Why do liberals believe the death penatly only applies to innocent unborn babies?

Question

Liberals are generally against capital punishment (the death penalty), but for abortion. I find this very contradicting. They are against capital punishment because of the fear of executing innocent yet proven guilty people. However, they don't mind killing innocent unborn babies. So, you don't want to kill innocent adults, but you want to kill innocent babies? Why do liberal's hate babies? They're probably jealous because the babies are smarter than them. What is your justification for this hypocricy?

some answers have been stupid, so please have some facts before you speak. somebody told me i think the cells are a living thing based on religious dogma. i am a conservative, yes, but i in fact am not christian. don't go off assuming things. also, someone replied the baby cannot live on its own and is therefore not living. if a person is hooked on a life support mechanism and cannot live on his or her own, that does not make him any less alive. also, a fetus is living because it can be killed. only living things are made of cells and can duplicate them. the fetus is made of cells and its celly multiply, thus making it living. it is not part of the mother because the DNA is different than that of its mother

Answer 1

well, right when i saw the question, i was going to come in and bash your thoughts. i was totally for abortion since the fetus is not living, but your comments had some compelling aruments that i cannot deny. in a sense, i have been converted. the fetus is made of cells, duplicates its cells, and has unique dna. that life support mechanism example made me think... well thought out. i guess maybe the view, is, flawed.

Answer 2

Up until the child can survive outside the mother, I believe that the child is not considered separate from the mother. Therefore, she makes the decisions concerning her future.

Personally, I am for the death penalty, though for only the most horrendous of crimes or repeat offenders, which is generally followed.

But answering about the justification... hmm...
Well, since they are already past the womb, they feel comfortable saying that it is okay to do so.
But, they are not yet past the courts, so if it comes down to it, they could be accused incorrectly. So technically, it's looking out for themselves while being open-minded.

Edit:
I also believe that doctor assisted suicide is a good thing. If I were to be diagnosed with a deadly illness, I would want to be able to say, 'Okay, that's it then.' Better than rotting for 15 years soaking up my family's money. Even IF after those 15 years it was cured, I would have missed 15 years of my life and would need to rebuild anew. Okay, so maybe I could go talk to Oprah and make money being the survivor, but I would much rather meet my final destination and give something to the medical researchers to play with.

Yes, the fetus is a different DNA type than the mother. But without the mother, it cannot survive. If we are saying that the fetus is in fact a life that has its own rights, should we then charge mothers who drink or smoke with child endangerment? Or perhaps attempted murder or assault?

Answer 3

These are separate issues. The death penalty can be examined on the basis of facts that have nothing to do with the morality of killing. On the basis of these, many conservatives are also rethinking their views of the death penalty. Here are some verifiable and sourced facts about it.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It’s not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Appeals
Our appeals system is designed to make sure the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not revenge.

Answer 4

I have always supported the death penalty, at least until recent years, when too many have been found to be innocent through DNA testing. I think the criteria needs a serious overhaul in light of that. But I'm also pro-choice.

What I find confusing is the pro-life side of things. They tend to be pro-death penalty. Isn't the basic premise of pro-life that only God has the right to snuff out life? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, this is something that is very confusing to me. So life is God's business, yet because we don't want to spend the tax dollars to keep murderers alive by giving them life w/out parole we kill them instead. It seems like a pretty precarious rationalization to me. I know, the life in the womb is innocent, and the life that murdered is a piece of garbage. No argument from me there. But it's disingenuous to use one argument to save life and then ignore that argument when it's inconvenient and distasteful.

Answer 5

First, the liberal would say that he/she is not for abotion, but rather for a woman's right to choose whether or not to bring a child into the world. Nevermind the timeliness of exercising that choice. Second, I don't think a liberal thinks of abortion as "killing." Killing would imply that the fetus is a human life and I don't think a liberal would agree with that premise. Finally, I think liberals tend to excuse people for the actions. In this way, it makes perfect sense: 1) don't kill adults who have been found guilty of murder because they have an excuse somewhere in their lives and 2) don't take away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy because she has an excuse for not making that choice prior to getting pregnant. You see, it makes perfect sense - nobody is responsible for their actions. And, no one ever saw, held, heard, or touched that unborn baby so it never really existed. Eliminating something that never existed is no moral dilemma.

Answer 6

Up till the newborn can stay to tell the tale exterior the mummy, i think that the newborn isn't seen break away the mummy. hence, she makes the suggestions concerning her destiny. in my view, i'm for the demise penalty, although for below the main horrendous of crimes or repeat offenders, it extremely is commonly observed. yet answering relating to the justification... hmm... nicely, on the grounds that they're already previous the womb, they sense gentle asserting that this is totally nicely to take action. yet, they don't look to be yet previous the courts, so if it comes right down to it, they could be accused incorrectly. So technically, this is looking out for themselves on an analogous time as being open-minded. Edit: I even have faith that healthcare expert assisted suicide is a sturdy element. If I have been to be clinically determined with a perilous ailment, i might choose to be waiting to declare, 'ok, it somewhat is it then.' extra advantageous than rotting for 15 years absorbing my kin's money. regardless of if after those 15 years it replaced into cured, i might have missed 15 years of my existence and might choose to rebuild anew. ok, so according to danger i ought to flow communicate with Oprah and make money being the survivor, yet i might lots somewhat meet my very final holiday spot and supply something to the scientific researchers to play with. confident, the fetus is a various DNA form than the mummy. yet with out the mummy, it can't stay to tell the tale. If we are asserting that the fetus is in fact a existence that has its very own rights, could desire to we then value mothers who drink or smoke with newborn endangerment? or according to danger tried homicide or attack?

Answer 7

It is not that they "want" people to kill their babies, it is more that they do give people a choice what to do in case of an unwanted pregnancy. Inside my family I wouldn't like to see an abortion, either, but can I go ahead and forbid it to someone who wants to get it done? No. Neither would it be my business if a neighbor of mine decides to have one. And that's the point here. It is government getting into peoples business by totally banning it. It is demanding people their opinion.
Still, me, myself am against abortion. But I can't force that opinion on anyone.

Answer 8

The only contradiction is yours. You think a mass of cells has a soul based on religious dogma with no basis in fact or proof. Once you convince me this is true I'll come over to your side. Until then have fun hating me.

If it walks like a fundie, and it talks like a fundie....

Answer 9

Because babies are still tender. All the work that goes into being a convicted murderer makes the meat tough.

Answer 10

They believe that the woman has the " right" to slaughter her unborn because No man has the " right" to " force" her to bring a baby to term. In the meantime people are worried because the birth rate is dropping in " civilized" western countries that support the " right" of women to slaughter their unborn babies.