Is it moral to support abortion and not capitol punishment?

[Comprehend]

In honor of, and response to, Sunstones thread about rape and murder... and also using the same loaded language for your enjoyment.


Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?


*posts question and runs for the hills* :run:

 

[lilithu]

Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?

Is it morally consistent to care about the lives of unborn foetuses to the point where you would force unwilling women to bring these pregnancies to term AND THEN turn around and not care about their food, shelter, education, and general well-being once they are born???

You think foetuses are full-fledged human beings? I can respect that *IF* you show me that you respect the humans who are already here on this earth.

 

[Mathematician]

That's a loaded question, comprehend.

Speaking as a person who is against both (in the case of abortion, the legalization of it), I want to just state no one can ever tell me I'm not pro-life. I wish I could comment from past experiences, but alas when I was pro-choice I was also pro-death penalty.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

lilithu beat me to it.

 

[Tigress]

In honor of, and response to, Sunstones thread about rape and murder... and also using the same loaded language for your enjoyment.


Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?


*posts question and runs for the hills* :run:

I don't know that it's morally consistant, but abortion deals not only with the life of the uborn, but also with the life and well being of the mother, which is why I ultimately support the legalization of abortion.--Abortion or not, either way we're sacrificing one life for another, and I don't feel that I'm in any position to say which life is worth more.

 

[anders]

Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?

Here's one point where I for once agree with the Old Testament: foetuses are not persons. They can't be "killed". I don't agree, though, with the OT view that they are the belongings of the father only; I find them to be a part of the mother, who thus has every right to any decision regarding this part of her body, at least during the first two trimesters.

I'm against the death penalty for any person. Undeniably guilty perpetrators of really viscious crimes should be locked up for life. More expensive and more cruel, but anyway.

 

[lilithu]

Here's one point where I for once agree with the Old Testament: foetuses are not persons. They can't be "killed".

Just because they aren't persons doesn't mean they can't be killed. Anything that is alive can be killed. A single cell can be killed. If foetuses aren't persons - and that is the gazillion dollar question here - then they can't be murdered. And they certainly can't be "executed" since that is a political form of murder.

 

[quietlight]

If foetuses aren't persons - and that is the gazillion dollar question here - then they can't be murdered.

Exactly - discussing abortion outside of answering this question is just as useful as chasing your own tail.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In honor of, and response to, Sunstones thread about rape and murder... and also using the same loaded language for your enjoyment.


Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?


*posts question and runs for the hills* :run:

Let's not confuse "moral" with "intellectually consistent."

 

[Arabis]

Just because they aren't persons doesn't mean they can't be killed. Anything that is alive can be killed. A single cell can be killed. If foetuses aren't persons - and that is the gazillion dollar question here - then they can't be murdered. And they certainly can't be "executed" since that is a political form of murder.

I think that is the age old argument about abortion. Are fetuses persons or not?

I do not think that abortion is right in the most general sense. They however have not committed any crime and they are not able to decide for themselves what happens to them. I think that a fetus is a person and even if you don't believe that, you do believe that they become one.
I do agree with the death penalty. Those that have committed crimes and have been tried for them know what the consequences are and they are getting the punishment that has been decided upon by a judge and jury.

 

[lilithu]

I think that a fetus is a person and even if you don't believe that, you do believe that they become one.

Yes, I do believe that they have the potential to become persons. But for me, there is a difference between what they have the potential to be and what they are. I do not view an acorn and an oak tree the same way. I do value the foetus because of its potential, but not at the expense of the woman who is already a fully actualized human being.

I do agree with the death penalty. Those that have committed crimes and have been tried for them know what the consequences are and they are getting the punishment that has been decided upon by a judge and jury.

The death penalty is not "punishment"; it's state sanctioned vengeance.

 

[Arabis]

Yes, I do believe that they have the potential to become persons. But for me, there is a difference between what they have the potential to be and what they are. I do not view an acorn and an oak tree the same way. I do value the foetus because of its potential, but not at the expense of the woman who is already a fully actualized human being.

I understand your point, I just think that a fetus should be viewed the same as a child, just a difference of opinion.

The death penalty is not "punishment"; it's state sanctioned vengeance.

Again, a difference of opinion. When you break a law there is a consequence and in some cases it is the death penalty. I think that this is appropriate in certain cases, not all and it should be decided very carefully. Human life is not to be taken lightly.

 

[Rough_ER]

Maybe the question for some people here should be: Is is morally consistent to support the execution of "fully actualized" human beings and stand firmly against the abortion of foetuses?

I'm actually surprised when I discuss this with people; it seems most folks are against one and for the other. Strange.

 

[Ozzie]

In honor of, and response to, Sunstones thread about rape and murder... and also using the same loaded language for your enjoyment.


Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?


*posts question and runs for the hills* :run:

The first is usually a matter of moral conscience for the impregnated woman, while capital punishment is a not a matter of personal moral conscience, but is a fact of collective moral/political choice. So on abortion, my personal moral stance is irrelevant, whilst on capital punishment it is relevant.( I happen to be against CP in any case. It is not good for society. I happen to be for abortion is some cases.)

 

[Fluffy]

Yes it is consistent even in the form that you present (although I am unsure what you mean by "partially born").

