Leftist Hypocrisy on Abortion and Death Penalty

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

 

[Brickjectivity]

https://abortion.procon.org/
Educate yourself on the issue rather than conflating abortion with murder and with the death penalty.

 

[Sunstone]

Why do you believe fetuses are "innocent, unborn children"? If fetuses are indeed "innocent, unborn children", would you favor prison terms for women who spontaneously abort due to some negligence on their part -- as might be the case if a parent of a real child brought about the child's death through negligence? If not, how do you account for your inconsistency on the issue?

 

[Cacotopia]

Also why would you expect every democrat or "leftist" to share and maintain the same idea?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I view these issues as being tied about as much as being anti war and pro assisted suicide. Just because permissible killing is involved does not mean the reasons behind them can be adequately compared.

 

[Father Heathen]

The answer is obvious: those who are pro-choice don't believe that embryos/fetuses possess the attributes that define personhood, thus the comparison makes no sense in this regard.

 

[TheoDixon]

If one doesn't view the foetus as a living being of moral value then terminating it isn't hypocritical. Same can be said vice-versa, I heard Kyle Kulinski arguing that it's hypocritical for right-wingers to support the death penalty and be pro-life. Believing that murders and rapists deserve death isn't incongruent with believing that innocent life should be maintained.
Obviously, you can pick apart either side's arguments but they're not necessarily hypocritical.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The answer is obvious: those who are pro-choice don't believe that embryos/fetuses possess the attributes that define personhood, thus the comparison makes no sense in this regard.

That's not my pro choice position tbh. It might be for a lot of people, and I'm not knocking it. But personhood is irrelevant to me, only body autonomy. Even if it were a fully sentient, sapient person in there I would support the option to end the pregnancy.
If the fetus is viable, I support live extraction abortive methods such as hysterechtomy abortion or cesarean (which is, in fact, a late term abortion method.)

 

[TheoDixon]

That's not my pro choice position tbh. It might be for a lot of people, and I'm not knocking it. But personhood is irrelevant to me, only body autonomy. Even if it were a fully sentient, sapient person in there I would support the option to end the pregnancy.
If the fetus is viable, I support live extraction abortive methods such as hysterechtomy abortion or cesarean (which is, in fact, a late term abortion method.)

There's a large array of reasons why individuals might be pro-choice/life, I was just using the most simple lines of reasoning although support for Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument for bodily autonomy is quite popular as well.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about taxation? Assuming you're not a hardcore libertarian and believe taxation is morally acceptable, do you see a tension between believing you have the right to chose what to do with your body (or, perhaps, what to do with another person inside your body) and believing there should be restrictions on what you do with your money? If not, what's the difference in your view between having bodily autonomy and autonomy over the fruits of your actions.
Not meant to be a trick question, just interested to see your thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

As Father heathen pointed out, Abortion rights supporters make the case that the foetus hasn't yet developed the criteria that would define it as a person, whereas condemned criminals are persons.
What I find strange is how anti-abortion types are so often ardent supporters of the military.

 

[blü 2]

The implication ... that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children.

Well, I can't speak as a toe-the-line Democrat, but it's not a new question and I offer nothing novel.

1
In the nine months or so of gestation, the zygote develops till it's a baby. At the end of the first trimester it's maybe 60 mm / 2½" long and weighs 15 gms / ½ ounce. Abortion in the first trimester is the removal of a particular non-sentient collection of cells.

The great majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. After that, the force of this argument begins to fade, and by the third trimester, the fetus gets nearer and nearer to independent existence.

2
On a practical note, women have always acted to abort the child when they felt they should or must. Laws to the contrary have never stopped them. Which brings up the question, who has the right to stop them, and on what basis?

The answer that fits best with both morality and nature, it seems to me, is that the woman is not a breeding cow, nor the property of anyone else, nor of the state, and is the one with the right and power of decision in such matters.


Then why oppose the death penalty?

Because if it's okay for the state to do it, why not individuals? What distinguishes the two killers? (Not, I hope, that one pleases the baying mob ─ I'd prefer the state to be wise, just and dispassionate.)

And because sooner or later the state will kill some person innocent of what he or she was sentenced for.

And because social injustice, for which we're all responsible, plays its part in who gets to commit crimes, and who gets a good education, employment opportunities, and a stable environment. No one was hanged for causing the GFC, for example, a puzzle for anyone pondering justice.

 

[Altfish]

If any side is hypocritical over abortion it is surely the GOP.

OK, be anti-abortion BUT you must then increase women's access to contraception and healthcare. You should improve adoption services and welfare provision, pre-school, schools, to ensure that ALL babies have an equal chance after birth. You should make sex education compulsory at school with no religious exceptions.

