Many Liberals claim to be Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment. Isn't this hypocritical?

Question

for those who want to make the claim that pro-life and pro-capital punishment is also hypocritical, this argument is specious. For those who hold the Pro-choice/Anti-CP position, how can one morally defend convicted killers and rapists while at the same time promoting the killing of the unborn innocents. At least the Pro-Life/Pro-CP do not face this moral dilemma...and based on morality the Pro-Life/Pro-CP position is consistent.

For those who want to claim it is only a fetus, that terminology is only ever used to justify an abortion. The it's a fetus not a person argument doesn't hold up because, if it did, infanticide would likewise be legal, as both a fetus and an infant is totally dependant on the parents. And further, the argument of a woman having the right to do to her own body is likewise false since the fetus is in the body, not of the body.

Answer 1

On first consideration, it would appear to be hypocritical, but it isn't. These are both part of a deeply-held Liberal premise that no one should be held responsible for their actions. They can not accept that actions have consequences.

Answer 2

Not at all. It's completely consistent. And it has nothing to do with being liberal. It has to do with not trusting the government.

In both cases, they believe that government shouldn't be making decisions about life or death, because the government far too often acts with ulterior motives and far too often makes huge mistakes that adversely affect many many people. Hence, the more government can be kept out of things, the better. And that's been the conservative party line since the late 1800s until about 20 years ago.

The thing to remember about the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. One side is saying "abortion is wrong". The other side is saying "It's not the government's right to decide". Most of the Pro-Choice people I know are against abortion. But they're even more against government regulation of health decisions.

Same with the Capital Punishment issue. Those who want it say "bad people should be killed". Those who oppose it say "the government should be killing anyone, especially given how often they make mistakes".

In both the Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment camps, the argument basically boils down to "we don't trust the government to make the right decisions". And whether you are a liberal who hates government infringement of civil liberties, or a conservative who wants smaller government, I think anyone who has absolutely faith in the ability of the government to always make the right choice is very naive. So, better the government not be involved.

Answer 3

No. Being pro-choice is asserting that a person does not have to allow their body to be used to support the life of another, and is not any more different than being pro-choice about things like bone marrow, blood, and organ donation. Our society believes that you should not even be forced to donate blood and bone marrow (both very minor issues compared to a 9 month pregnancy) to save the life of another, so why should a person be forced to go through the even greater issue of pregnancy and birth to save the life of another?

Being anti-capital punishment usually is not so much a statement on the right of the guilty to life, but as a pragmatic issue of the risk of executing the innocent. Capital punishment does no good, it has no deterrent, costs more, and is hardly "justice" or "an eye for an eye." Modern exectutions are clean affairs where the condemned doesn't suffer, and is only put to sleep, hardly an "eye for an eye" since to be eligible for the death penalty, a person usually has to commit a very gruesome crime or have killed more than one person. Since it comes at the risk of executing an innocent, and actually carries no benefit, it should be done away with.

Answer 4

Technically once you've an abortion, you're killing something that's no extra conscious than a carrot. you aren't any more ending someone. yet you're ending the prospect of the man that carrot might want to change into. so that you aren't any more killing someone like you're once you execute someone. on the only hand, say that there is not any god and souls aren't any more actual. And say we knew that. Then it might succeed to have abortions on occasion and could no longer be regarded down upon except for by utilizing the folk who imagine that youngsters are worthwhile and do not see a carrot, yet somewhat one which sounds like a lizard of an same age in an egg. on the different hand, say faith no longer utilized and persons truly knew there became a god. And god pronounced even as children recieved their souls. it could be homicide to kill them after that element for certain. and probable will be homicide besides. i imagine god pronounced no longer to kill until eventually that is for nutrients. To sum that up, children would or would no longer have souls, adults if souls are actual do have souls. And the top, liberals that argue this can say 2 issues. they ought to have the alternative and under no circumstances have a religions beliefs oppressed onto them, yet extra relevantly, that the toddler probable wouldn't have a soul and so that they are not murdering what's both a mistake or a foul decision made a lengthy time period back. yet killing an adult is. I see abortion as a way out of duty. yet there's a lack of consistency for conservatives that trust that abortion is undesirable except for even as the female became raped. it really is murdering a accessible destiny man or woman if the sex became consentual, yet no longer homicide if it wasn't? i imagine the in person-friendly words case the position abortion could ensue is even as someone will die if it would not ensue. yet i don't think of a regulation should be surpassed to emphasise my view. i'm professional decision yet do not accept as true with many peoples possibilities. God positioned Adam and Eve contained in the backyard of Eden and pronounced do not eat from the tree, yet he did not conceal the tree.

Answer 5

Somewhat... But Pro-Choice is not necessarily pro-abortion. It is simply giving the choice to the woman to end a pregnancy-- there should be limits tho.

On the other hand, conservatives are anti-choice/abortion but pro dealth penalty.

Either stance is hypcritical-- if you're pro-life then that really means all aspects-- abortion, cap. punishment, euthenasia, etc.

Answer 6

I'm pro-choice, but personally against abortion.
Execution is killing a human being. Removing a fetus is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a person.

Answer 7

Yes, these are the same people who believe that you are "born" gay but that you can "reform" pedophiles.

I think it's possible to be in favor of letting innocent fetuses live without letting serial killers off the hook and still avoid being labeled "hypocritical" by the abortion lobby or the Church of Liberalism

Answer 8

And many conservatives claim to be Pro-Life and pro Capital Punishment ... isn't this hypocritical too then??

Answer 9

No more hypocritical than being pro-life and pro capital punishment.

Answer 10

Good question!

At first I thought, yes. But the issue is too complex to generalize. How many innocent men have been executed? How many women have been raped into unwanted pregnancy?

There are scenarios in both issues that are good reasons to vote for or against.

(Also, nice point Sashie.)

Answer 11

I'm pro-life but i agree with capital punishment