Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nikolai · 11-19-2002, 07:46 AM

I was debating the right to abortion with my father, and he pulled this common argument. He said it was not correct to be both for the right of abortions and against the death penalty. Can anyone provide me with some arguments against this, as I am sure this has been brought up in this forum before.

Feather · 11-19-2002, 08:33 AM

I'd say he's not necessarily right.

Abortion takes the life of an unborn human. Not a citizen. Not (necessarily) a "person."

The Death Penalty is state sanctioned killing of a person convicted of a crime.

If a person disagrees with the Death Penalty because "killing a human is never right," then it would indeed be irrational to hold both positions simultaneously.

On the other hand, if a person doesn't recognize that unborn humans have any right to life, but that born ones do, the positions can be held simultaneously without logical contradiction.

In other words, it completely depends on the individual's definitions and motivations. Or, if you like, blanket generalisations don't necessarily hold true.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>

Vesica · 11-19-2002, 08:37 AM

I don't think much more needs to be said beyond the crime distinction mentioned above. Particularly when one considers the types of crimes the death penalty is an option for.

Jamie_L · 11-19-2002, 08:38 AM

Well, I for one am opposed to the death penalty not because I am opposed to killing someone who committed a heinous crime, but because I am opposed to giving the government the power to use an imperfect justice system to execute its citizens.

I am somewhat pro-choice because I believe there are stages in a pregnancy when a woman's rights to her body are greater than the rights of the embrio/fetus she carries. However, there are stages where that situation reverses, in my opinion.

In my case, I see no contradiction in these positions. They are not simplistic stances about taking human life. They are complex stances about the legal rights of individuals.

It IS possible to conceive of stances on these issues that are contradictory. However, that doesn't mean all stances are.

Jamie

Nikolai · 11-19-2002, 08:45 AM

That is exactly the counter-argument I used, but then we got into the argument of when the person is considered alive, and that is too subjective to win the debate.

Vesica · 11-19-2002, 08:50 AM

Aren't we lucky to be living now?? Four hundred years ago we would be busy debating if toddlers were human or not and if women really had souls...So far so fast!

Undercurrent · 11-19-2002, 09:18 AM

The argument has an implicit assumption that a prenate belongs to the class of objects to which the standard set of human rights (including the right not to be killed) are granted. To argue that is silly, since whether or not a prenate is in that class is specifically the entire point of the abortion debate. Your father is essentially saying, "If you made my assumption (fetus has full human rights), it would be absurd not to share my conclusion (abortion is wrong)" without validating his assumption at all.

I've heard the same argument from (militant) vegetarians under the guise of, "How can you oppose the death penalty if you're willing to kill animals for food?" when whether or not non-human animals have the right not to be killed is the very point in question.

m.

brighid · 11-19-2002, 10:21 AM

I am pro-choice, but anti-death penalty for the very same reasons others have stated. I do not see any reason not to kill certain people who have committed the most heinous crimes, but our justice system has proved that it is extremely biased and has often convicted the wrong person for crimes he/she did not commit. I personally feel that it is better to allow the guilty to go unpunished then it is to terminate the life and liberty of an innocent person. Advances in forensic science (such as DNA verification) have exonerated many, many men who have spent decades in jail, time they cannot get back. The same science has also removed doubt in other cases. If the system to could be changed to insure that innocent men and women weren�t wrongfully put to death I would support the death-penalty. As of now I reserve the right to determine the validity of the conviction on a case by case basis and believe a nation wide moratorium on the death penalty should be enacted until the system can be changed.

I do not see all stages of fetal development (from the moment of conception onward) to be worthy of the coveted human rights protection. I do not place more weight on the life of the fetus than on the human rights of a woman that carries and is harmed in a myriad of ways by the fetus growing inside her. I believe the decision to abort is a private and medical matter, and although it should be regulated to protect women from medical harm I do not believe others have the right to interfere with those choices.

What I find more intriguing about this debate is the parts of the anti-abortion crowd that are staunchly in favor of the death penalty under its current form. In my opinion it is these people who reek with the stench of hypocrisy. They care about the unborn, but not the mothers and certainly not the people rightly or wrongly convicted of a crime(s).

Brighid

Silent Acorns · 11-19-2002, 10:34 AM

I'd like to add my voice to the argument that whether or not a fetus qualifies as a human being is a key component of the abortion debate. In my opinion, a blastocyst is NOT a human being, and a late third trimester fetus is. So for me the most important issues are:

1) at what point does a fetus become a human being with rights?
2) how can we ensure that abortions are performed as early into pregnancy as possible?

Shadowy Man · 11-19-2002, 11:33 AM

Undercurrent:

Quote:

I've heard the same argument from (militant) vegetarians under the guise of, "How can you oppose the death penalty if you're willing to kill animals for food?"

