Is Christian opposition to abortion inconsistent with upholding the death penalty?

[Glenn P]

I'm fed up with this claim: "Being pro life on the issue of abortion is inconcistent with supporting the death penalty."

Non Christians say it to justify abortion. How can we expect to convince them of our pro life valus, they say, when we ourselves support some killing, such as in the case of the death penalty? Christians say it to oppose the death penalty. How can we support the death penalty, they say, when we tackle the abortion issue a dn claim to be "pro-life"? They're both wrong. Very wrong. I'm tempted to use stronger terms because the argument has every appearance of being very stupid, but I know some intelligent people who have, at one time or another, found the argument plausible. I'm going to try to show briefly here that it is not plausible, and in fact it is very stupid.

The claim is that these two positions are inconsistent:

1) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong
2) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong

Now, there is certainly no formal contradiction here, since a contradiction involves saying something like "A and not A," and that's just not happening here. So I'm going to try to formulate these two statements in a way that is a contradiction, to see what lengths we have to go to.

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

Now we do have a formal contradiction. But we also have a straw man. Christians who oppose abortion don't do so - or at least they certainly don't have to do so - on the grounds that all killing is always wrong. So it seems to me first off that construing these two claims so as to make them contradict one another just involves citing a claim (namely claim 1) that Christian defenders of the death penalty wouldn't use.

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

When we spell the claims out this way, it becomes very obvious that even if claim 6) is false, it is not inconsistent with 5).

Saying that "if you do it to a criminal, then you have to accept doing it to a foetus, or someone else," is a fairly indefensible claim. We do not ordinarily steal from people - we say it is wrong, but we don't say that this means the state cannot fine criminals - that is, take their property. We say it is wrong to kidnap people, but we do not say that this fact means the state must not confine people in prison 9even if we think that the prison system is wrong on other grounds).

Christian opponents of the death penalty then have - whether they realise it or not - become guilty of begging the question. In their own opposition to abortion, they are assuming premise 3), involving the view that all killing is always wrong. But the fact that this claim is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty does not mean that opposition to abortion is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty, since those Christians who uphold the death penalty simply reject premise 3).

If you want to argue that Christians who uphold the death penalty are incorrect, by all means do so. But let's have no short cuts. They aren't inconsistent just because they oppose abortion. That is a very stupid argument, so please stop using it.

[Sparko]

I agree.

[Teallaura]

Yup.....



(You realize they'll just keep using it, right? It's not exactly a rocket scientist argument to begin with.... But congratulations on a worthy, if futile, effort! )

[NeilUnreal]

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent

6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

There's the rub. It depends on the justification for "deserves" in "the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die."

1) If you use civil authority to justify "deserves," then you have to accept civil authority's decision to permit abortion.

2) If you use the traditional theological concept of judgement, then both equally equally fall under God's condemnation and "deserve" to perish.

3) If you use the traditional concept of Christian mercy, then both equally require acquital regardless of what they "deserve."

-Neil

[Glenn P]

There's the rub. It depends on the justification for "deserves" in "the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die."

1) If you use civil authority to justify "deserves," then you have to accept civil authority's decision to permit abortion.

2) If you use the traditional theological concept of judgement, then both equally equally fall under God's condemnation and "deserve" to perish.

3) If you use the traditional concept of Christian mercy, then both equally require acquital regardless of what they "deserve."

-Neil

I mean "deserves to die" to refer to being worthy of death in this world because of some actions the person has done.

[Xavier]

I mean "deserves to die" to refer to being worthy of death in this world because of some actions the person has done.

My problem is with the human ability to provide and use an objective standard by which this state is determined. There *is* justice without death.

[norwegen]

"Deserving to die" for a capital crime is really not an issue, I don't believe. A criminal risks execution when he commits a capital crime, and, in effect, chooses the sentence. States don't decide to legalize death penalties and then execute someone after he commits such a crime.

If you're going to murder someone, and you don't want to die, you'd better find out if your jurisdiction enforces a death penalty.

[Xavier]

I'm addressing the moral ideal in this case, not necessarily the legal pragmatism.

[Glenn P]

There *is* justice without death.

This is only true if murderers don't deserve to be executed. Otherwise there is not justice without death. But that is not the topic of this thread.

[Xavier]

[...] But that is not the topic of this thread.

Fair enough.

[decoski]

Inevitably, the skeptic will then ask, "Well, God ordered genocide on babies in the OT, so how can you be against abortion?"

[Glenn P]

Then the skeptic is raising a red-herring that is on another topic. God told at least one person to kill at least one other person. How can we oppose killing everyone?

That topic is not the topic of this thread.

[micah4]

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

...

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

Your latter clarification of the Christians claims who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, I note hinges on the innocence of the fetus and the guilt of the murderer.

