Death Penalty / Abortion Paradox

Maybe I'm off-base on this, but I've always thought the way the major political parties in the US breakdown on these issues is curious, to say the least.

In general the left is for free and unfettered access to abortions (pro-choice if you wish), and against capital punishment.

On the right, most people are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

Why do those on the left feel its OK to kill unborn babies but not convicted criminals?

And why do the conservatives feel its OK to KILL a fellow man but not an unborn child. Let me add that DNA science has shown that innocent men and women have undoubtedly been "legally" executed.

Wouldn't it seem much more rational to be either 100% pro-life or 100% pro-death?


I'd be interested in others thought/opinions.

OK, I'll weigh in on this.

The difference to me is with the death penalty , you are killing a person who knew the difference between right and wrong when they committed their horrific crime(s).

On the other hand, with abortion, you are killing a truly innocent human being that had no chance to do anything with their life.

I see a huge moral difference between these two acts and philosophies.

Originally posted by centurion1211
OK, I'll weigh in on this.

The difference to me is with the death penalty , you are killing a person who knew the difference between right and wrong when they committed their horrific crime(s).

My thoughts on this will sound simplistic but the concept is simple. How can we punish even the worst of crimes (murder) by committing the same crime?

Originally posted by centurion1211
OK, I'll weigh in on this.

The difference to me is with the death penalty , you are killing a person who knew the difference between right and wrong when they committed their horrific crime(s).

On the other hand, with abortion, you are killing a truly innocent human being that had no chance to do anything with their life.

I see a huge moral difference between these two acts and philosophies.

It definately a tough question.
I am very definately anti capital punishment - if one innocent person dies it just isnt worth it. Emotionally I can understand how you would want to kill someone for doing something really bad but as a civilised society we cannot take this action simply because mistakes will happen.

I am not pro abortion but I'm not against it. It is a very subtle area and there are so many factors involved. I think someone saying that you are killing an innocent being without any chance is too simplistic and definately is weighted by religious leanings. At what age does a group of cells become an actual person ??
At some stage the feotus becomes able to feel pain and to respond...... 20 weeks or so ?? I'm not sure exactly but around this point.

If you revel in having a free country people must have the right to make decisions about their own body. This shouldnt be a political issue - it isnt in the UK so much that's for sure but it carries so much in the US.

Well, in my personal opinion. I think that abortions are on a level.

There is a good and a bad side to abortions.

The bad first. Is people having willing unprotected sex, and i DON'T take into the excuse ' we didn't think as it was in the heat of the moment' or ' we were to drunk'. That is random BS.

But then should you allow them to have an abortion because they can do the action but not the responsibility? But then have the child in adoption or care because they cannot cope?
But then they should know what unprotected sex could cause a child to be born.

But then for a woman to be raped and become pregnant out of the attack... should she keep the child which is being made in her tummy? should she remove the baby which was inflicted on her not by her choice. But then people will say it is not the babies fault. But doesn't the woman have a choice....??

Some people may call me heartless but a 'baby' isn't really a baby until say 14weeks. Then it forms a shape of a human, but before that it is a bag of nerves, blood and tissue.

I believe a woman should only get ride of the child if she was raped. Because i believe she should not have to be in pain. Whether she keeps the child or not it is her choice and i wouldn't judge her one little bit if she got ride of the child. But then there are people who also disagree with that as well.

But then back to the topic. Death penalty...

Two ways of looking at it.

1) You are as bad as the criminal
2) You are stopping the criminal going out and doing the crime he committed again.

I agree with both of these to an extent.

But phedofiles and rapists should be shot on site asap. Extreme but MY OPINION. Before anyone jumps me.

But murderers.... here comes my little question mark...

A person goes out and kills a random person. Someone plans a killing. Some one has no reason to kill but does..

But i know a man who has killed someone. He killed his wife and her lover.
But it was wrong but i can completely understand 100% why he did it.

Should he be killed for her and his affair. Yes he did wrong but i don't think he should be killed for it. Yes a life for a life... seems a fair trade.

This makes me wonder if the penalty was here.... would he be dead because of the law...

So what i personally think if there is no motivation and a people going out just to kill people then i think they should but apart from that no.......

But then i can also see where people who disagree with me come from.. but this is my opinion and i am sticking by it.

So to answer the overall

It depends on the situation.

Oni x x

Originally posted by darkbluesky

My thoughts on this will sound simplistic but the concept is simple. How can we punish even the worst of crimes (murder) by committing the same crime?

History shows that repeat offenders are common.

Unless there is some new other way to stop a person from killing again, then you are at least partly responsble for the next killing.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by darkbluesky

My thoughts on this will sound simplistic but the concept is simple. How can we punish even the worst of crimes (murder) by committing the same crime?

History shows that repeat offenders are common.

Unless there is some new other way to stop a person from killing again, then you are at least partly responsble for the next killing.

Simple as that.

What about the many innocent people (mainly black) who have been murdered by your government ?

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Wouldn't it seem much more rational to be either 100% pro-life or 100% pro-death?

For me it's not a matter of pro-life vs. pro-death. I fully support the right to choose but am against abortion. Just beacause someone supports the right to choose doesn't automatically make them pro-death.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Wouldn't it seem much more rational to be either 100% pro-life or 100% pro-death?

For me it's not a matter of pro-life vs. pro-death. I fully support the right to choose but am against abortion. Just beacause someone supports the right to choose doesn't automatically make them pro-death.

