Do You Support The Death Penalty?

[Mikaela]

Why not, though, if the only issue is who controls a woman's body? If the only interests involved are the woman's, and she doesn't want to have a baby, then it should be no big deal.

This is a rhetorical question, right? Or do you actually mean that?    If the so-called "pro-lifers" have achieved anything they've managed to bring loud and persistent arguments into the field for the fetus being a human being from the first cell globule or so - and even if a woman does not ultimately agree with that, I can hardly imagine her being in that situation and not considering those views or arguments at all, turning them over, making sure she's addressed those concerns.... Debating with herself whether she should really remove what will, if brougth to term, become a human being. There *is* a personal dilemma in that which would never be there concerning removing some other random body part, and I can't pretend there isn't. Which is also why I earlier said that I can see how my views on the death penalty might be brought into the field by anyone who honestly considers a fetus a human being with separate rights to life, even in the early stages.   

[serious crayons]

If the so-called "pro-lifers" have achieved anything they've managed to bring loud and persistent arguments into the field for the fetus being a human being from the first cell globule or so - and even if a woman does not ultimately agree with that, I can hardly imagine her being in that situation and not considering those views or arguments at all, turning them over, making sure she's addressed those concerns.... Debating with herself whether she should really remove what will, if brougth to term, become a human being. There *is* a personal dilemma in that which would never be there concerning removing some other random body part, and I can't pretend there isn't. 

OK, that makes sense. But it's for those very reasons that I can't help bristling a little when pro-choice advocates argue that the only issue involved is a woman's right to control her own body. I've never been fond of that argument. It dismisses as inconsequential the endlessly debatable but understandable concerns of at least some portion of abortion opponents that abortion is tantamount to murder. If a fetus is a human being, how does a woman's control over her body for nine months automatically take priority over its life? I mean, ultimately it might be possible to argue that it does (and I've seen such arguments made -- there's a famous and kind of ridiculous one involving a woman waking up to find herself chained to and attached by the kidneys to, for some reason, a violinist). But it's far from automatic.

I suppose as a political strategy, the control-over-body argument is more clearcut and easier to make than to step into the morass of debating the humanity, or lack thereof, of a fetus. But to me it seems limited and insufficient because it overlooks the hypothetical rights of both the fetus and the father.

[HerrKaiser]

I think I'll weigh in the question I started!!! It is a semi-oddity that, in general ( and generalities are fair since most of our lives are controlled by such), pro life folks skew toward pro death penalty and pro choice folks skew toward anti death penalty. To me, these seem like inconsistent logic, however, many like myself who are not averse (though may not heartily support) to the death penalty are heralding life and its preciousness by eliminating those evils who would destroy it.

On the other side, I do not find a similar rationale to help understand the apparent disconnect of being pro choice and avidly anti death penalty. The main reason in some of these posts to help address the inconsistency seems to be the notion that abortion in not about loss of a life, rather a women's right to control her body. That "argument" is decades old and as science has progressed, it seems less and less valid.

First, a baby is NOT a women's body. It is IN her body, but it is most definitely a separate human life. Second, the so-called government controlling one's body issue happens all the time; we are all victims and beneficiaries of it. A person cannot take prescription medicines unless the government says OK; one cannot have an operation to remove an ear just because he or she may want to; you cannot put alcohol in your body under age 21 or if you are in a car, a man cannot quit his job and as a result default on child support payments, etc etc etc. Such controls are commonplace and all around our lives and each is intended to be in place to help the common good, cause least harm to society, and avoid serious loss of civil rights to individuals and groups.

In most pro choice dialog, the baby is not considered a person and hence has no rights. This approach is a VERY slippery slop. Recall that Hitler rationalized the murder of millions because he believed it wasn't killing humans; to him they were sub humans, the Unter Menchen..not really people and hence had no rights. So, both in terms of rationalizing death penalites and abortion, many fail to observe the victims as human beings.

If I had to line up behind the most logical side it would be to support no death penality and no abortions after the first 4 months of the fetus' life. To deal with the results, I would have mandatory life sentences without parole (in mean prisons) for those who could have been executed and provide adoption services for all the would-have-been abortions.

[Shasta542]

First, a baby is NOT a women's body. It is IN her body, but it is most definitely a separate human life.

Well put. Thank-you.

[delalluvia]

First, a baby is NOT a women's body. It is IN her body, but it is most definitely a separate human life.

Well, actually no it's not.  That's part of the argument.  A fetus only becomes viable - able to exist on its own as a separate being at about - you medical people can correct me here - six months.  Before that, it is definitely part of the woman's body.  If you 'disconnect' the fetus from the woman's body, it will simply die.

You can't get more obvious than that about the fetus being part of the woman's body.

