Leftist Hypocrisy on Abortion and Death Penalty

[Stevicus]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

To be fair, both sides may be somewhat hypocritical when it comes to both issues, although it doesn't seem to always follow along party lines. There are pro-choice Republicans and pro-death penalty Democrats.

Personally, I've always felt that the argument about whether a fetus constitutes a "person" to be a red herring. Even if a fetus is not a person today, in less than 9 months, it will be a person. However, there is also a societal interest in safe practices and preventing back-alley abortions. It's not so much the "individual life" that matters, but the collective interests of society as a whole.

By the same token, it's not so much that the lives of individual murderers are worth saving, but in making sure that the justice system isn't so rife with corruption and incompetence. By failing to clean up the justice system and making sure that there are no deadly mistakes, there has been a slow erosion of faith in that system which itself can undermine law and order. That, too, is bad for society as a whole - although both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the corruption and ineptitude in our legal system. Unless there is absolute certainty of guilt (which even the justice system can't adequately guarantee), then the death penalty would be putting the cart before the horse.

However, theoretically, I would concede that there may be times when the death penalty is warranted, but the way we do it currently does smack of hypocrisy. If there are those who believe that the death penalty is just, there is no reason to keep it behind closed doors. It should be done in public, out in the open for all to see (even televised).

Anything less than that is hypocritical, since keeping it private would indicate that society is ashamed of what they're doing. Likewise, there should be no anonymous "executioner." The only person who should be allowed to carry out the execution would be the chief executive (governor for state executions; president for federal executions). Although, certain exceptions can be granted to the families of murder victims, where they could be allowed to carry out the execution themselves, if they so desire.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't belong to either political party, although in general I lean toward the left. However, one thing that bothers me a great deal about the Democratic party is its inconsistency with regard to abortion and the death penalty. I will not discuss my personal opinions on each of these issues in this thread. They are not relevant to this particular discussion. What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions. The Democratic Party's platform states that abortion should be legally permitted and socially accepted if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, even for reasons of convenience. However, the Democratic party also strongly opposes the death penalty, and many Democrats want the death penalty abolished in the United States. The implication of these two positions held together is obvious enough. Anyone who holds these two positions (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) is, whether they realize it or not, holding the position that it is more important to protect the lives of murderers than it is to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children. So, how do all of you wonderful toe-the-line Democrats deal with this logical and moral inconsistency?

What inconsistency?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The answer is obvious: those who are pro-choice don't believe that embryos/fetuses possess the attributes that define personhood, thus the comparison makes no sense in this regard.

That isn't actually necessary to be pro-choice.

 

[pearl]

What is relevant is the Democratic party's position on each of these issues, and the implications of these positions.

I think both positions concern 'personhood' and when the Constitutional protection applies. A perfect example was Justice Scalia's position, morally opposed to abortion but stated the Constitution simply does not 'speak' to abortion, and upheld the death penalty against his Catholic morality. It all comes down to the 'legality' of the question. We judge for ourselves whether an issue is moral or not.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Why do you believe fetuses are "innocent, unborn children"? If fetuses are indeed "innocent, unborn children", would you favor prison terms for women who spontaneously abort due to some negligence on their part -- as might be the case if a parent of a real child brought about the child's death through negligence? If not, how do you account for your inconsistency on the issue?

My view is that the life of a fetus is not nearly as valuable as the life of a person who has been born. However, I do believe that fetal/embryonic life has some value, certainly more value than the life of a person who has murdered others. My point (without disclosing my specific positions on each issue) is that Democrats are entirely inconsistent in opposing the death penalty for convicted murderers while supporting abortion. For instance, if you oppose the death penalty for the most heinous crimes and yet still support abortion, you would be placing more value on the life of a serial killer/school shooter/murderer etc. than on an unborn baby (all arguments about "personhood" aside). THIS is the hypocrisy.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That's not my pro choice position tbh. It might be for a lot of people, and I'm not knocking it. But personhood is irrelevant to me, only body autonomy. Even if it were a fully sentient, sapient person in there I would support the option to end the pregnancy.
If the fetus is viable, I support live extraction abortive methods such as hysterechtomy abortion or cesarean (which is, in fact, a late term abortion method.)

