Many progressives think abortions should be legal and are against capital punishment

[raccoon]

This one is.

Many right-wingers think abortions should be illegal and are in favor of capital punishment .

Both sides point to the other’s stand and say it’s illogical.

How can progressives respond to a right-winger who says something like, “So if you think abortions should be legal, why are you against capital punishment?"

[BrklynLib at work]

1. Basically I do not believe that an abortion destroys a living being.

According to some of the "right-to-lifers", life begins the moment one thinks about sex.
I do not agree with that concept.

[bean fidhleir]

25. Abortion DOES destroy a living thing. Whether the thing is a "being" is a different question

It's certainly alive, though, the same as any other collection of cells. If it weren't, it'd putrify rather than develop.

[BrklynLib at work]

28. Perhaps to you..not to me.

I value the lives of the already born..their health and well-being take a higher place in my list of priorities.

[bean fidhleir]

31. You didn't really read what I wrote, did you. You really should read before responding, it's less

silly that way.

I said nothing about values. I merely made the biologically accurate observation that abortion does kill a living thing. What do you suppose the PURPOSE of abortion is, if not that?

[BrklynLib at work]

33. To annoy right-to-lifers, of course.

[IndianaJones]

2. I just say that I don't like babies. nt.

[2008]

30. "They're too little"

[Iris]

35. and they drool.

[Javaman]

36. and they poop a lot. nt

[GreenEyedLefty]

3. Because the issues are apples and oranges.

-One is a choice which should be controlled by the individual making it, the other is imposed upon the individual by the state.
-Abortion is not the killing of a sentient human being, capital punishment is.
-Capital punishment has been proven time and again to NOT be a deterrent to capital crime.
-People are working to prevent unwanted pregnancy via education and access to contraceptives; but no one seems to be doing much to reduce the capital crime rate by preventing crime.


Those are a few...

[patrice]

7. I have been thinking along those lines.

On the point that a decision about whether to have a baby is Private: I think that it is, though that decision IS impacted by Social factors, like Health Care, Economics and Environmental viability, so, though I see the responsibility as being primarily Private, I wonder about the proportions of the Social factors around that Private decision.

Doesn't Society have to step-up to its responsibilities BEFORE a woman can make a responsible/free decision, because, otherwise, her decision is NOT FREE; it is enslaved by whatever Social conditions are extant at the time of her "Choice".

[GreenEyedLefty]

9. What about simply not wanting a child?

Lots of women have abortions who have good health care, well-paying jobs, stable relationships, etc... but they just don't want a baby. I think any reason to have an abortion is a valid one. There doesn't have to be any far-reaching consequences at all.

[Iris]

12. While the series was much maligned here, Sex and the City did an excellent episode about abortion

The 30-minute comedy/drama covered a lot of ground - exploring when and why a women might choose an abortion at different points in her life.


and sometimes it's just as simple as not wanting to have a baby.

[patrice]

13. IF I'm an absolutist about anything, it is Freedom.

Since I'm not absolutely an absolutist, I do not support presumptions of absolute Freedom, but rather the most Freedom possible for the most Individuals possible under whatever given set of physical conditions we are dealing with. So I would need to evaluate how the decision you propose would impact the Freedom of other Individuals. Of course this leads us to a question of the viability of a given fetus and in that regard, I consider 9 months next to nothing for a healthy and otherwise functional person to "endure" to bring another viable fetus/Person into the World and to, then, adopt that Person out to other Persons who will love it and, thus, increase the overall level of love in the World, which will, eventually, benefit the Group as a Whole . . . hypothetically, of course, contingent upon a definitions of things such as: the physical conditions/circumstances in which such a decision is made (see my post below about Social factors impacting "Choice"); viability, love . . . ?

BTW, though I consider those 9 months next to nothing, I do not claim the right/responsibility, private or social, of imposing that criteria on others, so it looks as though what I'm proposing here is OPTIONS.

[Iris]

39. self-delete

[GreenEyedLefty]

43. Have you had children?

I ask because when you become pregnant and carry the child to term, you are making an agreement of sorts to sacrifice your body for that "next to nothing" period of time and agree to assume the risks of such an endeavor, up to and including death. It's not for the faint of heart, pregnancy. I think the freedom argument is a good one, if maybe a tad on the simplistic side. It assumes that pregnancy is simple, delivery is simple and the decision to adopt a child out as simple.