Second, the so-called government controlling one's body issue happens all the time; we are all victims and beneficiaries of it. A person cannot take prescription medicines unless the government says OK;

That's not the same thing.  Prescription laws deal with distribution of medication, not bodily sovreignty.

one cannot have an operation to remove an ear just because he or she may want to;

Well, yes you can.  It depends on where you live.   You simply have to find a doctor willing and the sufficient funds.

you cannot put alcohol in your body under age 21 or if you are in a car,

Sure you can.  In some countries the drinking age is much younger than 21, in past eras, there was no drinking age whatsoever and I have certainly had alcohol and gotten in a car.  If I was drunk, the someone else was driving, if I wasn't drunk but had a drink, it's still legal.

a man cannot quit his job and as a result default on child support payments, etc etc etc. Such controls are commonplace and all around our lives and each is intended to be in place to help the common good

Yes, but none of these have anything to do with bodily sovreignty.

In most pro choice dialog, the baby is not considered a person and hence has no rights.

Your definintion of a baby is different than other people's definition.

This approach is a VERY slippery slop. Recall that Hitler rationalized the murder of millions because he believed it wasn't killing humans;

Yes, but in reality, Hilter was basing his ideas of who was human and who wasn't on his religious background and personal biases - shall we do away with Christian religion?.  It had nothing to do with what actually defined human or a person.

This has nothing to do with the pro-choice and pro-life arguments.  Actually it's extremely offensive to compare pro-choice advocates to Nazis, thank you very much.

If I had to line up behind the most logical side it would be to support no death penality and no abortions after the first 4 months of the fetus' life. To deal with the results, I would have mandatory life sentences without parole (in mean prisons) for those who could have been executed and provide adoption services for all the would-have-been abortions.

The problem with this argument is that most life-threatening birth defects are not discovered until after the first trimester.  Limiting a woman to abortion options in the first trimester means forcing her to carry to term a child who will not live or will live with massive birth defects and with the knowledge that she is doing so.

[delalluvia]

OK, so you're saying that abortion is a difficult decision in the sense that it might be a difficult decision, say, whether to take a particular job -- that is, it's difficult because there's a lot at stake, and perhaps external pressures, but that none of these involve the possibility of doing something that's morally wrong or involves killing a human?

If that's all you mean, fine. I get that. To me, though, when people talk about abortion being a difficult decision, or say that it should be avoided if possible, it usually sounds as if they're implying at least a tiny bit of uncertainty about the ultimate morality of the procedure. And if that's the case, if the fetus is considered to be a being whose interests are in any way part of the equation, then it's no longer simply about a woman's body. It's about someone else's body (this potential human's).

Not to mention the potential offspring of the father which, not to open a whole can of worms, I also consider important.

I say this, BTW, as someone who also has had an abortion. It was a difficult situation as I'm sure it always is, but it wasn't a wrenching decision -- it was a very obvious one, to me, at the time. I've never felt a moment's regret even when, decades later, I had two children.

Still, I have come to see this as a very complex issue and, to me, one that, in principle, unquestionably extends beyond an individual woman's body.

What Mikaela said.  The pro-life and religious fundamentalist factions and of course the fact that in the U.S. we are still immersed in Christian morality in almost every facet of existence here - hence Jack and Ennis' issues - make not debating the morality/ethics of one's actions in choosing abortion almost unheard of.  It does exist, as others have pointed out, so it's really as it should be - a personal decision and not one needing to be dictated by our government.

[HerrKaiser]

Well, actually no it's not.  That's part of the argument.  A fetus only becomes viable - able to exist on its own as a separate being at about - you medical people can correct me here - six months.  Before that, it is definitely part of the woman's body.  If you 'disconnect' the fetus from the woman's body, it will simply die.

You can't get more obvious than that about the fetus being part of the woman's body.

That's not the same thing.  Prescription laws deal with distribution of medication, not bodily sovreignty.

Well, yes you can.  It depends on where you live.   You simply have to find a doctor willing and the sufficient funds.

Sure you can.  In some countries the drinking age is much younger than 21, in past eras, there was no drinking age whatsoever and I have certainly had alcohol and gotten in a car.  If I was drunk, the someone else was driving, if I wasn't drunk but had a drink, it's still legal.

Yes, but none of these have anything to do with bodily sovreignty.

Your definintion of a baby is different than other people's definition.

Yes, but in reality, Hilter was basing his ideas of who was human and who wasn't on his religious background and personal biases - shall we do away with Christian religion?.  It had nothing to do with what actually defined human or a person.

This has nothing to do with the pro-choice and pro-life arguments.  Actually it's extremely offensive to compare pro-choice advocates to Nazis, thank you very much.

The problem with this argument is that most life-threatening birth defects are not discovered until after the first trimester.  Limiting a woman to abortion options in the first trimester means forcing her to carry to term a child who will not live or will live with massive birth defects and with the knowledge that she is doing so.

Interesting twists on the points. to clarify, here are some responses:


1) of course if you "disconnect" the fetus it will die. that's what premature births are. you have to CARE for a new born. Even at full term, a newly born baby will simply die from lack of food or other environmental causes very quickly without constant care. I don't get your point. Many premies are born at 4-5 months now.

2) of course laws inhibiting drug (legal and illiegal) use, unlawful operations, unnecessary operations, etc are about "bodily sovreignty". and being compelled to work at a job or occupation or trade that one does not want to is the same thing. They exist because government believes people can't make the right choices. The inability to view child bearing as something other than "bodily sovreignty rights" is the bias that inhibits another view outside the rigid pro choice, any time, any place, any reason mentality, I think.

