How can someone be pro-choice and anti-death penalty?

Question

I consider myself to be rather liberal, however I sway from the left from time to time. I do not believe that anyone has the right to end another persons life, ever, through war, death penalty, abortion, etc.

I can't understand how someone can value one life over another.

Answer 1

abortion isn't murder; death-penalty is. that's how simple it is.

Answer 2

AN OBJECTIVE ANSWER:

I've asked myself this question and the one on the other side of the coin: How can someone be pro-life and support the death penalty?

The answers to both these questions simply depend on the ideology behind them.

People who support pro-choice and oppose the death penalty are looking at things from a stance of personal freedom and giving people the chance to better themselves and have full control of their lives. It is more of a stand point that acknowledges the subjectivity of life and doesn't seek to judge people by a set standard, as all people are different and should be allowed to figure things out for themselves.

Lets look at the other side, too:

People who are pro-life, yet support the death penalty are looking at things from an objective stand point. These people will tend to subscribe to some form of universal morality, even if it has some wiggle room. Everyone has rights, and if someone else violates those rights, they should be dealt with accordingly. Where a person has done nothing wrong, they are allowed the privilege to be unaffected by the will of others. By this standard, everyone is to be treated in the same regard.

Answer 3

Simple...some one whom is "Pro-Choice" is not necessarily "Pro-Abortion"... I know of several people whom are strongly Pro-Choice, and will defend it as strongly as they can. But, they view Abortion as a sin, and will try to convince you to not go through with it, but will NOT try to force their choice on you.

Pro-Choice is about allowing each person to weigh all options and consequences and then come to the right decision for her, and not for someone to come in and cram what THEY want her to do down her throat.
Abortion is a choice, as is Adoption, and is to Keep the child.

The true irony is that Anti-Abortionists are also Pro-Choice. They just want to eliminate one of the three choices.

As for being for or against the Death Penalty...that is a stickier bit. Some believe that no matter the cause, you should not end the life of a person. As to why they can be so, but pro-choice - one possible explanation is the Catholic Church's stance about *when* a foetus becomes a person. (Eight weeks?)

The apparent contradiction can also be explained by the old "I'm not involved, so I can say what I want." attitude. Now, have their 13 year old daughter turn-up pregnant, or a beloved family member of family friend murdered, and you'll see how fast their opinion(s) can change!

Answer 4

It's no more nonsensical than those who are pro-life and pro death penalty. I don't understand the difference in the values coming from the other side as well. Myself, I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. Though I've been bothered mightily by those inmates released from death row as innocent due to the advent of DNA testing. One innocent person put to death is too many. I think every death penalty statute in every state needs to be overhauled in light of this.

Answer 5

Well, since being anti choice forces women into back alleys as they did during the pre-Roe v Wade years, you could equally say that without safe, sterile abortions done by trained professionals, you kill or sterilize thousands of women each year. Do you ever think that by making illegal abortions, you are condemning women to death or destruction? At some point we all have to make decisions that may or may not go against our beliefs. If no one has the right to end a pregnancy, do you want a rape victim to be forced to bear the child? Or the incest victim to bear the child? If not, if you think that it should be allowed in those cases then your 'no one-not ever' argument falls apart.
We do have to think about valuing one life over anothers. I am pro choice, and pro death penalty. I have no problem separating these things. In one case a person has shown no ability to live by the rules and has taken the life of a fully formed functioning human being without his consent. He doesn't need to live to kill more people, there are some who would just destroy and kill because they are rogue the way rogue animals are, and we put down rogue animals too.
In the case of a woman wanting an abortion, as long as its early, I can't understand how her life is worth less than that of the one that is only forming and has no rational thought.

Answer 6

To answer your original question: pro-choice is not a belief that people should die. Pro-choice means, simply, that a person should have the RIGHT to make a decision. In the case of abortion, that usually means that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.

There are many people who are strongly pro-choice, but who aren't pro-abortion. In fact, virtually no one is pro-abortion.

That said, there is another factor: do you believe that life begins at birth or conception? If you believe life begins at birth, then you can support abortion but be strongly pro-life when it comes to issues such as war and the death penalty.

If you believe that the taking of any life, for any reason, is wrong... then this is a fine thing. However, I think you can come up with situations where you, yourself, do support taking a life.

For example, is abortion acceptable if it saves the mother's life? Is war acceptable if it prevents a genocide?

Answer 7

I think because the baby is considered innocent and has a life to live, where the person that is sentenced to death has lived and made poor choices and has been found guilty by a jury of their peers. I don't know where I stand on it but that is the rationale for it. I am definetly pro life, but I don't know where I stand on the death penalty honestly. My question to you is do you end the life of 1 to protect 10 others?

Answer 8

that's why we pay people (policemen and servicemen) to make that decision... i don't condone the taking of someone else's life.. but, sometimes, the only way for good to prevail is through tough decisions.. death penalties and wars included. no one could honestly say that they wouldn't destroy a life if theirs or a loved one's life were inenevitably at stake. if you can, you're a liar. or just plain ignorant.

elina.. you are mistaken. there is no proof whatsoever that the death penalty increases crime.. nor is there proof that it doesn't deter crime. if you asked 100 people if they could have a choice between execution or life in prison.. i can GAURANTEE over 95% would choose prison.. as far as costs go.. the ONLY reason executing someone costs more is the appeals process.. i.e. lawyers.. and that also depends on how long the "life" sentence is..

Answer 9

While I agree with you. I have noted that some people feel that the convicted felon who has perhaps taken life with out remorse demonstrated his inability to live among other humans. It is a remnant from the old an eye for an eye. While others feel that because a baby grows inside its mother it is part of its mother and they can do with it what they want. It is a cold and calculatingly convient argument. But a friend with whom I argue the point, always tells me that eventually that argument will evolve away since there will be no children to carry that banner. Just wish racists believed it.
.

Answer 10

Would you seriously not kill someone who is about to murder your mother? Or yourself? Do you hunt animals? Step on spiders or roaches? Walk across the grass? Floss bacteria out of your teeth? Support killing cancerous cells?

It's easy to value one life over another if you think about all of the times you already do so in your daily life, weekly life, every year, etc.

I don't like death either, but I would never consider interfering with another person's right to self-defense. If someone murdered in self-defense, that does not warrant the death penalty.

Answer 11

That's a question I've asked myself before. A very liberal stance. All I can figure is they want to not have to deal with the responsibility of raising unwanted kids, But the don't want anyone else making desisions on how to deal with murderers. Can't have it both ways in my way of thinking. I' m pro-choice and pro-death penalty. Oh, and I am not religious.