In reality, it isn't so simple.

Edited to add: I don't mean to pry. No reply is needed.

[Tech 9]

37. Forget about abortion for a sec

drop some of the namby pamby stuff of your post 13 (almost Panglossian in a weird way), and extend this idea out to its logical conclusion. If you do, your whole worldview will change, by necessity.

You should check out G.W.F. Hegel's Philosophy of Right

[patrice]

4. This is a USEFUL discussion: Because one is a Private decision & the other involves Me . . . ? nt

[supernova]

5. Well, from a philosophical standpoint

in both instances you are sacrificing a human.

The difference is in levels of awareness.

In the abortion, you are sacrificing someone who is not yet aware that they exist. Or that others like them exist. And you are sacrificing this collection of cells in hopes that at some point in the future you will be able to return to the idea of giving someone else a chance or not, depending on the mother's wishes. It's the idea of postponing life rather than snuffing it out completely, I guess.

In the case of capital punishment, you are sacrificing a fully formed aware person. And it doesn't bring back or atone for the original crime. It spreads the misery from one family to two (the victim's and now the perpetrator's families.)

So, my answer would be that you are minimizing misery in the one instance, and maximizing it in the other. edit: Also, the first is a private decision that an individual woman makes about her own life, her own priorties. The second is a state-sanctioned substitute for vengence.

[mitchum]

6. I'm in favor of both; neither capital punishment nor abortion are murder

[izquierdista]

18. You anti-Pope, you!

According to the old man in the white dress, both are unacceptable......well, except for heretics who have already condemned their mortal soul. Then you can torture them to get them to confess before you boil them. :silly:

[mitchum]

26. I will gladly accept the title of "Anti-Pope"...

:)

[ColbertWatcher]

8. That is how the GOP want the issues to be framed.

They want the government to be in charge of arresting, trying and punishing people, despite their disastifaction with the way that very same government handles their money.

They also want the government to interfere with how doctors treat their patients.

Frame it that way with a GOPher and see if they still agree with their ideology.

[NewJeffCT]

10. With the death penalty

The government should not be in the business of deciding whether or not to take a human life in response to a crime.

Abortion is a personal decision that involves a woman and her doctor.

[mainegreen]

11. Some of us are not against capital punishment in theory, however...

our justice system can't guarantee in almost all the cases where capital punishment is sought the 100% absolute certainty that the defendant is totally guilty.

But certainly, there are cases where this level of certainty can be met. It just usually is only in cases where heads of groups have engaged in things like genocide, or where a person is caught on live TV of several different stations commiting crimes and posting manifestos and the like where you really can be that certain.

For example: Hitler. I know, I know, everyone brings up Hitler, but he's a damned good example. He did it. There is no doubt at all that he was guilty. I'd have no problem applying the death penalty in cases of that level of certainty.

It's just that here we seem to think things like fingerprints on a weapon is all you need to reach that level of certainty. I'd say that's ludicrous. What can get you beyond reasonable doubt is certainly not the same as beyond all doubt.

But, I do think that's a minority viewpoint here.

Plus, as already pointed out here, at least below a certain point in time, a fetus is not a person in the sense of a thinking being. No mind=not a person.

[RoseMead]

14. I agree with you, actually

I would rather no one kill anyone for any reason. That said, I am *most* firmly against the death penalty because there is no way to 100% guarantee that innocent people will not fact the death chamber. Even when police and the courts do their utmost to make sure the right person was convicted in a crime, mistakes will happen.

[unpossibles]

15. two main reasons, many small ones

1 - Wanting abortion to remain legal does not mean I want people to have them. I am also very much for a stronger comprehensive and realistic sex education, and easy access to all forms of birth control for all people. Access to birth control does not make people have more sex, it just hopefully makes them have smarter sex. Lack of said access similarly does not prevent sex, nor does lack of information about sex. Ideally, while remaining legal and accessible, we try to reduce the NEED for abortions in the first place, by lowering unwanted pregnancies and unsafe/irresponsible sex rates.

2 - It is a right that is up to the woman having the procedure, not me or anyone else. Ideally, both parents would be involved, and typically they are, but again it is ultimately up to the woman carrying the potential baby. Period. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions any more than the war on drugs has stopped marijuana use. Sorry, but that's not how things work in the real world.

