Is it hypocritical to be against abortion but for the death penalty?
Submitted 133 days ago by WishingforSun
 Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| 144 votes 50% | |
|
|
| 146 votes 50% | |
a better question would be isn't it hypocritical to be against the death penalty which is used against people who have created heinous crimes but for abortion which takes away an innocent life. HUGE difference there.
It's not a life. It's a group of cells that if allowed to continue to multiply and divide will eventually develop into a human being. How some people can call a group of cells an 'innocent life,' yet condemn an abused, mentally disabled 15-year-old to death is beyond me.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 133 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 133 days ago by deleted user ReplyInteresting that you think being pro-choice automatically means you don't have children. The majority of Americans have children. The majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose an abortion if she wishes it. Abortion is not murder. I'm not saying that a woman shouldn't treasure every moment of her pregnancy - I'm saying that you should not have the right to sit in judgment on another woman and make life choices for her when her choice will have no affect at all on your life.
And abortion is not murder. You choose to say that because it sounds dramatic and you want to be able to make other people's decisions for them. And every POTENTIAL life begins with cells dividing. Trees, bacteria, fuzzy kittens, corn on the cob and human beings. But stopping the process isn't murder.
Cancer is cells dividing. Is that life? Is it murder to radiate it and kill it?
I think a better definition than "human cells dividing" is needed to qualify an embryo as a child in need of legal protection.
Interestingly, different religions have different opinions on when life starts, so I don't even think that this is an issue that can be legislated, if we are going to accept the premise of separation of church and state.
That's just it. The people who want to end a woman's right to choose WISH to end the separation of church and state. That way they can use the government to force their religious edicts onto the rest of society. That's why George W. Bush is their man. They don't give a crap about anything he does - so long as he injects their religious views into the law.
What about after it develops into a human being, but before it is born? Brain activity and fetus viability precede birth by several weeks.
The line is very fuzzy. Brain activity isn't sufficient - babies are born every day in this country and survive for a few hours without a brain. I question if the "brain activity" is actually TRUE 'brain activity,' but actually brain stem activity that regulates heart beat, breathing, movement, etc.
Fetal viability is a different matter. There should be a point when a woman should be expected to finish carrying a fetus to birth UNLESS continued pregnancy will put her life in danger. But that exact moment is still debatable.
Agreed, but if that exact moment is before birth (which it pretty clearly is) then termination would, in fact, take an innocent life; making it possible to be against abortion (after the inexact moment) but for the death penalty without being hypocritical. ;o)
I still don't think fetuses qualify for human being status until they are born. And I don't believe the moment you gain human being status comes with passing through the birth canal (or being popped out during a cesarean). You become a human being with your first, independent breath, filling your lungs with oxygen and then your circulatory system carrying that oxygen into your brain. THAT is the moment you become an independent human being with all the rights, privileges and honors (not to mention horrors, fears and joys) that come with it.
As to the death penalty, I find the conflict involved too much to bear. We only have the death penalty in this country for when you take the life of another human being. For us, as a nation to say "we value life so much that we will kill anyone who doesn't agree" to be absurd.
The difference is - a fetus is not a human being, but a convicted felon is. And often you'll find that the convicted felon comes from a home where he was an unwanted pregnancy. So, they want to protect the little united sperms and eggs because they are so innocent, send them into a life where they are abused and given no values, then they grow up to be abusers, rapists and murders - then the pro-life/pro-death penalty people will scream for him to be killed.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 133 days ago by deleted user ReplyI'd vote you up twice for this if I could.
yeah that was wicked
this is where our society is wrong. Babies should be protected before birth as well as after. I think it would be logical to have parents take a psychological test after the birth of their child and keep a close eye on the risk factors.
The point is that not every one is qualified to raise a child. I'm sorry to say that most people aren't.
I also think that parents should follow child psychology courses when they have their first child. I think that if we keep a close eye on this factor the criminality rate will drop dramatically when these kids reach adulthood.
oh and I also think abortion should be allowed until let's say the 4th month. Any woman should know by then if she is pregnant
Oh boy. What you propose in the first part of your comment is Orwellian in nature. Too whom are we going to look to to set the standard? The government? Our pastors? Is everybody going to 'vote' on what makes someone a good parent and someone else a bad parent? I was shocked when a friend allowed her 12-year-old to wear low rise jeans with t-bar panties pulled up out of the back. She thought nothing of it. Does that make her a good parent or a bad parent? Catholic parents would object to children being raised in a snake-handler's religion. I've met Baptists who took two steps backwards when discovering I'm Catholic. And how many people in society would think it's okay for a child to be raised by a mother who owned a sex toy company?