3) my definition of a baby is like most (80%) americans. What's yours?

4) your counter point about Hitler validates my point exactly. He did NOT base his evaluation of humans on religion and scorned the Church. You say "shall we do away with Christian religion?" the church is not pro choice and beieves abortion is murder. I apologize for offending you, but I have to say millions of others are offended daily by the rampant amount of annual abortions. Hitler was, by the by, an avid supporter of abortion.

5) I mentioned 4 months; the first trimester is 3 months. And, abortions due to "massive birth defects" (a concept Hitler also introduced) are NOT the reason why the vast majority of abortions are performed each year. 95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control. ONLY 1% because of fetal abnormalities. So, this point is somewhat mute since few would agree that (depending on what you mean by massive birth defects means) a child with such would not be a possible abortion option. However, you do know that "defects" such as a cleft pallet are reasons used to abort.

[serious crayons]

Wow, I pretty much agree with everything Delalluvia said! (I think that's a first!    )

Though I might respond a teensy bit differently to the following:

I do not find a similar rationale to help understand the apparent disconnect of being pro choice and avidly anti death penalty. The main reason in some of these posts to help address the inconsistency seems to be the notion that abortion in not about loss of a life, rather a women's right to control her body. That "argument" is decades old and as science has progressed, it seems less and less valid.

Unless I missed some news update, science has not determined the status of a fetus in moral terms. I don't know if it ever can. So that's the central question, not (IMO) the control-of-body issue. To me, it's something less than a baby, but something more than an inanimate lump of cells. Like many people, I'm not sure exactly where the line falls, or when it goes from one thing to another, or when that thing takes on rights of its own.

A person cannot take prescription medicines unless the government says OK; one cannot have an operation to remove an ear just because he or she may want to; you cannot put alcohol in your body under age 21 or if you are in a car,

What Delalluvia said to most of these. There are people who long to have a whole healthy limb amputated, and in some cases they find someone who will do it. Underage people (usually 18, but in the case of alcohol 21) have a different set of rights; they can't do a lot of things, including have abortions without parental permission. People over 21 can put all the alcohol in their bodies they want -- it's the driving that's restricted, not the drinking.

In most pro choice dialog, the baby is not considered a person and hence has no rights. This approach is a VERY slippery slop. Recall that Hitler rationalized the murder of millions because he believed it wasn't killing humans; to him they were sub humans, the Unter Menchen..not really people and hence had no rights. So, both in terms of rationalizing death penalites and abortion, many fail to observe the victims as human beings.

What Delalluvia said, again -- this is an offensive comparison. And BTW a baby has plenty of rights (except drinking alcohol, etc., as I said). A fetus does not share those rights, because at this point our society has not equated a fetus with a baby.

What Mikaela said.  The pro-life and religious fundamentalist factions and of course the fact that in the U.S. we are still immersed in Christian morality in almost every facet of existence here - hence Jack and Ennis' issues - make not debating the morality/ethics of one's actions in choosing abortion almost unheard of.  It does exist, as others have pointed out, so it's really as it should be - a personal decision and not one needing to be dictated by our government.

Oops, spoke too soon! We're back to disagreeing again, I think. I don't believe an opinion that a fetus has a right to life has to be a religious matter at all. It often is, of course. But it also can simply be a person's independent opinion. So the idea that this issue should be "dictated" by our government can be seen as similar to the idea that murder is not a personal decision and that laws against it should be dictated by our government.

[Brokeback_Dev]

I don't believe an opinion that a fetus has a right to life has to be a religious matter at all. It often is, of course. But it also can simply be a person's independent opinion.

As it is my personal opinion that at conception, two people have began the development a baby.  Its not a religious matter for me at all.  As a matter of fact, at 18 the only person I had to turn to was my bf's Catholic mother who said to me,  Even though I am Catholic, if you want to get any abortion its okay.  She didn't like me.  My mom probably would have been falling all over me happy and starting to plan a wonderful life for me my bf and the baby.

Oh and don't even get me to tell you what a horror the actual abortion is to a woman.  Its physically painful!  and emotional unbelievable painful for some.  For others, and I can think of a few right off the top of my head who actually get an abortion consistently as they continue to have sex without using contraceptives and get prego.

That doesnt seem morally right. my opinion only. But there's better ways to keep from having to have a baby.

In China women are forced by the government to have abortions.  Its true I learned about it in one of the classes I took and USF.  They have a one child only per family policy.

[louisev]

I dont know how this thread became an abortion debate, but somehow equating abortion (any kind) with capital punishment of criminals boggles my imagination.

My two cents (since I already voted against the death penalty) is that abortion should remain the choice of the mother, and that a child is not a living soul until the soul enters the body at birth.  Since fundamentalist Christians do not have the moral high ground on what constitutes an ensouled living being,I consider my opinion just as valid as theirs, since no one can prove it - it isnt a matter of whether one can breathe or live on one's own.  But as I say, I don't get the connection between these two issues except that they are both greatly polarizing.