I probably oversimplified, my point is, wouldn't it seem more likely that if a person is pro-choice they would also be pro-death penalty? And vice/versa, if you're anti-abortion, wouldn't anti-death penalty seem more compatable w/ that position?

I'm anti-abortion (in most cases) and also anti-capital punishment. I believe I'm in a very small minority.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by darkbluesky

My thoughts on this will sound simplistic but the concept is simple. How can we punish even the worst of crimes (murder) by committing the same crime?

History shows that repeat offenders are common.

Unless there is some new other way to stop a person from killing again, then you are at least partly responsble for the next killing.

Simple as that.

What about lifetime imprisonment? Or execution on the request of the accused?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
What about lifetime imprisonment? Or execution on the request of the accused?

Lifetime improisonment? In my experience, eventually someone feels sorry enough for the imprisioned person and lets them out. Nevermind the victims.

Execution on the request of the accused? Exactly how would this still not be the state killing someone, the same thing you condemned earlier?

[edit on 10/10/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by centurion1211
What about lifetime imprisonment? Or execution on the request of the accused?

Lifetime improisonment? In my experience, eventually someone feels sorry enough for the imprisioned person and lets them out. Nevermind the victims.

Execution on the request of the accused? Exeactly how would this not be killing someone, the same thing you condemed earlier?

I don't think I actually condemned it. I posited a question. Also, I think this scenario is similar to assisted suicide, euthenasia on request, or even a DNR request.


[edit on 10/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 10/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

I myself am against abortion and pro death penalty. For me its not a question of which one is "killing" they both clearly are. It is rather a question of which one is "murder".

I just personally believe that if you go so far as to murder someone, you do not deserve to continue in our society. As far as I am concerned they are getting the good end of the deal, much more humane that what they did to thier victims.

Abortion on the other hand is the taking of a innocent life. I consider abortion to be murder.

It's simple. They are hypocrites.
Not surprising really.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I'm anti-abortion (in most cases) and also anti-capital punishment. I believe I'm in a very small minority.

Actually, most of my friends feel the same. Maybe it's because we are from different parts of the country? Both are compatable.....anti-death IMO.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I don't think I actually condemned it. I posited a question. Also, I think this scenario is similar to assisted suicide, euthenasia on request, or even a DNR request.

The funny thing is, I am actually for these things. Not that any death is funny. I always wondered why Dr. Kevor... (sp?) went to jail when it was ok for Terri Shiavo's husband to "pull" the plug? Both were done at the patients "request".

Originally posted by NeoSocialist

What about the many innocent people (mainly black) who have been murdered by your government ?

Let the government without blame (yours in this case?) cast the first stone.

Translation: When you can say the UK has committed no death penalty errors ever, come talk to me about the U.S. Until then ...

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I don't think I actually condemned it. I posited a question. Also, I think this scenario is similar to assisted suicide, euthenasia on request, or even a DNR request.

[edit on 10/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

Ah yes, state sponsored and controlled euthanasia. Now there's a "slippery slope" if I ever saw one. You can't have thought this through to even suggest such a thing. You trust the state (any government?????) enough to put them in charge of such a thing? If so, how long before people start to question exactly who made the death request. Hard to prove one way or another if the government says it's so. Isn't that one of the big issues many here have with the current administration now - truthfulness?

And when the poor, old and infirm also start "requesting" euthanasia, would that set off any alarm bells for you?



[edit on 10/10/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I don't think I actually condemned it. I posited a question. Also, I think this scenario is similar to assisted suicide, euthenasia on request, or even a DNR request.

The funny thing is, I am actually for these things. Not that any death is funny. I always wondered why Dr. Kevor... (sp?) went to jail when it was ok for Terri Shiavo's husband to "pull" the plug? Both were done at the patients "request".

My thoughts exactly Griff.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I don't think I actually condemned it. I posited a question. Also, I think this scenario is similar to assisted suicide, euthenasia on request, or even a DNR request.

[edit on 10/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

Ah yes, state sponsored and controlled euthanasia. Now there's a "slippery slope" if I ever saw one. You can't have thought this through to even suggest such a thing. You trust the state (any government?????) enough to put them in charge of such a thing? If so, how long before people start to question exactly who made the death request. Hard to prove one way or another if the government says it's so. Isn't that one of the big issues many here have with the current administration now - truthfulness?

And when the poor, old and infirm also start "requesting" euthanasia, would that set off any alarm bells for you?

[edit on 10/10/2006 by centurion1211]

You're taking this thread a bit off course Centurion. I do not sponsor or support state sponsored euthanasia. I mentioned it only in comparison to requested execution by an accused criminal sentanced to life in prison. If you were suffering life imprisonment wouldn't you want the option of ending the suffering, the same way a terminally ill patient would?

But enough on that, its not what this thread is about. I'm trying to understand why some people think aborting a baby is OK, but executing a criminal is not, and why some think just the opposite.

I fully comprehend the arguments and rationale behind both positions. What I don't understand why more people aren't consistent in their positions regarding death.

Why aren't more people:

a) anti-fetus death and anti-criminal death;

or

b) pro-fetus death and pro-criminal death.


From your responses I gather you are in the (a) group, as am I.

Let's figure out why many peolpe seem to "pick one from each list" if you know what I mean.

Maybe I'm just wrong and most peolpe do fit into one of these two groups. It just doesn't appear that way to me.