Live extractive late-term abortive methods on a fully sentient, sapient person? How could anyone who believes the death penalty for convicted murderers is barbaric believe that this is NOT barbaric? You are perfectly illustrating my point about the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

 

[Sunstone]

My view is that the life of a fetus is not nearly as valuable as the life of a person who has been born. However, I do believe that fetal/embryonic life has some value, certainly more value than the life of a person who has murdered others. My point (without disclosing my specific positions on each issue) is that Democrats are entirely inconsistent in opposing the death penalty for convicted murderers while supporting abortion. For instance, if you oppose the death penalty for the most heinous crimes and yet still support abortion, you would be placing more value on the life of a serial killer/school shooter/murderer etc. than on an unborn baby (all arguments about "personhood" aside). THIS is the hypocrisy.

The pro-choice position is that women should have the right to decide what they can do with their own bodies. If you don't grasp that, you don't understand anything.

It is highly debatable whether or not a fetus is a person. You might want to assert it is not debatable, but that would be false. It would be inconsistent of pro-choice folks to oppose the death penalty while supporting abortion only if they believed that both the fetus and the prisoner were persons. They do not usually believe this, so there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in their arguments.

Logically, the pro-choice position has nothing to do with whether someone should be put to death for a crime. Hence, no contradiction or hypocrisy.

 

[Curious George]

I think it's due to the fact that a double standard exists from a legal point of view, considering that the killing of a fetus can bring about a murder/manslaughter charge.

Big case about it back in the 90s...

When the Death of a Fetus Is Murder

That is not really the whole story.

Keeler v. Superior Court spurred legislation of the unlawful killing of a fetus to also fall within homicide statutes. People v. Davis found that finding Davis guilty of murder would entail due process concerns since the courts had relied on viability in the past.

There is no double standard. Allowing the unlawful killing of a fetus to fall within the homocide statute is protection of the mothers interest in that child. One cannot say the same of an elective surgery that the mother chooses. It turns on where the states interests lie and what the state or federal government has the authority to protect.

 

[Valjean]

I suspect the abortion controversy is largely a ginned up issue to motivate political support. I don't recall it being such a major political issue in the first decade or so after Roe vs Wade.

Curiously, the demographic most opposed to abortion is the same one supporting policies shutting down family planning clinics, as well as opposing reproductive education and access to contraception; in effect, increasing the number of abortions as well as the number of children born into poverty.

The pro-life crowd is also the same one opposing maternal leave, food and housing assistance, pre-school funding and other social programs to assist the underclass of families locked into poverty by the burden of unwanted children; the underclass their programs largely created and maintain.
We all end up paying the price.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If one doesn't view the foetus as a living being of moral value then terminating it isn't hypocritical.

Even if you do, it's still not hypocritical:

- in a society that values freedom, punishment - as well increasing severity of punishment - must be justified.
- in a society that values freedom, one person can only use the body of another without their consent.

Where things get really interesting is when you try to look for consistency in the anti-choice position. Aspects of it are fundamentally hypocritical, such as forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will versus being fine with a father refusing to donate a kidney to the child the fetus becomes.


... at least, they're hypocritical until you recognize the consistent thread through the whole anti-choice movement: punishing women for sex anti-choicers don't approve of. When we assume that as a motivation, everything that's seemingly contradictory in the anti-choice movement makes perfect sense.

- why aren't they in favour of forcing parents to use their bodies for the life of their child after birth (e.g. requiring matching parents to donate blood, tissue or organs for their kids who need them)? This isn't focused only on women, or only on unwanted pregnancy.

- why aren't they interested in anti-abortion measures that would reduce abortions but not sex (e.g. contraceptives)? The women would still be having the sex they think deserves punishment.

- why don't they advocate for positive measures to address the reasons women seek abortion (e.g. a long paid, job-protected parental leave period)? It rewards women instead of punishing them.

OTOH, if we measure their actions against their stated motivation (usually something like "we consider a fetus a human being and we're very concerned with stopping human beings from being killed"), their behaviour makes no sense at all.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The pro-choice position is that women should have the right to decide what they can do with their own bodies. If you don't grasp that, you don't understand anything.

It is highly debatable whether or not a fetus is a person. You might want to assert it is not debatable, but that would be false. It would be inconsistent of pro-choice folks to oppose the death penalty while supporting abortion only if they believed that both the fetus and the prisoner were persons. They do not usually believe this, so there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in their arguments.

Logically, the pro-choice position has nothing to do with whether someone should be put to death for a crime. Hence, no contradiction or hypocrisy.

You're still missing the point.

Now for the record, I'm not 100% "pro-life" in that I do not believe abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances, but I do think that there should be some restrictions on it.

For one thing, a fetus is connected to a woman's body but the fetus is NOT actually part of the woman's body. But that's a bit irrelevant.

