when does the fetus gain his/her rites as a human being?

 

[digsbe]

How can pro-choicers be anti-death penalty and support abortion? For the record I am both pro-life and against the death penalty.

 

[Jryan]

How can pro-choicers be anti-death penalty and support abortion? For the record I am both pro-life and against the death penalty.

Interesting question, are you religious?

 

[molten_dragon]

Right, but when does the fetus gain his/her rites as a human being?

The answer varies from person to person, but most pro-lifers will say at conception.

 

[molten_dragon]

How can pro-choicers be anti-death penalty and support abortion?

I'm not entirely sure of this myself. It may have to do with the fact that most don't consider the ZEF to be the equivalent of a born person, either morally or legally. And for the record I am pro-choice and for the death penalty.

 

[Jryan]

The answer varies from person to person, but most pro-lifers will say at conception.

hmmm seems we are crossing over into the topic of stem-cell research with this one. I'll steer clear but if anyone wants to tackle it, feel free to thread steel.

 

[Cephus]

I'm Republican and I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

 

[Temporal]

How can pro-choicers be anti-death penalty and support abortion?

Because pro-choicers do not place objectivity upon the question of fetal personhood like pro-lifers do. You behave as if it's absolute fact and reinforce that with circular logic, whereas pro-choicers defer to the woman's belief on the matter, whichever side it is she comes down on.

Also, pro-choice does not mean you support abortion, it means you support the choice to abort. There is a minor but important distinction there. I don't like abortion and it is not a choice I would make for myself but I do not make that call for others.

This may not be what you believe but if you can't imagine being in the shoes of the other viewpoint then your question is intellectually dishonest. (I don't mean "you" as in you digsbe, just people in general.)

 

[mac]

How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?

There is no obvious similarity in the two issues. The death penalty involves people who have committed a crime against humanity and therefore forfeited their own rights. Abortion kills the most innocent of all of us.

Personally, I oppose both, and it's not only Republicans that support the death penalty or oppose abortion.

 

[Jryan]

There is no obvious similarity in the two issues. The death penalty involves people who have committed a crime against humanity and therefore forfeited their own rights. Abortion kills the most innocent of all of us.

Personally, I oppose both, and it's not only Republicans that support the death penalty or oppose abortion.

The "criminal" loses his conscience while the fetus knows nothing.

 

[mac]

hmmm seems we are crossing over into the topic of stem-cell research with this one. I'll steer clear but if anyone wants to tackle it, feel free to thread steel.

Stem cell research no longer relies on dead fetuses. Stem cells can be "reverse engineered" and can be obtained from amniotic fluid.

 

[mac]

The "criminal" loses his conscience while the fetus knows nothing.

Irrelevant. Killing someone that doesn't know they are about to be killed is still killing them.

And "consciousness" is highly subjective, and irrelevant as well.

 

[Jryan]

Irrelevant. Killing someone that doesn't know they are about to be killed is still killing them.

And "consciousness" is highly subjective, and irrelevant as well.

So then how do you judge that it is wrong?

Stem cell research no longer relies on dead fetuses. Stem cells can be "reverse engineered" and can be obtained from amniotic fluid.

I know this but we should explore all avenues.

 

[mac]

So then how do you judge that it is wrong?

I judge what is wrong based on my personal moral code balanced against the harm principle.

I know this but we should explore all avenues.

Within reason. If you support abortion because you want to promote stem cell research, then you are supporting the farming of humans and are no better than the Nazi approach to medical research. There are options available that do not rely on dead humans, these are obviously the more moral paths to take.

 

[Jryan]

I judge what is wrong based on my personal moral code balanced against the harm principle.

But your beliefs (leaving out religion of course for who knows what reasons) have to be based on facts or at least what you perceive to be facts.

 

[mac]

But your beliefs (leaving out religion of course for who knows what reasons) have to be based on facts or at least what you perceive to be facts.

My view against abortion is that it is the killing of a human without cause. I generally oppose all killing of humans without cause.

 

[Jryan]

My view against abortion is that it is the killing of a human without cause. I generally oppose all killing of humans without cause.

Well some would say that there is a cause because it would cause harm to the mother if the baby were born.

 

[mac]

Well some would say that there is a cause because it would cause harm to the mother if the baby were born.

In the case where it causes physical harm to the mother, I personally accept the need for abortion. Just like in the case of born humans, the only justification for self defense is the protection of one's own life.

 

[Jryan]

In the case where it causes physical harm to the mother, I personally accept the need for abortion. Just like in the case of born humans, the only justification for self defense is the protection of one's own life.

So then you are not for an outright ban?

 

[mac]

So then you are not for an outright ban?

Not in the case where the mother's life is in danger, or where there is an indication of severe birth defect.

 

[Jryan]

Not in the case where the mother's life is in danger, or where there is an indication of severe birth defect.

I can accept that as your belief, I think anyone who thinks it should be outright banned is insane though. My 2 cents.

 

[Jerry]

How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?

The unborn was not convicted of any crime.

***
I often wonder how leftists on DP can get on my ass for calling the execution of wrongfully convicted people "collateral damage", when at the same time those leftists support killing innocent unborn children who have also committed no crime.

If killing the innocent is never acceptable, then abortion has to be banned.

If at-will elective abortion is acceptable, then so much more acceptable is rarely executing a wrongly convicted prisoner.

***
IMO pre-viability abortion should always be legal; and rarely executing a wrongfully convicted prisoner is an acceptable risk to improve the capitol punishment system.