Can you oppose abortion but support the death penalty?
 

Are there any ironies for a society that accepts abortion but abhors the death penalty?

It should be the other way round imo.

I guess you could argue, abortion is killing an innocent soul where as the death penalty is killing a killer.......not that I necessarily agree with that but I could see that reasoning

Edit : oh sorry you meant the other way round

The title and the OP don't tally up.

That was my line of thinking,Niamh:hugesmile:

Look at it either way, support both, oppose one or the other.

I support abortion and oppose the death penalty, but there isn't a contradiction there. I support the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't support the state to make decisions about whether a person should live or die.

To look at it the other way, you could argue that a life is not a life until it can survive outside the womb by itself (not that I agree with that either but I could see that reasoning also)

Difficult one this as I hate the thought of abortion(although I know sometimes it's for the best)I hate violence or hatred in anyway,but there are a few people I would happilily see swing,it goes against my beliefs but that's how I feel.

You can support abortion whilst not believing in the Death Penalty.

Although they might look similar ie (taking or saving a life) they are in fact totally separate actions.

To kill someone who has committed murder is totally unacceptable as we as a Society have moved beyond this type of retribution which brings us down to the level of the murderer. The Death Penalty is always thought of as a choice that should be used against people who commit the most heinous crimes BUT we have moved away from that mindset and have no desire to go back.

However, abortion or terminating a pregnancy is different as firstly the Mother is allowing the foetus to grow inside her body using her body, so until that foetus can survive outside of that woman's body she has the ultimate decision as to whether the pregnancy continues. Obviously in nearly all pregnancies the mother will do everything in her power to support and nuture her baby BUT this point of principle still applies.

Also if the mother knows the quality of the child's life is going to be so severely diminished (due to severe physical/mental handicap) then abortion actually becomes an act of kindness in these sad circumstances.

I guess the other situation to consider re abortion is when the woman has been raped and is pregnant, this is a bit more of a dilemma as it is not the baby's fault and it is healthy so abortion under these circumstances could be viewed as unnecessary.

But again it is the woman's choice ie she cannot be forced to bring a rapists baby into the world against her will.

So for me abortion is OK in certain circumstances as explained above but the Death Penalty I am totally against in ALL circumstances.

But you support the right of an individual to decide whether a person should live or die?

I actually think most people's support of abortion hinges on an inherent misunderstanding of the abortion process; that it is clean, quick and clinical. They believe the "bundle of cells" rhetoric which in fact only applies to very early stage abortions. Later stage surgical abortions, are effing barbaric. They follow one of two scenarios; either the baby is removed whole, in which case it can live (kicking, trying to breathe, making little noises) for several minutes after removal. It's an ethical minefield for the abortionist to physically kill it, so they tend to just be put in a surgical tray with a cloth over them and allowed to slowly die.

In the other scenario, they are mechanically torn limb from limb inside the womb and then extracted piece by piece. Research on this has (obviously??) shown very high levels of fetal distress during this process. They certainly feel it.

Of course - there are even worse, outdated methods... like when they used to use chemical solutions that effectively burned them out. Then you get a combination of the above. Sometimes they came out alive, writhing, covered in hideous burns. Before dying, of course.

A society that finds this morally acceptable in the name of "woman's body, woman's choice" is abhorrent to me. Not least because it's very rarely actually about the woman's body; it's very rare that people choose abortion because of the physical toll of pregnancy. They choose abortion because of the toll that a baby will have on their life. And that is... well... it's ****ing hideous.

There are only two scenarios where I find abortion ethically reasonable. The first is if a pregnancy (healthy baby or otherwise) poses a direct risk to the LIFE of the mother, in which case, there's obvious justification. The second is where there are severe abnormalities in the fetus that mean it's unlikely to be able to live any sort of normal life or, especially, where it's likely that they will be born (and live) in pain. But then, I also support euthanasia, so that sort of falls in line with that.

The issue of rape is also quite murky. But I think it should be a part of "rape general knowledge" if you will, that the morning after pill should be taken as a precaution. I'm aware that people might obviously not be thinking clearly, but that's why it should be driven home as "the thing to do". If anything, it's far less traumatic than discovering a pregnancy after rape and having to make that choice and then go through the abortion process.

Other than that? Yes, her body her choice. The choice is to not get pregnant. If you take risks during consensual sex (and it's ALWAYS a risk, just a smaller one with contraception) then you have already made the choice to accept the possibility of pregnancy. You don't get to just kill human beings because you made a mistake whilst getting your rocks off. It's madness.