Until that is all available, no one should push a 'pro-life' agenda, because what pro-life currently means is "we support you in the womb, but after that you are on your own"

 

[dfnj]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

I don't see how you can ask the question and also claim personal opinions on each issue are irrelevant. The way Democrats think about these issues is exactly how they can be logically consistent and moral.

Democrats believe it is immoral to tell a woman she does not have the right to decide how her own body is used. When a fetus is not a baby, the umbilical cord is coming out of a woman's body. A woman has the right to cut the umbilical cord and remove the fetus because it is her body. A fetus is not a human being. Human beings are capable so surviving without their mother's umbilical cord being attached. Now cutting the umbilical cord and removing the fetus may be immoral in some people's eyes. But it is not murder because there is nothing preventing the fetus from surviving on it's own and when it does it is called birth.

The problem with the death penalty is how many times people are wrongly put to death. There are many documented cases were DNA evidence has proved a person's innocence after they have been put to death. For Democrats, being against the death penalty is not about being pro-crime or pro-criminal. This is is not about "protect[ing] the lives of murderers". It's about protecting innocent people for an overly aggressive government which has been shown to make many mistakes when it comes to murder convictions. Murder convictions can be mistakes. At least with life in prison some mistakes can be corrected. Besides, life in prison is a much worse punishment than the death penalty because criminals get to experience old age. We have no way to know if someone experiences true justice after death. Making criminals experience old age in prison is justice.

So it doesn't seem to me these positions are inconsistent. It doesn't seem to me there is any moral equivalency with these two issues. In once case the government is preventing a women from having control over how here body is being used. And the in the second case it is about preventing the government from killing innocent people who were falsely convicted.

 

[Curious George]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

A couple things to ponder.

1) The governmental interest differs.
2) The financial cost differs.
3) The rights involved differ.
4) The consquences for allowing/disallowing either differs.

In short, no internal inconsistency is necessary.

 

[dfnj]

There's a large array of reasons why individuals might be pro-choice/life, I was just using the most simple lines of reasoning although support for Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument for bodily autonomy is quite popular as well.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about taxation? Assuming you're not a hardcore libertarian and believe taxation is morally acceptable, do you see a tension between believing you have the right to chose what to do with your body (or, perhaps, what to do with another person inside your body) and believing there should be restrictions on what you do with your money? If not, what's the difference in your view between having bodily autonomy and autonomy over the fruits of your actions.
Not meant to be a trick question, just interested to see your thoughts.

Good point on other possible hypocrisy. Another one would be pro-life but anti-gun control Why is it not okay to kill "babies" in one case but okay to kill human beings in another set of circumstances. How can anyone be pro-life and not be a pacifist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you believe fetuses are "innocent, unborn children"? If fetuses are indeed "innocent, unborn children", would you favor prison terms for women who spontaneously abort due to some negligence on their part -- as might be the case if a parent of a real child brought about the child's death through negligence? If not, how do you account for your inconsistency on the issue?

I think it's due to the fact that a double standard exists from a legal point of view, considering that the killing of a fetus can bring about a murder/manslaughter charge.

Big case about it back in the 90s...

When the Death of a Fetus Is Murder

 

[PureX]

And then there is the hypocrisy of the right wanting to ban abortion because they are so "pro-life", while wanting the state to kill people for committing crimes, wanting the nation to resort to warfare (more killing) over ideology, wanting everyone carrying handguns so they'll be ready to kill a fellow citizen any time and anywhere they feel threatened. It seems the only humans these pro-lifers don't want to kill are the ones that haven't become human, yet.

 

[viole]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

You mean like we do in most of Europe?

Actually, in places like Norway, even life sentences are considered immoral, and they do not exist, not even for mass murderers. Abortion, however, is allowed. Maybe the fact that a bunch of cells does not look at all like a thinking and feeling human being might play at role.

Since the difference between a human being and a bunch of cell is obvious, and the latter is abortion, that explains to you why Europe, and probably your liberals, have no big problem with it.

So, the real debate here is not whether abortion and no-death penalty are contradictory, but to decide the right point of no return between a bunch of cells and a fully formed human being.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

Dems only made Pro-choice part of the party platform recently. Prior to this change one could be pro-life Dem in the Bible Belt thus possible support from social conservatives. Dem platform does not equate complete support by it's supporters especially when there are only two parties of power thus umbrella voting.

The inconsistency is not that simple. There are a number of laws which define a person, personhood, which is different from being a human. A murder is well beyond the established criteria of person in most laws. Any argument really needs to address personhood, potential of, and loss of.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

I am not american and not a democrat but i am a lefty. How i deal with the moral inconsistency is there is no moral inconsistency.

The fetus is not a human being by most standards (including biblical standards) and legal standards.