Many people aren’t consistent with their logic concerning abortion and the death penalty, and the inconsistency is noted on both sides of the issues. Many Pro-life supporters are Pro-death penalty–a seemingly inconsistent position. Conversely, many people against the death penalty are pro-abortion. Are you consistent?
[poll id=485]
Wheat & Tares 
My position in relation to the death penalty is by observation only. No death penalty in Australia. The legal system without exception, and only different by degrees, is imperfect. Making a decision to end someone’s life based solely on a biased, sometimes corrupted but always imperfect system is my main reason for not supporting such a penalty.
My position in relation to abortion is that it religiously and spiritually accords with the LDS position. Socially, though I am supportive of measures that afford women the right to choose. Most church members can’t imagine how I can hold such seemingly contradictory positions.
I guess now I can officially support gay marriage and be a member in full standing as well.
I can’t choose any of the options in your poll because I’m not sure what you mean by pro-life and pro-choice. By pro-life do you mean no abortions ever for any reason and by pro-choice do you mean abortions anytime for any reason? If so, then I don’t agree with any of those options. If not, then you need to add more options. Likewise, I’m uncertain what you mean by death penalty. Do you mean ending the life of someone who has committed heinous acts of violence or do you mean the legal and operational framework of that practice?
As a matter of public policy, I do not believe that a woman who receives an abortion should receive the death penalty. However, as recently reported in the news, a woman who lures a pregnant almost-ready-to-deliver woman to her basement and then forcibly cuts out the fetus, leaves the mother to die, and then goes to the hospital pretending like she just gave birth and claiming the baby as her own, well, I think the death penalty is an entirely appropriate public policy choice.
In both cases it is about justice!
Those that are pro-choice are not asking for the freedom of choice, they are really asking for the freedom of the consequences of thier choice, which is not possible. One day they will face the harsh reality they have taken innocent life and either go through the grueling repentance process for such a choice, or contine to suffer. Either way, they will pay the consequences of thier choice as mercy cannot satisfy the demand of justice,
Likewise those that qualify for death row will one day pay the consequences of thier choice. If they are truly repentant the least of thier concerns will be the electric chair. If they are unrepentant, the justice they will face in the next life will be far greater that anything a justice system can throw at them, including death. They will pay for the consequences of thier choices as mercy cannot satisfy the demands of justice.
I disagree that being pro-choice and against the death penalty are contradictory. I don’t believe that supportting the right for a women to chose to abort a fetus is supporting killing anyone so being against the justice system killing an actual human being is not a contradiction.
The statement that certain positions on death penalty and abortion conflict presumes that the same values apply in both cases. I think many people in favor of the death penalty lean heavily on the value of justice for the victims and their families. In the case of abortion the woman is the family of the … victim (for lack of a better word). However, treating a fetus as a victim is inconsistent with many other policies and practices. For example, the church’s official position allows for abortion in cases of rape and incest; if the fetus had full status as a person this would imply it should also be legal to kill children born of rape. I think it is actually inconsistent to apply the value of justice to abortion while holding to the church’s official position.
When deciding my position on the death penalty, I consider justice for all, but that includes not just justice for victims, but also justice for accused criminals across races, income, and status. I find that the systems we live in are not able to apply the death penalty fairly or with enough confidence in the result. I’m against the death penalty.
Should the same value apply for a fetus? Should a woman who has an abortion be punished (along with the doctor and anyone who aided and abetted) for ending an unborn child’s life? I can’t imagine a legal system that can fairly decide on behalf of woman and fetus, whether a pregnancy in early stages should continue. If an abortion is legal in any non-medically indicated cases, then the fetus is not legally a person. In that case, society cannot know better than the mother. I may be morally opposed to many elective abortions, but I think that safe and legal abortions should be available, and an abortion should not be put on the same level as killing.
I have to agree with Ken, to an extent. They aren’t necessarily inconsistent. I suppose they could be if the issue is simply whether preserving and fostering life is a supreme moral value. In that case, you could add pacifism to the list.
But there are distinguishing priclnciples both ways, if you view the issue as a question of “good” government and public policy.
(1) Justice. The baby is innocent. Presumably, the criminal is guilty.
(2) Limited state power over the individual. In a classically liberal government (e.g., democracy), where the government is subordinate to the citizens, we the majority can choose to limit the state’s ability to execute citizens. We deny the state that power over us. (There are also practical concerns about whether we can be certain of guilt and apply the penalty equally enough to be fair.)
In that same vein, we can choose to limit the givernment’s power to control what individuals do with their own bodies–including suicide or even destroying something inside them. Put another way, we don’t want the government to have to power to compel women to be society’s incubators.
Wheatmeister, I think your bias is showing in the way the question is phrased.
