Pro-Lifers and Capital Punishment

[Turgonian]

Someone has drawn attention to the fact that the 'Religious Right', generally speaking, 1) shouts that 'Abortion is murder' (which most of us would probably agree with) and 2) is in favour of the death penalty for murderers. However, very few of them insist on the death penalty for women who have an abortion or the abortionists themselves. To the person who wrote the article, this was one more proof that the Religious Right didn't think about what it was saying. :teeth:

Do you consider abortion murder? Are you in favour of capital punishment for killers? What do you think of the above?

[Philosophickle]

Someone has drawn attention to the fact that the 'Religious Right', generally speaking, 1) shouts that 'Abortion is murder' (which most of us would probably agree with) and 2) is in favour of the death penalty for murderers. However, very few of them insist on the death penalty for women who have an abortion or the abortionists themselves. To the person who wrote the article, this was one more proof that the Religious Right didn't think about what it was saying. :teeth:

Do you consider abortion murder? Are you in favour of capital punishment for killers? What do you think of the above?

Capital punishment usually takes into account the intentions of the person, among other considerations (if I am not mistaken). Because there is some confusion as to the rights of the fetus/baby, it would seem ridiculous to demand the life of the mother.

However, if laws are passed that makes abortion illegal, and some lady has multiple abortions because she loves to murder babies, I would consider harsher consequences.

[One Bad Pig]

Someone has drawn attention to the fact that the 'Religious Right', generally speaking, 1) shouts that 'Abortion is murder' (which most of us would probably agree with) and 2) is in favour of the death penalty for murderers. However, very few of them insist on the death penalty for women who have an abortion or the abortionists themselves. To the person who wrote the article, this was one more proof that the Religious Right didn't think about what it was saying. :teeth:

Do you consider abortion murder? Are you in favour of capital punishment for killers? What do you think of the above?
Yes, abortion is murder, and yes, I'm in favor of capital punishment for killers, including abortionists. I doubt an abortionist would ever actually get the death penalty though, since it would have to be proved they knew they were taking a life, not "excising a tissue blob." :ahem: I also don't think women who have an abortion should get the death penalty, because they're merely accessories to the crime.

[dizzle]

If abortion were legally declared to be the murder it is, I would favour all of the availability penalties for murder, taking into consideration all the factors that are currently considered in murder cases.

No inconsistency here. To state that it would have to be proven that the person knew or believed it to be a human person is incorrect. The law would have made that determination and ignorance or disagreement with the law is not an excuse. White supremacists kill blacks and don't consider that murder, but the law could care less about that.

[One Bad Pig]

If abortion were legally declared to be the murder it is, I would favour all of the availability penalties for murder, taking into consideration all the factors that are currently considered in murder cases.

No inconsistency here. To state that it would have to be proven that the person knew or believed it to be a human person is incorrect. The law would have made that determination and ignorance or disagreement with the law is not an excuse. White supremacists kill blacks and don't consider that murder, but the law could care less about that.

True, but what of the insanity defense (an incomprehendably stupid notion IMO)?

[dizzle]

It would be considered just as it is considered in other murder cases.

[Storico]

When I say I'm "pro life", I'm pro life in all cases. It's beyond me how people could decry abortion because they consider it murder, and then call for the death of the abortionist. The argument usually runs something like "well, one is murder while the other is just killing", but it falls a bit flat. Both are still humans inflicting death on other humans, and both are equally unneccesary forms of justice, in my own opinion. Some people think capital punishment is biblical. Some think it is not biblical. I just think that a society functions just fine without capital punishment, and people who value human life really ought to value all human life by keeping all of it alive for as long as possible.

[Crow]

I've got no problem with a person who commits a capital offense being executed, in fact I have a big problem with said person continuing to live on death row for years.

I've got no problem with shooting someone who breaks into my house and poses a threat to me and mine.

"Pro-life" is a bad blanket term to use for all people who oppose abortion. .

An unborn child is innocent of any death penalty crime. I didn't and wouldn't choose the term "pro-life" to describe my beliefs. I'm not pro-life, I'm anti-unmerited execution.

[Storico]

Just to clarify: I muddled my post above (post #7). I said, accidentally, that "both are equally unnecessary forms of justice". I meant just capital punishment. Abortion is not a form of justice whatsoever, and implying it was accidental. I'm dealing with a bad head cold here at the moment, so my bad, absolutely.