Granted - there are quite a few people who are not qualified to be parents who are parents. But one person, nor a committee, can sit in judgment to decide who can become a parent and who may not. Parenthood is a basic human right.
I merely suggested to keep a close eye on psychologically unstable people. Those whom are a risk factor for they children or to put it in a simpler manner, those whom are more likely to hurt their children physically or psychologically, and remove the child from their custody at the first sign of violence.
I don't suggest taking the kid away from their parents because the parent's job or cause the parent's let the kid dress funny. That's a question of morality not of risk.
And I also believe parenthood is a human responsibility not just a right
That's a solid point - the issue of the psychologically unstable. In the US, when a woman (or man) who has past psychological issues serious enough to get the attention of the state - a social worker is assigned to closely guide them into parenthood and check up on the welfare of the child on a regular basis. At the first sign of trouble the child is often removed.
And parenthood is the most serious of responsibilities - but BECOMING a parent is a basic human right.
Ok, so if it's "not a life" then at which point did you become "alive"? What if your mother had only considered you a "group of cells"? Doesn't anyone ever ponder the fact that if their mother had an abortion they wouldn't BE alive????
Just because I don't believe abortion is wrong, doesn't mean I don't value my life, or my mother.
If your mother had performed oral sex that night and swallowed - you wouldn't be alive, either. If your father had masturbated at that split second instead of having sex with your mother - you wouldn't be alive either. If they'd used a condom ... you'd have gone out in the garbage.
You can't complain that you wouldn't be alive - you wouldn't have had a life to lose. You simply would have never been alive at all.
“You know why they call it birth control? Because it’s meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condom knows when life begins. To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?” —Peggy Noonan
Why did the term "concept cars" just come to mind?
?
Even cars have a 'conception' date. The concept car. But it's not car until it rolls off the line. Until then - it's simply a POTENTIAL car. Her argument doesn't hold.
Oh yeah her argument does hold. You can spin off any BS you want, that is when it happens. This ain't no car and it ain't no cancer, it is a new life, a human life.
You have your beliefs, I have my beliefs. This is a country where people are free to make their own moral judgments based upon their personal moral beliefs. And no other citizen has the right to interject THEIR morals onto others who do not wish it. It's called freedom. If you don't like it - go live in Saudi Arabia.
Whoa! I just counted 10 comments from you in this question alone where you were trying to "interject" your morals on people but when I make a point, you tell be to "go live in Saudi Arabia." Sounds like you really give a shet what other people think - you just want to "interject" your morals on everyone else and to hell what they think.
Make it 11.
Conversations with four different people.
Freedom of Speech is a hard thing to tolerate, isn't it? You should really try to live with it.
I live with it everyday coming on this website.
lol
(13)
LOL
It's hypocritical because you're suposed to defend life in both situations. But you can't compare life of a human in creation with life of a grown up human that is actually condemned for screwing up someone else's life.
agree
No more than it would be the other way around, for choice and against the death penalty. I don't see a correlation.
I understand the line of thought behind this question, yet I think the two are separate. So I do not think it is necessarily hypocritical to be against abortion while in favor of the death penalty. It depends why you are, if you are against abortion because you are pro life then I do see a hypocrisy in being pro death penalty at the same time.
True, they are not related. However when the person claims "abortion = killing a human being" they are clearly related in the mind of that person. That is the reason I believe it to be hypocritical.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
4,000 abortions are performed in America each day (50 Million since 1973). It is an American holocaust of immense proportions. This questions argument is just an attempt by people who want to justify the continued slaughter of innocent children as part of our culture that celebrates sex without the consequences. Shameful!
Yes, it always does seem to come down to punishing people for having sex, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. Can't tell you how many times I've heard "Well, if she'd just kept her legs together ..." But, if you hand out condoms to make sure a pregnancy - then you're promoting promiscuity. They simply want you to suffer for having sex. And they think getting pregnant then being forced to raise the resulting child is the perfect punishment.
Not married people!
Hate to enlighten you, but they have abortions too.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060210.html
Abortion is killing - I'm not sure if any pro choice people have looked at the pictures, or are aware how many abortions are 3 trimester...or how many are NOT from rape...
in fact lesss than 10% of rapes result in pregnancey - We all face GOD
who's god? im pretty sure you don't believe in my god but are you ok if i threaten you with it?
feel free to loose the hammer of thor on my ass
Then that is between God and the person who chooses, not you.
agreed. between god and the woman. so we solved this???!!!
although the hammer of thor sounds pretty badass, so i might re-think that.
lol, I thought that sounded pretty badass too!