Count me among the commenters that claim pro-life and pro-death penalty are entirely consistent. I favor the death penalty for those that have committed crimes so henious they no longer deserve to live. The act of being conceived is not one of these.
“right for a women to chose to abort a fetus”
Fetus being the key word. The problem assuming a fetus is not a life form is two fold: 1) it is a big gamble and you are effectively putting your soul on the line if your assumption is wrong. In contrast treating it as a life form and making decisions accordingly will always be the right course. 2) Rejecting it as a life form adds to the throw away society. The vast majority of abortions stem from irresponsibility — two people choosing to sleep together and not wanting to take responsibility for thier action. Supporting the pro-choice movement fuels this irresponsibility.
In theory, I support the death penalty.
In practice, it is not applied consistently. I absolutely support the death penalty for mafia hitmen and terrorists. In practice, many terrorists and hitmen are never caught for their crimes. When they are caught, the crime bosses, like John Gotti have good lawyers and avoid it. So who gets the death penalty? The poor who can’t afford an expensive lawyer. Who avoids it? The rich getting are well-documented that they get away with murder, like OJ and Robert Durst. If we can’t give John Gotti, OJ, Oscar Pistorius, and Robert Durst the electric chair, then nobody deserves it. Life in prison is actually 10 times cheaper than the death penalty due to the high costs of legal fees. The Timonthy McVeigh’s are quite rare. I wish it was about justice, but it’s actually about money and who can buy a good lawyer. Justice should be blind, but unfortunately, justice is bribed in death penalty cases.
I also wrote a post a while back that there are better, cheaper ways of curbing abortion, but evangelicals don’t seem interested an an effective solution that actually saves money and abortions.
#10 – Why the lack of airborne swine outside my window, b/c we agree!
Yes, wholeheartedly agree with DP in THEORY. In practice, inconsistency in application (“best justice system MONEY can buy leads to impression, deserved or not, of unfairness) and de facto failure to apply at all (average length on Death Row BEFORE execution is 190 months, almost 16 years, and death row inmates four times as likely to die of ‘natural’ causes rather than prescribed method of execution).
The argument that to put someone away for “life” is far cheaper than pursing DP does hold strong sway. However, methinks this is a symptom that the criminal justice system is broken if the respective states are stymied in efforts to mete justice.
I voted “Pro-Life” (not entirely descriptive of my position on abortion, but closest) and “Pro-Death-Penalty”, and it’s ENTIRELY consistent. Both are about defending the INNOCENT. The former, the unborn child at the mercy of its reluctant mother and those persuading her, for whatever selfish or shortsighted reason, to kill the impending life within her. The latter, to uphold what God Himself instituted since the dawn of time: that if innocent blood is shed, the murderer shall pay with his own life. To me, though the concern over sending an innocent man to the gallows is legitimate, it’s not an excuse to apply the logical consequence of murder. If that’s such a great concern, one might well question why law enforcement can and does use deadly force, with far more being killed by same than by the respective state DOCs. Though there IS greater furor over police killings (to wit, the little ‘misunderstanding’ ongoing in Ferguson, MO), I don’t see any serious discussion of disarming the police. Likewise, why we don’t have a universal death penalty for MURDER bedevils me, unless collectively we’ve lost fortitude in this Nation to stand up for Right. Iron men in wooden ships being replaced by wooden men in iron ships…
“The Timonthy McVeigh’s are quite rare. I wish it was about justice, but it’s actually about money and who can buy a good lawyer. ”
Wow we actually agree on something
I think human life starts out innocent and worthy of protection; but over time humans may forfeit that innocence and right to life through a sustained pattern of egregiously harmful actions to others. Thus I oppose elective abortion but support the theory of the death penalty (though I share Mormon Heretic’s practical concerns).
Ken – I’m not sure where you are going with this “life form” strategy. I specifically said human being a bacteria theoretically is a “life-form”, and yet I’m sure you aren’t anti-antibiotics.
As for your concern that people should not abort because that would let them escape the consequences of their actions, it appears you are more concerned with punishing people for sinning than caring about either the potential parents or unwanted children in that situation.
I have to agree with Delina here. I think it is more important to prevent pregnancy (even though this leads to “sin”) because abortion is a much greater sin than merely having protected sex. I don’t quite understand why there is so much outrage at providing birth control when that’s clearly a better, less expensive option than abortion. People are going to have sinful (outside of marriage) sex whether any of you like it or not. It seems really odd to oppose contraception and abortion.
Mormon Heretic: I agree! Isn’t it odd that generally, the people who are SO against comprehensive sex ed and birth control are the very same ones who are so vehemently against abortion….?? Seems illogical.