I'd counter with "How can you oppose the killing of animals when you are willing to kill plants for food?"

11-19-2002, 07:46 AM	#1
Nikolai Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 422	Pro-choice and anti-death penalty I was debating the right to abortion with my father, and he pulled this common argument. He said it was not correct to be both for the right of abortions and against the death penalty. Can anyone provide me with some arguments against this, as I am sure this has been brought up in this forum before.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2002, 08:33 AM	#2
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	I'd say he's not necessarily right. Abortion takes the life of an unborn human. Not a citizen. Not (necessarily) a "person." The Death Penalty is state sanctioned killing of a person convicted of a crime. If a person disagrees with the Death Penalty because "killing a human is never right," then it would indeed be irrational to hold both positions simultaneously. On the other hand, if a person doesn't recognize that unborn humans have any right to life, but that born ones do, the positions can be held simultaneously without logical contradiction. In other words, it completely depends on the individual's definitions and motivations. Or, if you like, blanket generalisations don't necessarily hold true. [ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>

11-19-2002, 08:37 AM	#3
Vesica Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sunny FLA USA Posts: 212	I don't think much more needs to be said beyond the crime distinction mentioned above. Particularly when one considers the types of crimes the death penalty is an option for.

11-19-2002, 08:38 AM	#4
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Well, I for one am opposed to the death penalty not because I am opposed to killing someone who committed a heinous crime, but because I am opposed to giving the government the power to use an imperfect justice system to execute its citizens. I am somewhat pro-choice because I believe there are stages in a pregnancy when a woman's rights to her body are greater than the rights of the embrio/fetus she carries. However, there are stages where that situation reverses, in my opinion. In my case, I see no contradiction in these positions. They are not simplistic stances about taking human life. They are complex stances about the legal rights of individuals. It IS possible to conceive of stances on these issues that are contradictory. However, that doesn't mean all stances are. Jamie

11-19-2002, 08:45 AM	#5
Nikolai Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 422	That is exactly the counter-argument I used, but then we got into the argument of when the person is considered alive, and that is too subjective to win the debate.

11-19-2002, 08:50 AM	#6
Vesica Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sunny FLA USA Posts: 212	Aren't we lucky to be living now?? Four hundred years ago we would be busy debating if toddlers were human or not and if women really had souls...So far so fast!

11-19-2002, 09:18 AM	#7
Undercurrent Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 2,362	The argument has an implicit assumption that a prenate belongs to the class of objects to which the standard set of human rights (including the right not to be killed) are granted. To argue that is silly, since whether or not a prenate is in that class is specifically the entire point of the abortion debate. Your father is essentially saying, "If you made my assumption (fetus has full human rights), it would be absurd not to share my conclusion (abortion is wrong)" without validating his assumption at all. I've heard the same argument from (militant) vegetarians under the guise of, "How can you oppose the death penalty if you're willing to kill animals for food?" when whether or not non-human animals have the right not to be killed is the very point in question. m.

11-19-2002, 10:21 AM	#8
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	I am pro-choice, but anti-death penalty for the very same reasons others have stated. I do not see any reason not to kill certain people who have committed the most heinous crimes, but our justice system has proved that it is extremely biased and has often convicted the wrong person for crimes he/she did not commit. I personally feel that it is better to allow the guilty to go unpunished then it is to terminate the life and liberty of an innocent person. Advances in forensic science (such as DNA verification) have exonerated many, many men who have spent decades in jail, time they cannot get back. The same science has also removed doubt in other cases. If the system to could be changed to insure that innocent men and women weren�t wrongfully put to death I would support the death-penalty. As of now I reserve the right to determine the validity of the conviction on a case by case basis and believe a nation wide moratorium on the death penalty should be enacted until the system can be changed. I do not see all stages of fetal development (from the moment of conception onward) to be worthy of the coveted human rights protection. I do not place more weight on the life of the fetus than on the human rights of a woman that carries and is harmed in a myriad of ways by the fetus growing inside her. I believe the decision to abort is a private and medical matter, and although it should be regulated to protect women from medical harm I do not believe others have the right to interfere with those choices. What I find more intriguing about this debate is the parts of the anti-abortion crowd that are staunchly in favor of the death penalty under its current form. In my opinion it is these people who reek with the stench of hypocrisy. They care about the unborn, but not the mothers and certainly not the people rightly or wrongly convicted of a crime(s). Brighid

11-19-2002, 10:34 AM	#9
Silent Acorns Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SW 31 52 24W4 Posts: 1,508	I'd like to add my voice to the argument that whether or not a fetus qualifies as a human being is a key component of the abortion debate. In my opinion, a blastocyst is NOT a human being, and a late third trimester fetus is. So for me the most important issues are: 1) at what point does a fetus become a human being with rights? 2) how can we ensure that abortions are performed as early into pregnancy as possible?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.