Both abortion and capitol punishment are not okay. However, since we have do not have what I consider to be a viable alternative for abortion but we do have one for capital punishment, the former is permissable until that condition is met whilst the latter might have been in the past but is no longer.

 

[lilithu]

Yes it is consistent even in the form that you present (although I am unsure what you mean by "partially born").

Both abortion and capitol punishment are not okay. However, since we have do not have what I consider to be a viable alternative for abortion but we do have one for capital punishment, the former is permissable until that condition is met whilst the latter might have been in the past but is no longer.

fluffy, I really do not think it's legitimate to compare abortion and capital punishment. I reject the very premise of the thread. Yes, it is the case that in both instances we're talking about whether someone has the right to life - a right that is usually unquestioned in society. But that's where the similarity ends.

In the case of abortion, the question of a right to life is based on the question of personhood. Does a foetus count as a person? Therefore, the issue of whether or not the foetus is "innocent" is absolutely irrelevant, and inserting it in the OP simply distracts attention away from the real question - is a foetus a person?

In the case of capital punishment, there is no question as to whether the convicted is a person or not. If not, then it would not make any sense to try to hold the person responsible for his/her actions. Instead, the question is whether or not, once someone is a person, that person can do something so horrendous so as to lose his/her right to life.

It is a separate moral issue from the abortion issue.

Imo, no one can do anything so horrendous so as to lose their inherent right to life as a human being. I am against capital punishment on principle. It's not a matter of whether there is a viable alternative. (Since when has there not been an alternative to capital punishment?)

And as I've stated before, I do value the foetus because it is a potential person, but not at the expense of the mother who is already a person. In this case, the question of whether there are alternatives is relevant. Because if there were an alternative solution where the foetus could continue its existence into a full-fledge person, but not at the mother's expense, then I would support the right of the foetus to live.

 

[Quiddity]

In honor of, and response to, Sunstones thread about rape and murder... and also using the same loaded language for your enjoyment.


Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?


*posts question and runs for the hills* :run:

It is not consistant if the person in question see's a fetus as a person. Most that I have bump into do not equate the early stages as a person. I disagree with them to the core, but there is two different premises at work here.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Lilithu ,
To me, asking whether two moral beliefs can be held concurrently is entirely legitimate. What would be illegitimate would be to infer some sort of truth from any inconsistency encountered (ie pro-choices are morally inconsistent therefore abortion is wrong). A comparison is entirely entangled with a contrast and thus comparing the two will naturally result in giving us a chance to demonstrate the differences resulting in the conclusion that it is consistent to be pro-choice and anti-CP.

I feel that all of the adjectives in the OP were irrelevant with regards to my position on abortion and CP (innocence included) because I have not constructed my beliefs on the basis of, say, a guilty foetus.

I agree the two issues centre around different questions but that is a direct response to the thread since it does not, although it is intimated, state that these positions cannot be held consistently but asks whether they can. The answer you give is "yes because they center around totally different moral questions".

However, I have found that any thread on abortion goes down hill fast as soon as it asks the question of whether a foetus is a person. I think it was robtex (sorry if it wasn't!) who first introduced me to the idea of requiring a system in place to deal with the influx of new life that would result from a ban on abortion. Therefore, I feel that the question "Is there a viable alternative to abortion?" makes the question "Is a foetus a person?" irrelevant since clearly we do not have a viable alternative and so abortion is justifiable regardless of the status of the foetus.

 

[lilithu]

However, I have found that any thread on abortion goes down hill fast as soon as it asks the question of whether a foetus is a person. I think it was robtex (sorry if it wasn't!) who first introduced me to the idea of requiring a system in place to deal with the influx of new life that would result from a ban on abortion. Therefore, I feel that the question "Is there a viable alternative to abortion?" makes the question "Is a foetus a person?" irrelevant since clearly we do not have a viable alternative and so abortion is justifiable regardless of the status of the foetus.

Ah, by viable alternative, I thought you were refering to some as yet undeveloped technology that would allow unwanted foetuses to be brought to term artificially. If such a thing existed, I would be a proponent to the foetus' right to life.

I am not so worried about the influx of new life that would result from a ban. That presumes that there is a massive number of abortions performed each year, and I don't think that's the case despite how some protesters may present it.

It is not my experience that a thread on abortion necessarily goes downhill fast when the personhood of a foetus is called into question. I disagree with Arabis and Victor and they disagree with me, but I think there is still mutual respect. No one is calling someone else a baby killer or accusing people of wanting to keep women as chattel, etc. The OP was the most provocative and one-sided post in the thread. But it does seem like a sad impasse. I would prefer to focus on the things on which we might agree, like better social services for potential mothers so that they are less likely to opt for abortion, and better social services for children once they are born, so that we as a society continue to care for them even after they leave the womb.

 

[mr.guy]

Is it consistant to morally support the execution of sweet INNOCENT unborn or partially born babies (AKA abortion) while simultaneously being opposed to the execution of GUILTY (usually, right Texas??? ) evil, murderous criminals?

Do your flamboyant parameters extend to consistent argument in the instances of ugly, evil babies?

When considering the death penalty, how should the average jury member weigh what is EVIL, in a legal context?

Is the colour coded polarization you've framed not infer that abortion is a form of deliberate punishment to a fetus? Do you believe this to be the goal of abortion?

Reciprocally, do the evil and murderous deserve to die? If so, why?