I am pro choice and up in the air on death penalty. I get the whole argument that babies are innocent and should be protected, but lets not forget that a baby up to a certain point can’t live without it’s mother – much as a parasite (sorry if that offends, but it’s true). Also, there are many innocent people who have been put to death by the death penalty. If someone truly has committed a crime worthy of death, then I believe they should be punished by death. However, the problem is that we are imperfect humans making that judgment, and plenty of mistakes have been made. If you believe in God, it seems it might be better left to that deity to make the call in the end. Likewise, there are many different reasons for someone to have an abortion, and really, who are we to make that judgment?? Doesn’t it also seem better for a deity to make that call in the end…?
Delina,
I think you know what I intended by life form, but chose to be snarky instead. So let me phrase it another way.
God is in charge of the procreative process and is really the only one that knows at what point ending the pregency becomes murder of an innocent child. Some, like Obama, proposed in the Illinois house it is not a human life until birth and it can be ethically disposed of at anytime prior to birth. Others, like me, believe by the time most people find out they are pregnant the fetus growing inside of them is for all intents and purposes a human (I will and that to avoid snarky comments) life form. In reality it is not up to any of us to decide as we are not in charge of the pro-creative process, but God only.
So with this rephrased, since none of us know really know when a “fetus” becomes a human life, it is a big gamble to dispose of that “fetus” as it could be murder. So rather than telling God when it is and is not a human life, I would ask him before making such a decision.
As for “unwanted” pregencies, since when did that matter. There are a lot of things that I don’t want to do, like getting up at 6:00 am on Sunday morning for meetings which last the whole day. Your commentary on this issue proves my point. If more people took responsibility for thier actions (e.g. Getting pregnant), they would be more responsible in the future. More importantly, others would see thier challanges and would also act more responsibily.
You may consider a fetus a life form, but the critical question when it comes to law is whether the fetus has rights. If a mother chooses to continue use of alcohol and drugs during pregnancy, does that child have the right to sue that mother later in life for the irreparable damage caused by fetal alcohol syndrome? For pregnant women who participate in dangerous activities like skydiving or roller coasters, should we charge them with child endangerment? If you consider a fetus with a right to life, can you charge a woman with negligent homicide if her decision to have a home birth results in the death of the child? This is what is meant by LDS_Aussie in the danger of of society viewing a woman’s body as an incubator. The minute she becomes pregnant, every decision she makes has the potential to affect the life form within her. She then becomes liable for every decision that has a negative effect on that child.
As for our doctrine, we are unclear on when a spirit enters a body. We are also unclear if in the circumstance of abortion or miscarriage, that same spirit is allowed to inhabit another body that survives to term. If your view is the latter, then the opportunity for a baby to be born under better circumstances would be prioritized over the persistence of forcing every woman to go through with an unintended pregnancy. Abortion in situations of incest is often justified by the possible negative genetic effects. In the case of rape, it is justified by lack of agency involved in becoming pregnant. Pregnancy has the ability to impact the mother’s body very negatively, especially where the mother is very young. If a young girl is made pregnant against her will, is she required to forfeit her health permanently in favor of the baby’s?
In cases of fertility treatments, is every fetus created a life form with rights? If a woman has several fetuses that implant, should she be allowed to kill some of the fetuses in order to give the remaining children a better intrauterine environment, or is she required to keep all implanted life forms even though the risk to her life and the lives of the other children increase?
None of these questions have easy answers.
This is a very interesting topic. Unfortunately by asking only one question with a preamble warning about inconsistency, it is likely impossible to gauge true inconsistency in your readers. I would love to see a poll that asks the questions separately in such a way to allow for nuanced answers and then looks for inconsistency.
Ken,
I do apologize for any snark with regards to the antibiotics. I was actually sincere in being surprised and slightly confused by your choice of the word “life-form” as it is extremely ambiguous. I truly thought you must have chosen it for a reason instead of using “human being” or some variant of that more specific terminology.
As for whether abortion is murder, I don’t think we will ever agree, and while I don’t plan on being in a situation where I would need to consider having an abortion, I am grateful it is an option should something horrible and unforeseen arise.
I would argue however that a it is taking responsibility for your actions to have an abortion when pregnancy was either unintended, ultimately dangerous, or one of the many other reasons that people make that difficult decision. You may not want to get up in the morning but you are not being forced to get up at 6 am in the morning as punishment for some perceived sin. Being forced to give birth to and potentially raise a child because some group of people has decided its the only acceptable way to be responsible for sex’s unintended consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is completely different.
And just one last comment. I think the church’s position that abortion is acceptable in the case of rape, incest, etc… makes it perfectly clear that there stance on abortion being wrong when it is made electively outside of those situations is more about punishing the pregnant woman for sinning than it is about saving any unborn life. We should be more compassionate and care about helping our sister get their life on the right track, instead of getting so caught up in deciding how we think they should be punished for their earlier life choices.
“but the critical question when it comes to law is whether the fetus has rights.”