The more important point of the discussion is not about the issue of whether the fetus is a "person." It is about the value of different types of living things. While it is debatable whether or not a fetus is a person, there is no debate that a fetus, at least after a certain point in the pregnancy when it has developed some bodily organs, is a living thing. The inconsistency with regard to the death penalty is about the value of different types of life. As for me, I think that there is a continuum to the values of life forms among humans and other animals. I think that the life of a human fetus has more value than the life of a murderer. I also think that the life of a cow, pig, deer, or frog has more value than the life of a murderer. If you place the importance of preserving the life of a murderer above the importance of preserving the life of a fetus (note: life, not necessarily "person"), your priorities are wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now for the record, I'm not 100% "pro-life" in that I do not believe abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances, but I do think that there should be some restrictions on it.

Do you also think there should be restrictions on being able to refuse to donate blood?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Do you also think there should be restrictions on being able to refuse to donate blood?

False comparison. Abortion is an active measure taken to terminate a life. Refusing to donate blood is a passive choice that does not actively cause harm.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Live extractive late-term abortive methods on a fully sentient, sapient person? How could anyone who believes the death penalty for convicted murderers is barbaric believe that this is NOT barbaric? You are perfectly illustrating my point about the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

You realize abortion means terminating a pregnancy not terminating a fetus right? Live extraction means removing the fetus alive, such as through a cesarean. Do you consider cesareans 'barbaric?'

But yes, if you *could not* keep a fetus alive outside the womb I would still support the right to choose abortion because I support body autonomy. At no point is another being entitled to the use of someone else's body without their continued expressed consent.

There is no question of body autonomy with capitol punishment so it's not comparable to me

 

[pearl]

The pro-life crowd is also the same one opposing maternal leave, food and housing assistance, pre-school funding and other social programs to assist the underclass of families locked into poverty by the burden of unwanted children;

Possibly the majority of so called pro-lifers are in reality simply anti-abortion and their concern disappears post uterus.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You realize abortion means terminating a pregnancy not terminating a fetus right? Live extraction means removing the fetus alive, such as through a cesarean. Do you consider cesareans 'barbaric?'

But yes, if you *could not* keep a fetus alive outside the womb I would still support the right to choose abortion because I support body autonomy. At no point is another being entitled to the use of someone else's body without their continued expressed consent.

There is no question of body autonomy with capitol punishment so it's not comparable to me

Terminating a pregnancy effectually terminates a fetus, so the difference there is only semantics. Also, a fetus is connected to a woman's body but is not actually part of the woman's body. It is a separate body connected to the woman via her umblical cord.

You said you would support the right to end the life of a fetus even if it were fully sentient. Yet you (I presume) do not support ending the lives of murderers via the death penalty. Ergo, you are holding the position that a murderer has a right to live, but a fully sentient and innocent fetus does not. I cannot support a political party that holds this position.

 

[Curious George]

Ergo, you are holding the position that a murderer has a right to live, but a fully sentient and innocent fetus does not. I cannot support a political party that holds this position.

You insist on strawmanning this don't you?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Terminating a pregnancy effectually terminates a fetus

Only if the fetus isnt viable outside the womb. Once again, cesarean is an abortive medical procedure. Pretty much all fetus survive it

Also, a fetus is connected to a woman's body but is not actually part of the woman's body.

The womb is part of the mothers body and removing contents from it is her right.

You said you would support the right to end the life of a fetus even if it were fully sentient.

If live extraction can't be done, yes. Because the woman should be in control of her own body.

Yet you (I presume) do not support ending the lives of murderers via the death penalty. Ergo, you are holding the position that a murderer has a right to live, but a fully sentient and innocent fetus does

Nope, that is not my position. My position is only that of body autonomy. If you want to tall about body autonomy and criminals then we'll start talking about whether we should do experiments on inmates against their will. If you want to talk about body autonomy of fetus then we'll start talking about interuteral eugenics (such as to remove undesirable traits for nonmedical reasons.)
Otherwise you are making false comparisons.

I cannot support a political party that holds this position

 

[Valjean]

Possibly the majority of so called pro-lifers are in reality simply anti-abortion and their concern disappears post uterus.

Exactly!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

False comparison. Abortion is an active measure taken to terminate a life. Refusing to donate blood is a passive choice that does not actively cause harm.

Not necessarily. The person can take an active role in refusal. For instance, a matching bone marrow donor can initially agree to donate - thereby ending the search for another donor - but later withdraw their consent, even if it means the certain death of the patient. The donor would not have broken any law.