I suppose that many (if not most) of the people opposing would consider this an essential part of the claim, such that their claims are more realistically put this way:

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because it is prmia facie wrong to kill the innocent

Which you'll note is the same as your clarified premise. Then:

4) Killing a convicted murderer via execution is wrong because it is possible that the convicted murderer is innocent.

Being declared legally guilty, and being guilty are two different things. I don't know whether your initial claim "all killing is always wrong" or my amended claim "it's possible that the convicted murder is innocent" is closer to the majority opinion (I don't personally oppose the death penalty, so I'm a bit out of the loop). But I'm sure the potential of executing an innocent man is not an insignificant consideration for a large number opposing the death penalty, making your initial formulation is at least potentially a strawman.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm fed up with this claim: "Being pro life on the issue of abortion is inconcistent with supporting the death penalty."

Non Christians say it to justify abortion. How can we expect to convince them of our pro life valus, they say, when we ourselves support some killing, such as in the case of the death penalty? Christians say it to oppose the death penalty. How can we support the death penalty, they say, when we tackle the abortion issue a dn claim to be "pro-life"? They're both wrong. Very wrong. I'm tempted to use stronger terms because the argument has every appearance of being very stupid, but I know some intelligent people who have, at one time or another, found the argument plausible. I'm going to try to show briefly here that it is not plausible, and in fact it is very stupid.

The claim is that these two positions are inconsistent:

1) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong
2) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong

Now, there is certainly no formal contradiction here, since a contradiction involves saying something like "A and not A," and that's just not happening here. So I'm going to try to formulate these two statements in a way that is a contradiction, to see what lengths we have to go to.

3) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because all killing is always wrong
4) Killing a murderer via execution is not wrong because not all killing is always wrong

Now we do have a formal contradiction. But we also have a straw man. Christians who oppose abortion don't do so - or at least they certainly don't have to do so - on the grounds that all killing is always wrong. So it seems to me first off that construing these two claims so as to make them contradict one another just involves citing a claim (namely claim 1) that Christian defenders of the death penalty wouldn't use.

Actually, for conservative Christians who oppose abortion and uphold the death penalty, the claims are more like this:

5) Killing a foetus via abortion is wrong because the foetus is innocent and it is prima facie wrong to kill the inocent
6) Killing a murderer via execution is not morally wrong because the murderer is guilty in such a way that he deserves to die.

When we spell the claims out this way, it becomes very obvious that even if claim 6) is false, it is not inconsistent with 5).

Saying that "if you do it to a criminal, then you have to accept doing it to a foetus, or someone else," is a fairly indefensible claim. We do not ordinarily steal from people - we say it is wrong, but we don't say that this means the state cannot fine criminals - that is, take their property. We say it is wrong to kidnap people, but we do not say that this fact means the state must not confine people in prison 9even if we think that the prison system is wrong on other grounds).

Christian opponents of the death penalty then have - whether they realise it or not - become guilty of begging the question. In their own opposition to abortion, they are assuming premise 3), involving the view that all killing is always wrong. But the fact that this claim is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty does not mean that opposition to abortion is inconsistent with upholding the death penalty, since those Christians who uphold the death penalty simply reject premise 3).

If you want to argue that Christians who uphold the death penalty are incorrect, by all means do so. But let's have no short cuts. They aren't inconsistent just because they oppose abortion. That is a very stupid argument, so please stop using it.

I agree wholeheartedly Theo. There is also the "jury of their peers" guilty verdict which the murderer has and the fetus lacks. There was no jury that determined the fetus was guilty of any crime and no justification to destroy the fetus. The two positions are complementary from this Christian's perspective.

[Glenn P]

Being declared legally guilty, and being guilty are two different things. I don't know whether your initial claim "all killing is always wrong" or my amended claim "it's possible that the convicted murder is innocent" is closer to the majority opinion (I don't personally oppose the death penalty, so I'm a bit out of the loop). But I'm sure the potential of executing an innocent man is not an insignificant consideration for a large number opposing the death penalty, making your initial formulation is at least potentially a strawman.

There is literally no sense in which I have attacked a straw man, either directly or by implication.

The position I have attacked is the position that it is inconsistent to support the execution of a murderer while opposing the abortion of a fetus.

That is, if I support the execution of a murderer then there is some reason why I should logically support abortion, or, if I oppose abortion, then there is some logical reason why I should oppose the death penalty.

My answer has just been to point out that this claim erects a straw man. It supposes that those who do support the death penalty and oppose abortion hold to a view that killing is always wrong, since only if that claim is maintained could this stance literally be inconsistent.

Notice that I have said that there is no conflict between opposing abortion and supporting the execution of someone who is guilty. We need to get that principle very clear before we introduce the idea of wrong convictions. We need to pin the objector down and say "OK, so do you grant that if I oppose abortion and support the execution of the guilty, there is no inconsistency?" Once that is granted, the OP of this thread is conceded.

THEN the two can move on to things like the risks of the death penalty.