(On another note, after seeing Redneck Crow's post: Although I'm pro-life, I see the detainment of someone breaking into my house to attack my family absolutely justified. I think it's a different issue entirely, as it's self defense, whereas abortion certainly isn't self defense, and capital punishment takes place so long after an event that it isn't self defense either. In the case of someone breaking in and threatening my family or loved ones, I wouldn't hesitate to protect those who are being attacked. I wouldn't intentionally kill, though, if shooting someone in the leg or arm would be just as effective. Assuming I could hit either.)

[One Bad Pig]

I wouldn't intentionally kill, though, if shooting someone in the leg or arm would be just as effective. Assuming I could hit either.)
Thanks to thieves successfully suing those who shot them for :ahem: causing them undue harm, I'll be shooting to kill.

[Storico]

Thanks to thieves successfully suing those who shot them for :ahem: causing them undue harm, I'll be shooting to kill.

I've never picked up a loaded weapon in my life. (And no, I don't count water guns or toy dart guns. Those are fun.) If I had a loaded weapon available and someone barged in and threatened my family, whoever it was that entered would be lucky to get hit in the ankle or the arm. That's what I'd aim for, but seeing as it would be the first and only time I'd ever fire a weapon like that... So I guess I'd know in about 2 seconds whether or not I was supposed to make it through that. If I missed, I'd be up a creek sans paddle. In reality, I'd probably be better off borrowing Mossy's pin.

[Smokering]

Ah, the 'vegetarian in leather shoes' argument.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of applying the death penalty to abortionists/aborted mothers, is there really an irony in being pro-life but also pro-death penalty? On the surface, certainly. But a true inconsistency only exists if the argument for the one can be used as the argument for the other.

As far as Christian pro-lifers go, the argument is usually something like this:

A foetus is an innocent human being.
Killing an innocent human being is murder.
Therefore, killing a foetus is murder.

There are many variations, some no doubt better stated than the above, but that tends to be the gist of it.

Now, here's the traditional Christian argument for capital punishment:

The Bible says 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed'.
A murderer sheds the blood of man.
Therefore, a murderer should have his blood shed.

Different argument, see? So to call up the RR for being inconsistent, you would have to prove that the arguments are interchangeable. They are not. A murderer is, by definition, NOT an innocent human being; and a foetus has not shed the blood of man.

If the argument against abortion was 'Human life is sacred', it would indeed be ironic to believe in capital punishment. But if we're talking about the 'Religious Right' specifically, that ain't the argument they use.

Of course, the twist in this is that the RRers supposedly err in their (so far) impeccable logic by refusing to treat abortionists/aborted mothers as murderers.

My question to that is, Do they? I don't really know much about the RR, but most pro-lifers I know think the abortionists at least should be punished (opinions vary a little more with the women, on grounds ranging from 'they were given false information' to 'their lives were in danger' to 'they had no other option', etc.).

Of course, even if the RRers *are* inconsistent, the entire argument is rather irrelevant--just like trying to refute vegetarianism by pointing out the inconsistency of those who don't eat meat, but wear leather shoes. You haven't answered any of the arguments about being a vegetarian; all you've done is make a vaguely ad hominem attack on your opponent.

None of which, of course, exonerates the accused right-winger from being inconsistent. And actually, this is something of a concern to me. I've pointed out before, in another post in this forum, that those who in theory consider abortion murder, would not take the same measures to prevent an abortion as a murder.

As for my own views, I'm not certain about capital punishment. I realise it's commanded clearly by God in the Old Testament, but I haven't really studied yet how that fits in with the New Covenant, and a different system of government, and so on. I do feel that the current Western system of execution seems designed to cause the maximum pain, inconvenience and expense to everybody involved--the accused, the victims/families, the court, the taxpayer, the police... But capital punishment in general? Not sure. A thread on that might be nice.

Leaving that aside, I agree with previous posters that the abortionists (who know full well what they're doing) should be treated as murderers, while the women should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Of course, this scenario requires that abortion be illegal, so the chances of a woman being fed 'blob of tissue' platitudes by official pamphlets, and being genuinely unaware of what she's doing, are greatly reduced. Even if the woman is aware, however, there may be circumstances--just as in any 'normal' murder case--which exonerate her to some degree. Obviously, a woman whose boyfriend has threatened to kill her if she has the baby is a different case to the actress afraid of missing a great role by being pregnant on the shooting date. And a woman who has been told she will die by having the baby is a different case to the woman who's worried about getting stretch marks! Case by case... just like all law.