Why is the murder of unborn children considered humane while the execution of heinous criminals is inhumane?

Answer 1

That's the liberal thought, don't put to death convicted murderers and rapists, but kill all the babies you want to. Crack the little skulls open and suck their brains out. They love it.


And by the looks of some of these answers it's pretty easy to see, the whacked out libs can actually rationalize this stuff. But you'll never get a reasonable answer.

I'm kinda undecided on the death penalty. I been for it for a while but the bible does say "the wrath of man doith not the righteousness of God".

As far as abortion,... if you don't want to have babies, don't produce them. If you can't control yourself enough to keep from getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant, then you don't even need to be walking around with the rest of us.

Answer 2

That's complex question. Whether either of those scenarios is humane depends on where you stand. If you look at the law as it stands right now both scenarios are considered humane because both are currently still legal. I don't think the nature who is being killed makes it any more or less "humane".

lets use the example of dogs.

When dogs are put to sleep they use phenolbarbitol to sedate them to the point that their heart stops. This is considered the most "Humane" way to euthanize a pet. It doesn't matter if the dog attacked and killed a small child and is being put to sleep by court order because it is a dangerous animal or if the dog is being put to sleep because it's been at the pound for too long and nobody wants to adopt it. The nature of the creature being killed doesn't change how humane the procedures used to kill it are.

But I do see the point you are trying to make.

Now applying this to unborn children. At early stages of pregnancy a zygote or fetus is not "self aware" or able to feel pain. Thus a first trimester or early second trimester abortion would be considered humane because there is no evidence of pain or distress being experienced by the zygote/fetus. This also follows along with current law with late third trimester abortion. As a general rule this is against the law and good medical practice because we know that a fetus that is in it's later stages of development can feel pain and it could be considered inhumane to kill a fetus in a manner in which would cause it pain.

No onto the death penalty. The argument here is that killing a person as a deturrent to other people who kill is generally ineffective. Thus the only real reason that the person is being killed is out of vengance which could be considered just as evil as the murder that person commited in the first place to get on death row. So it's not so much the methodology that is argued to be inhumane these days (although there still are some that say leathal injection is painful but that's generally disputed by the majority of the medical and scientific world) it's more along the lines of the reasoning behind why that person is being killed.

Also another line of thought is that legally a fetus is not considered to be "alive" as an independant living being so (aside from personal or religious beliefs) abortion is not legally anywhere near the same realm as murder or execution whilst a death row prisoner is definately "alive" and an independant living being so a different set of ethics apply.

Very thought provoking! Good Question!

Answer 3

It is more inhumane to be brought into this world unwanted, unloved, to be abused or raised by some doper. If the pregnancy is due to rape, would you want to raise your rapist's baby? If the pregnancy would kill the mother, should it be allowed to progress? If the mother is a child (under age), should a child be a mother?- could a child be a good mother? If the mother is a dope user, should the child be born- with whatever disabilities it WILL be born with due to the mother's drug use?- should a child be forced to endure such agony? If the child has disabilities, which can be confirmed in-vitro, should you condemn that child to be born, live in pain & agony, drain the family of their money and then die?

Now, as for criminals, for some- execution is necessary for the safety of society and for the psyche of society. The cost to execute is high, but so is housing and feeding a criminal for his entire life.

Answer 4

Why is either one "humane"?

And how can we really be sure of one's innocence or guilt? Several states have put all executions on hold because DNA evidence has proven some Death Row inmates to be innocent. One must ask oneself: Is it ethical to allow even one innocent person to be executed in the pursuit of killing guilty people?

humane
adj 1: pertaining to or concerned with the humanities; "humanistic studies"; "a humane education" [syn: humanist, humanistic] 2: marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering [ant: inhumane] 3: showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement
(from WordNet 2.0)

One *could* argue for the "alleviation of suffering" in regards to the abortion of children with life-threatening birth defects, children conceived by rape or incest, etc. One *could* also argue for the alleviation of suffering for crime victims via the vengeful taking of a criminal's life. And the "moral and intellectual advancement" of either abortion or capital punishment are so subjective that it's not even worth debating.

Ergo, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. So which beholders should determine national policy regarding abortion and capital punishment? Hard to say. Both political majorities and political minorities have been wrong in the past regarding ethical issues, and neither one could unequivocably claim the ethical superiority necessary to make those judgments.

So there's no clear answer to your loaded question. Sorry.

Answer 5

Notice its the liberal minded persons that believes that way. Conservatives tend to believe otherwise.

Now I am not saying I am totally against abortion. I believe in some abortion rights, but in a very limited capacity. I dont believe in this abortion on demand nonsense.

And I believe the capital punishment system has certain flaws too. They kill Tookie Williams while giving John Gotti life? At least if you're going to have capital punishment BE CONSISTENT. Dont kill the black guy and let the white guy off.

Answer 6

Because of the bleeding-heart mindset.

I am very pro-life (I have Ohio Choose Life plates on my van) and I think murderers should be executed--the key here is you should not be allowed to take INNOCENT life. The bleeding hearts think no human should be killed...and they don't consider the unborn to be human (still wondering what else they can be).

BTW Bush is not pro-life, just so people know. (One reason why I voted third party.)

Answer 7

Because people know the difference between biting your nails, thus killing Life as your definition implies and strapping a human being with consciouness, who has done many good and bad things in thier "life", who has a family, who may or may not be able to be rehabilitated and once again join society, who is the way he/she is in part because of the decisions we all have made as to how society is run...

thats why.

Answer 8

Because the idiots in Congress made it that way. Personally, I think they should put all murderers on Death Row...and a couple times of day, walk in front of the cells and randomly take one prisoner out and torture and kill them. As as far as abortion goes, to each their own.

Answer 9

Neither concerns itself (directly) with the issue of "humane" or "inhumane."

Neither is considered murder.

You "question" seems more of a statement than a question.

Answer 10

Abortion is murder.The performing doctor is a contract killer hired by the parent(parents) of the unborn child.The parents are accesories to murder.