Is it moral to support abortion and not capitol punishment?

[mr.guy]

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.

What is the alternative for the latter?

 

[XAAX]

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?

Yep, perfectly. There is nothing wrong with abortion or executing those that are murderers. Abortion is not murder if it is done prior to the cut off period. It is far greater a travesty to force a child to be born into a world that does not want it and have it possibly abused or dropped into the foster system.

 

[Comprehend]

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???

Why do you assume that I wouldn't care about children being cared for?

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.

I do not believe there are classes of human beings. you either are one or you are not. I cannot *show* you that I respect humans who are already here, but I can tell you that I do. (I think I do)...

 

[Comprehend]

That's a loaded question, comprehend.

yeah.

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.

Ah, I see...

You were for it, before you were against it?

LOL. Thank you Mr. Kerry...

 

[Comprehend]

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.

It sounds like you are under the impression that abortion only takes place when the mother's life is in danger. Is that what you believe?

 

[Comprehend]

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.

How do you feel about partial birth abortions?

You believe that a freshly delivered baby is a person but 2 minutes before, when the baby was in the birth canal, it somehow was not a person? Interesting.... I would call that rationalization.

 

[Comprehend]

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.

Using that logic, killing a one day old baby shouldn't really be that big of deal right? Certainly they are not nearly so much of a person as a 10 year old. And a 10 year old not nearly as much a person as a college graduate. Maybe killing stupid people shouldn't really be that much of a crime...

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

This of course is only an opinion. I disagree with it.

 

[Comprehend]

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?

How would you define a "fully actualized" human being? Certainly you could not argue that a one day old infant is as "fully actualized" as a 40 year old. You make an argument that introduces a slippery slope.

Mentally handicapped people are certainly not "fully actualized" human beings are they? Would you support the euthanization of the mentally handicapped? You do by your previous statement.I think that is barbaric eugenics.

Those who do not know their history...

 

[Comprehend]

Yep, perfectly. There is nothing wrong with abortion or executing those that are murderers. Abortion is not murder if it is done prior to the cut off period. It is far greater a travesty to force a child to be born into a world that does not want it and have it possibly abused or dropped into the foster system.

If you support both abortion and capitol punishment, then you don't fit the criteria for the question. Of course supporting both is consistant.

 

[lilithu]

Why do you assume that I wouldn't care about children being cared for?

I just find it curious all the time and energy spent arguing that abortion is the "murder of sweet innocent little babies" and yet I don't see nearly the same energy spent questioning why our society does not provide adequate health care and support for the babies that have already been born. Where are all the threads protesting the drastic cuts to social services due to Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy while fighting two wars abroad?

 

[Ody]

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?

A few cells does not a baby make.. it makes a fetus. Fetus =/= Baby. Orange is not yellow.

 

[lilithu]

Using that logic, killing a one day old baby shouldn't really be that big of deal right?

No, because there is no reason whatsoever to kill a one day old baby, or even a one minute old baby. What you don't seem to understand, even tho I've stated it twice already, is that I do value the foetus BUT NOT OVER THE MOTHER. Once the baby is born, there is no conflict with the mother and therefore the baby has all the rights that a person should have.

 

[lilithu]

How do you feel about partial birth abortions?

According to the CDC, t[SIZE=-1]he vast majority of abortions, 88%, are performed within the first trimester, way before a nervous system has developed. Only 1.5% of abortions occur after 5-months. [/SIZE]"Partial birth" abortions account for only [SIZE=-1]0.17% of abortions. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]And yet you want to focus on "partial birth" abortions why?[/SIZE]

 

[Tigress]

It sounds like you are under the impression that abortion only takes place when the mother's life is in danger. Is that what you believe?

No, I'm under no such impression, and no, it's not what I believe.

 

[painted wolf]

in referance to the op.
Yup.

Abortion is the controlled miscarrage... one would hardly say a mother who miscarries is a killer. (not that I agree with abortion but I do agree with freedom of choice)

The death penalty is state sanctioned murder. It is often misused against the poor and the innocent, rather than the actually guilty. Frankly it is too corrupt to be justifyable. IMHO

wa:do

 

[Comprehend]

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?

I was just being silly with the extras. Don't be so serious.

 

[Comprehend]

I just find it curious all the time and energy spent arguing that abortion is the "murder of sweet innocent little babies" and yet I don't see nearly the same energy spent questioning why our society does not provide adequate health care and support for the babies that have already been born. Where are all the threads protesting the drastic cuts to social services due to Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy while fighting two wars abroad?

I guess you would have to ask people who actually believe what you said is true.

 

[Comprehend]

A few cells does not a baby make.. it makes a fetus. Fetus =/= Baby. Orange is not yellow.

A partially born child is not a few cells.

 

[Comprehend]

No, because there is no reason whatsoever to kill a one day old baby, or even a one minute old baby. What you don't seem to understand, even tho I've stated it twice already, is that I do value the foetus BUT NOT OVER THE MOTHER. Once the baby is born, there is no conflict with the mother and therefore the baby has all the rights that a person should have.

so you would only approve of abortion when the health of the mother is in danger?

 

[Comprehend]

According to the CDC, t[SIZE=-1]he vast majority of abortions, 88%, are performed within the first trimester, way before a nervous system has developed. Only 1.5% of abortions occur after 5-months. [/SIZE]"Partial birth" abortions account for only [SIZE=-1]0.17% of abortions. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]And yet you want to focus on "partial birth" abortions why?[/SIZE]

was that an answer to my question?

The focus on partial birth abortions is because that is where the line is drawn. This is when the disctinction is most readily apparent. One minute it's legal to kill the baby, the next minute it isn't. Do you really think the baby is so radically different in 1 minute? I didn't choose to draw the line. If it were drawn at the 2nd trimester, I would be talking about that point.