I have to write a paper for my philosophy class, and my topic is regarding abortion and death penalty. I have to answer this question in my paper which I don't understand..so I was wondering if anyone understands this statement: "Explain why a person's position on abortion and death penalty should or should not be consistent." Can anyone please help me understand this statement? I tried asking my proffesor but I didn't understand his explanation either. You're help would be greatly appreciated....
2006-12-02 14:00:02 · 8 answers · asked by rOcKfIsH 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
Okay. Here's what it means.
If someone is against abortion, does that mean that they should also AUTOMATICALLY be against abortion? (That would be consistent.)
If you think that a person could think differently regarding the two, then that would be inconsistent.
So...you have to think about whether or not you think a person's opinion about abortion would "match" with their opinion about the death penalty.
I hope this helps. Good question! :o)
2006-12-02 14:07:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anne C 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Abortion and The Death Penalty both consist of killing someone, to some people. Many people who are pro life when it comes to abortion are also pro life when it comes to the death penalty. Now the question (from my understanding) is whether or not you think people who are pro life (don't believe in abortion) should also be "pro life" (don't agree with the death penalty) when it comes to the death penalty. It's asking if you think the same person should have the same opinion on both.
Email me if you need anymore help. If you don't understand my explaination, I can rephrase it.
2006-12-02 22:10:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question asks if one should apply the same set of logical thoughts in deciding if abortion is okay that they use when deciding if the death penalty is okay.
For example- is it consistent to be Pro choice (okay to end an innocent life) while being anti-death penalty (Not okay to end a guilty person's life)
Is it more consistent to be in favor of ending the lives of those who have killed innocent people, and in favor protecting the lives of the innocent unborn? The pro life/ pro death penalty position has the advantage of both being about protecting the innocent.
Interestingly, the Pro-Life (anti abortion) position maybe most consistent with the ANTI death penalty opinion. If taking one kind of life is wrong, then maybe taking ANY life is wrong.
2006-12-02 22:15:28 · answer #3 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both abortion (forgetting for the moment for medical reasons) and the death penalty are voluntary acts that can end the life (or prevent the life) of another.
He is basically either "How can you justify being for abortion while being against the death penalty?" (or the opposite), or why if you're for one you ought to be for both.
Your job, if you are pro-choice, would be to justify how you can be for abortion but against the death penalty. And yes, there are some people who are for the death penalty but against abortion. Where's the consistency in that? That's what you have to argue.
2006-12-02 22:10:53 · answer #4 · answered by T J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you are pro-choice, i.e., abortion on request is OK, then you should be against the death penalty IF you believe that an abortion kills a living human being. However, this is only one viewpoint, and it depends upon your philosophy of when human life actually begins. A person has to decide this point for himself/herself, and each can only tell you his/her view - which others may disagree with.
2006-12-02 22:14:30 · answer #5 · answered by TitoBob 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means to explain why a person who says that abortion is wrong and should never be done should always feel that way, not change their mind when it's them. Or if they are against the death penalty they should always be against the death penalty and not change their stance when it comes to the trial of someone who murdered somebody close to him/her.
2006-12-02 22:12:04 · answer #6 · answered by FlyChicc420 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It means that if you are against abortion (for example), should you be against dealth penalty as well? They both involve killing. If you don't agree with killing in one form, should you be consistant on your opinion on other type of killing?
You have to say yes or no to this question and justify your position.
2006-12-02 22:11:06 · answer #7 · answered by tkquestion 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in other words Should there be a death penalty and should abortion be illegal. thats mainly what its sayin hoped this helps good luck
2006-12-02 22:04:43 · answer #8 · answered by Bean 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