Oh... regarding the death penalty... I'm a bit conflicted on that one.

I have absolutely no problem with unrepentant multiple-murderers of innocent people being put to death. Safer for the world, and I'm not going to mourn them.

I'm certainly against it for run-of-the-mill single murders... or even killings that have ANY sort of viable reason behind them. They should be locked up, certainly, but... **** happens, people have their reasons, and killing one person does not necessarily make someone a danger or evil.


BUT - I actually am fully against it. As I said, not on ethical grounds, but on the grounds that I have absolutely zero faith in the justice system to get it right 100% of the time. Mistakes are made, corruption is everywhere, money makes things happen and scapegoats are crafted. I can guarantee that completely innocent people would find themselves on death row. So, for that reason, I can't support it. I just don't trust the authorities to only kill the truly dangerous people.

No, I support the right of a female to decide what is best for her and her body. When women don't have control over their own reproductive organs is when we have societies riddled with old time poverty. I don't support the rights of the unborn foetus over the mother, absolutely not. What we have is an imperfect system, but it is better than forcing people who may have neither the psychological or financial abilities to care for a child, to care for a child for 18 years.

And that last paragraph is really bizarre. Abstinence is the only sure fire way to avoid the need for any abortion, but you seem to make the mistake in thinking that abortion is a form of birth control, when it's not, it's the last resort for people who've made informed decisions.

Then do you support the rights of a young mother to smother her three month old in its' bed because it's "best for her"? I see no ethical difference. Genuinely. A 16 week old fetus is no less human and no less a person than a young infant. Like I said; I honestly believe that if more people knew the realities of abortion, that it's not always a clean clinical process and passing a little blob of cells and that an actual baby-shaped baby is born, alive, and then left to die... far fewer would choose it.

Also; no, the last paragraph is not bizarre. If someone is old enough to engage in consensual sex then they are an adult. By making the choice to have sex (even with contraception) an adult should understand that one of the risks is that they will become pregnant, and have a baby. With properly used contraception, the risk is tiny, but it is a risk nonetheless.

And abortion is by definition birth control? Completely and literally. Yes it's the last resort for people who have made the decision not to have a baby. The last resort method of birth control.


I don't actually think abortion should be made illegal. It would only lead to more home-grown abortion methods and back street butchery. I do, however, personally think very little of anyone who chooses to kill a healthy baby conceived through consensual sex. It has no place in a supposedly civilised society. I sometimes imagine an advanced alien race looking down on us watching, saying "Oh look! The miracle of life, this man and woman have conceived a child and... and... oh... oh they're inserting metal clamps into her and ripping it limb from limb then scraping it out into a dish." Wow.

Good Post...I agree abortion is not quick and easy it is messy bloody and horrible. But as I have posted earlier I still think under certain circumstances it is necessary.

p.s - Congrats on your 1,000th Post - Keep up the good work !!!!!

A 16wk old foetus is most definitely different from what would be classed as a 12month foetus (3 month old baby). Hey, you may see no ethical difference, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

No, it's not birth control in the sense that we understand birth control to be. Birth control is preventative, abortion deals with the symptoms.

I really don't know what you're arguing against if you wouldn't like to see an end to abortion, and again, we've made society better for more children by not having every poor family in the world, be forced into having 8-10 children, which would automatically increase the rate of child deaths anyway, causing more pain and suffering than abortion.

I don't really have an opinion on either issue, perhaps because (hopefully) neither will affect my life. I think you can have different views on the two subjects without being a hypocrite. The death penalty is a final punishment; abortion is a final preventative measure. There are all sorts of moral debates about both topics that other people have covered in previous posts that I won't go into (because I don't really have an opinion either way) that can cloud the issues but when you take the ethics out of them, they are fundamentally different things, they're tied together through the concept of life vs death but they aren't the same thing.

If a woman has the right to kill her new baby that she has created does she not have a right to kill a person who has killed her child?

I would say not as they both involve the termination of a life so it would be slightly hypocritical I guess.

I support abortion - within the constraints laid down by law. I support the death penalty for certain crimes that would have to be laid down by law.

Well that's just logistics I suppose law, but it's surprising how laws affect your moral reasoning.

how can you even compare the two

Is that reply to me?

No, just thinking how laws change depending where you are.

Wouldn't it be the other way round.......moral reasoning affecting the laws?