I understand the Pro-choice & the Pro-life Arguments
I understand the Pro death penalty & anti death penalty arguments
I understand someone who is so hardened they think killing criminal & killing the unborn are no big deal
I understand someone who does not want to kill anything
What I can't understand is how one can be willing to kill the innocent unborn, but be unwilling to kill someone who is guilty of murder
2007-01-09 14:36:20 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree with both of those positions and although it does seem contradictory I will attempt to explain.
I believe the death penalty is wrong because if we kill then we are no better than criminals.
I am Pro Choice because I believe a mother and father should have the right to choose whether they are willing to have children.
2007-01-09 14:43:17 · answer #1 · answered by Sir Alex Awesome Valentine, Esq. 3 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Excellent question. I have never seen it phrased more perfectly.
Anyone who says that an embryo is not a living being is only trying to circumvent the truth.. If there is a heartbeat and blood flowing through the veins and arteries it is alive. Therefore if only God has the right to take a life then abortion should be outlawed.
Back to your question though. I am completely in agreement with you that it is contradictory to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. You can't have it both ways.
If we are going to judge an independent life like BeachBum has then a person who receives kidney dialysis is not an independent life. A person who takes medication to sustain their heart is not an independent life. So ending their lives by withholding treatment should not be considered killing them.
It is a slippery slope to justify abortion yet condemn the death penalty. I'l go one further, it is hypocritical slippery slope.
2007-01-10 09:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are putting together two separate issues and making them one...Not fair.
Also, because some is willing to allow the mother to decide doesn't not make us all responsible nor do we say we agree with the decision of the mother. Someone could be pro-choice and be against abortion because there are other ways to bring the baby to full term like adoption, surrendering the baby upon birth, surrogate motherhood (as there are many people who want that child), etc.
The matter of pro-choice needs to be understood and does not offer a Carte Blanche to the mother to have an automatic abortion. Society kills, or executes the murderer. With the issue of abortion, the individual is allowed to decide.
Doctors and medical staff should be well informed as to frown upon any abortion and offer and help the mother with her pregnancy. Whether it be prohibition, abortion or any other issue, the government has proven to fail miserably in the handling of certain issues and abortion is one of them.
Execute the murderer through the court system and help the mother through her pregnancy by offering medical and moral assistance...
2007-01-09 22:58:59 · answer #3 · answered by marnefirstinfantry 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First off, pro-choice people do not believe in killing babies. The believe it should be mother's right to make that choice rather than the state's to regulate. If you asked 100 pro-choice advocates, I assure you that at least 95% of them would say that adoption is the better alternative in almost every case.
When it comes to the death penalty, I simply believe that someone murders a fellow human has forfeit their right to live. Take Scott Peterson for example. He murdered his wife and dumped her body in the bay. How can anyone say his actions don't deserve the death penalty. In my opinion a needle in the arm with a drug that makes him fall asleep before his heart stops beating is much better than he deserves. I say let him hang - but not by dropping quickly to break his neck. Let him simply dangle and slowly die.
2007-01-09 22:53:10 · answer #4 · answered by Justin H 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This argument rests solely on your definition of life. When is a person a person? Nobody can argue that a convicted murderer is a person. It's pretty obvious when you see him walking around, running his mouth and wearing a fancy suit to court.
At what point a fetus becomes a person, though, is up for debate. Some people don't have a problem "killing" (if it can be called killing when something is not yet living on its own) something that is not yet a person.
I understand your desire to make a compelling argument against abortion, but the two really have very little to do with each other.
2007-01-09 22:44:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure I "understand" everything you understand, but I can agree with you that I clearly can't understand anyone who can be willing to kill the innocent unborn, PERIOD. And to combine that with being unwilling to kill someone who is guilty of murder is just an impossible pairing as I can see it. I hope you, too, can NEVER "understand" that pairing. It just doesn't make sense. God Bless you.
2007-01-09 22:48:37 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure.
I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
Why? Because only God has the right to take a life.
Now, you see, the problem is that pro-lifers define a fertilized embryo as a 'life' while I recognize that only God can answer that question also.
A fertilized embryo is not an independent life much like a person on life support that gets 'disconnected' was not an independent life either. We don't call that murder so why call aborting a fertilized egg murder that is dependent on tubes feeding it fluid, a life?
2007-01-09 23:06:13 · answer #7 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
you say you understand pro-choice arguments... yet you don't understand?
it's in the very base of being "pro-choice" and what is life... and when does life start...
most people that are "pro-choice" don't believe it's life until it can live on it's own, independent of its mother's body... like third trimester...
do you think at the moment of conception... when it's just one cell.. if it was destroyed... would that be murder to you... even though it's just one cell? I know a lot of people that don't think so...
2007-01-09 23:00:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am pro-choice and pro-capital punishment, and I agree. But technically, aborting the medulla oblongata is like aborting the mitochondria, nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum and phospholipid bi-layer...basically aborting something that is capable of respiration and metabolism, but not thinking.
The medulla oblongata is the first part of the body to develop as a fetus. It is in charge of respiration and metabolism. There is no functional brain mechanisms working until the fetus is about 5 and a half months along.
And no, I would never have an abortion, I just don't believe in cramming my morals down everyone's throats.
2007-01-09 22:48:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do you seriously expect common sense from people on these matters? Even Supreme Court Justices have been lacking in common sense! Justices William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, and Thurgood Marshall all supported the pro-choice point of view in Roe v. Wade (1973) and the anti-death-penalty point of view in the first death penalty case, Furman v. Georgia (1972). (I should add that Justice Stewart turned around 4 years later and upheld the newly enacted death penalty laws in Gregg v. Georgia (1976.)
2007-01-09 22:46:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