Because it is legal, it is somehow ok?
” I don’t plan on being in a situation where I would need to consider having an abortion, I am grateful it is an option should something horrible and unforeseen arise.”
An therein lies the problem. Your words do impact others and thier decision to abort!
Ken, the positions of pro-choice or pro-life reflect not just views on the morality of abortion, but the laws that should govern allowance or banning of abortion. Legality is pertinent to the discussion.
The topic of abortion contains many moral gray areas. The church admits this by having a policy that shows in some cases abortion may be an appropriate choice when made under the guidance of the spirit. Noone should ever make the decision lightly, but it would be wrong to contend that our doctrine dictates all abortion sinful.
Ken quips “Because it is legal, it is somehow ok?”
Many of us are talking past one another, addressing different questions—(1) morality vs. (2) illegality. Which are we talking about here?
Of course, things aren’t moral just because there’s now law against them (e.g., saying cruel things). But, the opposite is also true; just because something is wrong doesn’t mean it should be illegal (e.g., fornication).
There’s huge overlap, to be sure. But for liberal and Libertarian-minded people, there’s a meaningful difference between morality and illegality.
Todd, and others. Would you like to suggest “unbiased” poll questions? Maybe we can run another poll in a week or so with your proposed questions. (Sometimes it’s harder to write poll questions than it looks. You may be surprised.)
I’d have to agree with MH (#10) on the death penalty, with the caveat that I waver on whether the state (i.e., the government) should ever have the right to deprive the individual of life, justly or not (absent a truly prophetic government). The idea that certain people deserve it or have forfeited the right to live, I’m OK with. And, of course, to paraphrase Heinlein, I’m fully in support of the death penalty at the scene of the crime, at the hands of the intended victim.
However, it doesn’t take much exposure to capital punishment as practiced in the US to understand that it’s little more than legal murder for vengeance – unequally applied by race and class, ineffective as a deterrent, and barbaric in its application and effects.
Abortion is an immensely complex topic grossly oversimplified by most of the people standing on one side or the other of the political debate, and as with most polarized political debates, both sides get it wrong. An embryo or fetus post-conception has the potential to become a human being, and is thus worthy of some consideration and respect; the act of conceiving it is significant. Ending its existence for selfish, trivial, or irresponsible reasons should give us pause. But it is not an absolute moral imperative that its life should be preserved above that of its mother, or at the expense of the mother’s mental or physical health, or at the risk of its own health or life.
That said, pithily, people who can’t make a moral distinction between executing a condemned mass murderer and ending the existence of a fetus which has yet to exercise any moral agency at all, which is by definition “innocent,” are truly morally bankrupt.
I am against the death penalty for several reasons:
1) It is morally wrong. If killing people is wrong, why is it ok for the government to do it? We can protect society from murderers by imprisoning them for life, we do not need to kill them.
2) It is inefficient. We spend far more money to execute someone than we do to keep someone in prison for life. Either way, society is protected from these criminals, so what is the benefit? I think it is barbaric.
3) Many are for the death penalty because they think we need to punish these people. Anyone who thinks this is ignorant and cruel and should question how Christ like they really are. Almost all criminals on death row are victims themselves, horrible childhoods, abuse victims, uneducated, unloved. Killing them is a disgrace.
4) Many of them are innocent. Read about Willingham in Texas. It was obvious that he was innocent, and Perry refused to stay the execution. The prosecutor in that case is now being investigated for lying, bribing and coercing a prison snitch to make up a confession, and hiding exculpatory evidence. He may face losing his law license (gasp!) after wrongfully sending an innocent man to his death. Many innocents have been killed and many more will be killed by state executions.
I am pro choice for several reasons:
1) A fetus is not a human being, yet. If you do not agree that there is a distinction between a fetus, and a human being, I don’t know what to say. I suppose I would ask, at what point are they the same, the moment of conception? Because I do not believe a fetus is the same a human being. I do not think it is inconsistent to be against the death penalty while being pro choice.
2) Look around at all the babies who come into this world who have parents that are unfit to take proper care of them. Do we really want people who don’t want a baby deciding to keep it just because? I think this will lead to more pain than an abortion. There are too many unfit parents who wanted kids already, do we really want people who don’t want kids to keep them? What kind of future will these children have?
3) If abortion is illegal, more pregnant women will seek abortions in shady places, or try to do it themselves. This leads to many horrible scenarios.
Bottom line, if someone doesn’t want a baby, forcing them to keep it is a bad idea. Imagine if you had a puppy that you couldn’t care for, would you want to force it on someone who is telling you, in no uncertain terms, that they do NOT want it? I sure wouldn’t. That would be sending the puppy to a probable awful life experience. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, if someone doesn’t want a baby, they should not be forced to keep that baby.