[MedleyMisty]

16. It all hinges on when you think the fetus becomes a person with human rights

I personally put that point at after birth. Even if you quibble about when "life" begins, to me ethically the rights of the person carrying the fetus take precedence.

There is a huge ethical and moral difference between stopping a group of cells from continuing to develop and taking the life of someone who is self-aware.

[underpants]

17. Legal. SAFE. and.... RARE

the fact that there are still 1.2 million of them a year means that they aren't as rare as they should be...but of course some of those are "DNC"s from people who just couldn't fit it into their plans

[baldguy]

19. I'm opposed to abortion AND capital punishment.

But I recognize that abortion is an individual choice and that it would continue even if made illegal - and even if they were unsafe, therefor the common good requires that we promote a policy to make them legal, safe & rare.

Capital punishment is not an individual choice. Its the state forcing me to participate in committing what I believe to be murder.

[WindRiverMan]

20. Hmmmmm. For me

I think that abortion is fundamentally ending a human life. However, it is a decison made by a person who will be asked to support that life for at least nine months in their own body. A private, personal decision.

Capital punishment is a government decision, and I for one, do not believe that government should have the power to decide if you die.

[Lex]

21. A fetus in the early-term of the pregnancy is not a person.

And given how many men have been proven innocent through recent DNA testing who have been ON DEATH ROW, how could anyone with a brain continue to support the death penalty?

[KSCFAN]

23. DNA evidence.

The same can be said of fathers. Many have been found not to be the biological father and yet are still forced to pay child support.

[Lex]

24. Non-sequitur of the day?

:shrug:

[BrklynLib at work]

29. Perhaps of the year....

[KSCFAN]

22. Both are morally wrong.

Like everything involving politics the question is where do you put the authority. Federal, State, Local, or Individual.

To me not only is the death penalty wrong but the whole system of punishing people for crimes is wrong. My view is that we live in a free country. With that comes responsibility not to intrude on the freedom of others. If you commit a financial crime against someone you should repay the injury not go to jail. If you commit a serious violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery) you should go to prison for life. This isn't a punishment. It just means that you cannot be trusted with freedom so you need to be removed from those that can be trusted with freedom.

Abortion and Euthanasia are very very tricky subjects. They both involve when do our rights begin and end. To me it is also very slippery and some of the lines of thought head toward eugenics where society and government can take away someones rights because they deem them not competent. So I'd always err on the side of life as far as government is concerned. So I think assisted suicide should be illegal with punishments along the lines of taking away medical licenses.

Abortion is so much more difficult because it also involves the rights of the mother. My logic tells me that viability would be a good starting point. If the baby could live outside the womb it should have rights. If the mother wanted the baby out they could induce labor or perform a C-section and then try to save the baby. But as for the punishment of a person that does an abortion on a viable baby should be left up to the states to decide.

IMHO.

[stillcool]

27. One is sparing a life, the other is taking one...

Those who are against abortion have no concern for life. I would point out that it will be their tax dollars that will house and feed those lives they insist on creating...from the cradle to the jail. That ought to do it.

• In 2000, 1.5 million U.S. children had an incarcerated parent. Between 1990-2001, the number of women in prison increased by 106%.
• In 1995, 12% of children in foster care had not received routine health care. 90% had not received services to address developmental delays.
• Between 1992-2002, the number of infants and toddlers entering foster care increased by 110%.
• In 1993, more than 60% of the homeless population in NYC municipal shelters were former foster youth.
• According to a 1999 report, less than 50% of foster youth had graduated from high school, compared to 85% of the general population.
• In 2000, of 732 mid-western foster care youths, nearly 52% had lived in three or more foster homes and had moved schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system, a 90% increase since 1987.Three of 10 of the nation’s homeless are former foster children.
A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
50% were unemployed
Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems,

A study by the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenille Justice found 70% of these youth meet the criteria for at least one mental health disorder. What's worse is that 36% of the parents of these youth intentionaly involved the juvenille justice system to access mental health services...some 12,700 children were places in either child welfare, or the juvenilled justice systems to access mental health systems (U.S. GAO 2003) Of course, the U.S. DOJ in recent investigations into the conditions in these juvenille detention and correctional facilities, found inadequate access to treatment, inappropriate use of medications, and neglect of suicide attempts nationwide (U.S.DOJ 2005).
---80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

* 872,000 children and youth were confirmed victims of abuse or neglect in the United States in 2004.

Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care than they are in their own homes.
http://fostersurvivor.netfirms.com/statistics.shtml

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/entryexit2005.htm
Foster Care in the Year 2020 (if nothing changes in child welfare trends)
Children who will experience the foster care system Over 9,000,00014
Children who will age out of the foster care system 300,00015
Foster youth aging out of the system that will experience homelessness 75,00016
Foster youth aging out of the system that graduate from college 9,00017
Number of children killed by abuse or neglect 22,50018
http://www.casey.org/MediaCenter/MediaKit/FactSheet.htm

http://www.yesican.org/stats.html
Finding of the NIS-3:

* The estimated number of children seriously injured by all forms of maltreatment quadrupled between 1986 and 1993, from 141,700 to 565,000 (a 299% increase).
* Considering the Harm Standard:
* The estimated number of sexually abused children increased 83%;
* The number of physically neglected children rose 102%;
* There was a 333 % increase in the estimated number of emotionally neglected children; and
* The estimated number of physically abused children rose 42%.
Girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys.

Boys are at a greater risk of serious injury and of emotional neglect than are girls.

The incidence of fatally injured girls declined slightly, while the incidence of fatally injured boys rose.

Found no race differences in maltreatment incidence.

Poverty is significantly related to incidence rates in nearly every category of maltreatment. Compared to children whose families earned $30,000 or more, children in families with annual incomes below $15,000 were:

* More than 22 times more likely to experience maltreatment under the Harm Standard and 25 times more likely under the Endangerment Standard.
* More than 44 times more likely to be neglected, by either definitional standard.
* Over 22 times more likely to be seriously injured using either definitional standard.
* 60 times more likely to die from maltreatment under the Harm Standard.

How many children are abused and neglected in the United States?
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/childabuse/a/05_abuse_stats.htm?terms=statistics+on+child+abuse
Each week, child protective services (CPS) agencies throughout the United States receive more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. In 2002, 2.6 million reports concerning the welfare of approximately 4.5 million children were made.

In approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of these cases, the information provided in the report was sufficient to prompt an assessment or investigation. As a result of these investigations, approximately 896,000 children were found to have been victims of abuse or neglect—an average of more than 2,450 children per day.

More than half (60 percent) of victims experienced neglect, meaning a caretaker failed to provide for the child's basic needs. Fewer victims experienced physical abuse (nearly 20 percent) or sexual abuse (10 percent), though these cases are typically more likely to be publicized. The smallest number (7 percent) were found to be victims of emotional abuse, which includes criticizing, rejecting, or refusing to nurture a child.

An average of nearly four children die every day as a result of child abuse or neglect (1,400 in 2002).

[BrklynLib at work]

32. So many of the most avid "right-to-lifers" seem to value the unborn life much more than they do

the already born.
Once they start to actually breath air, their welfare is no longer any concern of those that go on and on about the precious life in the womb..
Neonatal and childhood health care...no!
Sex education and contraception...NO!
Education and housing...no!
Prison reform and legal services for the less fortunate..NO!!
Stop the wars so they won't be killed....NO!
Adopt one of those children that were born to someone who could not handle motherhood....NO!!!
These folks act like motherhood is the punishment these girls deserve for having gotten pregnant in the first place....

[raccoon]

34. I think that's exactly what many of them think,

"These folks act like motherhood is the punishment these girls deserve for having gotten pregnant in the first place...."

They think it's the punishment for her HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX in the first place.

[stillcool]

42. I don't think they think at all...

if I were to have to go to a foster home, I would sure not want it to be one of their homes. These are the very same people that display hereditary abuse, and believe they are superior by the geographical and familial placement of their birth.

[dsomuah]

38. How do right wingers justify capital punishment, but get uncomfortable with abortion?

Supporting death for a muderer or a spy is about judgementalism. Conservatives feel comfortable killing a death row inmate because they have determined that he deserves to die. Conservatives are quick to tell you who deserves to die. Murderers deserve to die, a black kid accidentally shot by the police deserves to die because he shouldn't have been running in the street at 10pm anyway. Palestenians all deserve to be killed by Israeli missile because they all support terrorism. Most conservative beliefs are grounded in moral judgementalism.

Enough about conservative judgementalism. I'm not even sure judgementalism is a word.

I personally oppose capital punishment only because our justice system is so screwed up that it's impossible to determine whether people on death row have truly received a fair judgement and truly deserve to die. But setting that aside, let's suppose for the sake of argument that I opposed capital punishment on moral grounds. Let's suppose that I felt it's immoral for the state to sanction murder. Why would I then argue that abortion isn't murder?

Well, Someone once said that abortion legislation is all about drawing a line. If murder is defined as deliberately ending a human life, then once a fetus becomes a HUMAN life, abortion becomes murder. So the question isn't: Is a fetus a life? But rather: "Is it a human life? and if so at what point?

Is it at conception? That's what a lot of social conservatives would have you belive. Is it before conception? That's what the catholic church tells you. The catholic church believes that it's a crime to use a condom or use birth control since these methods either kill sperm cells or prevent them from fertilizing the egg. Of course by that definition jacking off into a piece of tissue should be considered murder too right? After all you are condeming those sperm cells to death. But what about after conception? Is it murder to take the morning after pill? You are potentially killing a fertilized egg. Is that fertilized egg cell a HUMAN life? What about as the fetus grows and develops? At what point is it a life? When it's the size of a grain of rice? When it's the size of a golf ball? a hardboiled egg? a baseball?

The only difference between someone who opposes abortion and someone who doesn't lies in where they draw their line. Where they believe life begins. Why does one person consider it murder to abort a fetus the size of an egg, but not consider it murder when I set a trap to kill the rat in my basement? The rat is certainly bigger physicalle, and more advanced mentally, than the fetus at that point isn't it? So Person A who thinks a first trimester abortion is murder thinks so because they drew a line at conception and said "At this point I believe the developing baby is a human." Person B who believes that a life is not a life until the fetus develops brain function will not believe a first trimester abortion is murder, but Person C is a catholic who believes even the egg cell in a woman's body represents a life. Person A thinks Person B is a murderer. Person C thinks both Person A and B are both murderers.

So where do we draw the line? Well I personally don't know enough about biology, philosophy spirituality to truly draw a line. I do know that I certainly don't believe a fertilized egg represents a human life. But several years ago, the Supreme Court examined the case thoroughly and drew a line for us. Before 6 months, it's not a human life, after that it's a human life. Before 6 months is not murder. After 6 months, it's murder. Masturbaters everywhere can now rest easy. Me personally? I accept the judgement of the supreme court, and accept their line.

The supreme court isn't forcing you to swallow their line either. If you personally believe that a fetus the size of a golf ball is a life and wouldn't feel right terminating it, then by all means adhere to your line. All the supreme court says that until the fetus crosses that 6 month line, the determination as to whether it is a life, and all other determinations are to be made by the woman who is carrying that fetus. Because at that point the fetus is determined to be more of a part of her body, than a body of it's own. Her body, her choice.

[RB TexLa]

40. While I support both the right to choose and capital punishment, the people you describe are not

illogical. Supporting the right to chose is not about abortion it's about people being able to make decisions within their own body free of government interference. What they chose to do with that right isn't of concern. Have 20 abortions, have 20 kids, I may have an opinion on both of those courses of action but it's not my or the government's decision.


It's akin to saying how can you support civil rights yet support klansmen having the right to free speech.

[cynatnite]

41. There is no 100% guarantee the right person will be put to death for their crime...

That's what I say to them. If they are all for supporting life this should be a no-brainer.

[Juche]

44. The motivations are more subtle

The anti-abortion movement is in part due to a belief that a woman should be 'punished' for premarital sex and irresponsible sex. The idea of removing consequences from one's actions doesn't sit well with the GOP so if you

They also have a heirarchial social order where whites are superior to non-whites, christians to non-christians, americans to non-americans, conservatives to liberals and men to women. The idea of women making life/death decisions on their own makes some of them uncomfortable. Its probably on some level similiar to the desire that conservatives had/have to keep non-whites from voting, they don't want a group that they feel superior to and don't really respect to have that much power.

But basically the GOP thinks actions need consequences to keep people on the straight and narrow. being punished with a baby for having unprotected sex when you aren't ready or getting the death penalty is a way to punish people for immoral behavior. That is the jist I get from Lakoff.